Skip to comments.
UN agency gives 20th Century Fox web address to 'The Simpsons Movie'
Yahoo! Canada ^
| Jul 25, 2007
Posted on 07/25/2007 8:30:15 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 581-583 next last
The UN has NO jurisdiction over a US citizen. He can just IGNORE them and they'll (Twentieth Century Fox and the UN) will just dry up and blow away.
Yep those "free traders" were right. It's just a 'trade' agreement and those international 'institutions' have no authority, nope none at all....
To: Paul Ross
You might be interested in this.
2
posted on
07/25/2007 8:30:41 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: Coleus
While one can debate the merits of the Simpsons, there is simply no debating the attack on US sovereignty by the UN.
3
posted on
07/25/2007 8:31:49 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: hedgetrimmer
if the UN tried to pass such rulings on me I’d tell them to send the blue helmet boys down to enforce it, if they tried I’d use any force necessary to defend myself from hostile invaders on american soil.
4
posted on
07/25/2007 8:43:22 PM PDT
by
utherdoul
To: utherdoul
They already have already invaded. Their headquarters is on US soil, and our president, in his infinite wisdom, gave them offices in Georgia and Texas so that they could monitor our human rights abuses after hurrican Katrina.
5
posted on
07/25/2007 8:55:39 PM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: hedgetrimmer
6
posted on
07/25/2007 10:59:18 PM PDT
by
endthematrix
(He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
To: hedgetrimmer
A UN agency has ruled that ownership of the domain name thesimpsonsmovie.com must be handed to News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox...Based upon what clause in the constitution? And if in recent legislation, what and where?
I do not recognize that authority.
7
posted on
07/26/2007 4:36:25 AM PDT
by
Caipirabob
(Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
To: Caipirabob
They said: “Some panels have held that a respondents lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.”.
I guess you can’t ignore the ‘panel’ of an international institution. They are full of themselves.
8
posted on
07/26/2007 6:42:53 AM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: calcowgirl; nicmarlo; texastoo; William Terrell; cinives; Czar; Borax Queen; janetgreen; Rockitz; ..
Another example of an international institution exerting authority over a United States citizen.
9
posted on
07/26/2007 6:44:26 AM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot
Your friends are busy interfering in the lives of Americans.
10
posted on
07/26/2007 6:45:43 AM PDT
by
hedgetrimmer
(I'm a billionaire! Thanks WTO and the "free trade" system!--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
To: hedgetrimmer
Please explain. This is a cyber-squatting case with copyright/intellectual property implications.
11
posted on
07/26/2007 7:11:30 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: utherdoul
. . . if the UN tried to pass such rulings on me Id tell them to send the blue helmet boys down to enforce it, if they tried Id use any force necessary to defend myself from hostile invaders on american soil. The UN doesn't have to send the blue helmets. You'd be firing on your own Sheriff's Department . . . and I think you know where that would lead.
13
posted on
07/26/2007 7:20:28 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
They said: Some panels have held that a respondents lack of response can be construed as an admission that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.. They are right. Silence implies consent.
BUT -
The respondent can send the panel a letter responding to their decision and tell them to do something anatomically impossible with it.
THAT will hold up in a court of US law, and the respondent can go on about his business.
:-)
14
posted on
07/26/2007 7:31:40 AM PDT
by
MamaTexan
(~ Government can make no law contrary to the Law that created the government ~)
To: hedgetrimmer
Cyber-squatting is soooo 90’s.
15
posted on
07/26/2007 7:33:42 AM PDT
by
ßuddaßudd
(7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
To: MamaTexan
THAT will hold up in a court of US law, and the respondent can go on about his business. On what legal grounds would it "hold up?" I'm afraid that, at best, you are uninformed on this subject.
16
posted on
07/26/2007 7:42:48 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
When the UN cracks down on Human Rights abuses in Saudi Arabia (including religious freedoms), I will consider paying attention to any rebuke from the UN against the US.
17
posted on
07/26/2007 8:10:50 AM PDT
by
weegee
(NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
To: Toddsterpatriot
I don’t recall the UN rebuking Castro for showing a bootleg of Fahrenheit 9/11 on Cuban state television.
18
posted on
07/26/2007 8:11:55 AM PDT
by
weegee
(NO THIRD TERM. America does not need another unconstitutional Clinton co-presidency.)
To: weegee
I don’t recall anyone bringing that issue to the UN. Castro was probably sitting on Michael Moore's lap during the broadcast.
19
posted on
07/26/2007 8:14:47 AM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists, FairTaxers and goldbugs so bad at math?)
Open question to the forum:
assume that you have a daughter named Svetlana and your last name is X. Someone (let's call him Larry F.) comes along and registers a domain named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.com, and Photoshops your daughter's head on a bunch of female porn stars engaged in what porn stars do for a living. You take Larry F. to (U.S.) court and legally (and justifiably) win a judgment compelling him to cease and desist. Larry F. closes his website and moves his operation to Belarus (or finds a registered agent to do so--no need to complicate the hypothetical), creating a website named SvetlanaX-is-a-slattern.by. How do you propose enforcing your (U.S.) cease and desist order?
20
posted on
07/26/2007 9:41:16 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 581-583 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson