Devoted to show business and the entertainment industry

I disagree.

The facts of the matter include:

1. The anonymous blogger, known only by screen name violated federal laws by using copywritten material.

2. He was sent a letter advising him that he was violating federal laws and given seven days to remove the copywritten material.

3. He did not comply with adhering to federal laws.

4. The ISP removed his site because he would not follow federal law.

There was nothing to stop him from removing the material. There was no violation of his free speech. He could have continued to express his opinion as stated in your article.

Analogy: You don't agree with your neighbor's views. You take your neighbor's home movies from a protected network operated by your neigbor, without their permission, copy them and then put them all over the internet, trashing your neighbor. Further, you contact all the other neighbors and you tell them not to have anything to do with the neighbor because you don't agree with their views, as well as contact the boss of the neighbor and send them the neighbor's home movies. You do this over a long period of time and refuse to stop when asked.

Analogy: You unlawfully obtain documents from a company which produces a product you don't like. So, you put those documents, which don't belong to you, on the internet----interpret them with your perceptions of what the document states and then flood the internet with those documents, encouraging everyone to contact the people the company does business with and not do business with them. You do this over a long period of time. You are asked to stop and you refuse to stop.

Analogy: An anonymous persons doesn't like a particular recording artist. He steals several of their recordings and posts it on the internet. He takes those stolen recordings and sends them to record stores telling them not to purchase the recordings for resale. He contacts the record companies and tells them not to contract the recording artist.

In the above scenarios, which are similar instances, there are violations of laws.

At this point, the "anonymous blogger" is simply nothing more than an extremist who has stolen the material of others, violated laws and acted in an unethical, adolescent, irresponsible manner to harm the owner of the material.

The question is, why YOU would condone this activity and sympathize with the individual. Should someone contact your advertisors (Monster.com, bizzrate.com and your other "sponsors" because they don't agree with your views?

What the anonymous blogger was doing was not only the actions of a criminal, through the act of theft, but was trying to impede the free speech of others and impose upon others his own standards of what he feels should be said within the public domain.

I would think, as a journalist, you would deplore that type of behavior. Most ethical bloggers would.

Your irresponsible comment that I endorsed something shows that you evidently didn't read the post.

It actually shows that you're evidently unethical in saying I endorsed something that I simply reported on.

Even the beginning of your comment shows you didn't even read what I said. You disagree with what? I simply stated what happened. What is there to disagree with?

First, you reported the following which was incorrect, "The Walt Disney Company (DIS) struck back at media critic "Spocko" by getting the site "Spocko's Brain" taken off the web."

The ISP to which the anonymous blogger subscribes gave him notice and took the site down, not the Walt Disney Company. Later, you confirm that fact, however your leader was inaccurate. That was what I disagreed with.

The second disagreement was with the blogger's statements and the reporting of the blogger's comments, yet not investigating them to see if they are accurate or true.

The rest was my commentary on my opinion regarding the sitation and the blogger.

You may feel my disagreement with your header is irresponsible, however I am expressing my view on his unethical behavior as a journalist...the right to free speech and the taking and use of protected property to which he is not entitled as the anonymous blogger has admitted to doing.

They have every right to protect their personal property from that type of individual.

Thees pseudonymous commenter, known only by the screenname "blogical thought" has been patiently and faithfully posting thees incorrect screed on every blog or website that posts about Spocko.

Spocko has a rock-solid fair use case, as Señor Disingenuous knows full well.

Hees analogy ees laughably misleading as well:

Analogy: An anonymous persons doesn't like a particular recording artist. He steals several of their recordings and posts it on the internet. He takes those stolen recordings and sends them to record stores telling them not to purchase the recordings for resale. He contacts the record companies and tells them not to contract the recording artist.

Spocko has stolen nothing, he took these pipple's outrageous statements using existing fair use laws, and played them to advertisers, who reacted as humans would, weeth disgust.

Eet ees no Spocko who weeshes to suppress free speech here, eet ees
Sr. Pathoblogical, and he knows eet.

so.