My Offbeat World

Pamela Anderson – Totally Blonde

//  Leave a Comment

There is a story on tonights news about Pamela Anderson, the animal liberationist, having only just found out what UGG boots are made from.

Pamela has been wearing Ugg boots for over 10 years without the knowledge that the boots were made from sheepskin. And apparently she thinks that the sheep are skinned alive.

Well, as the newsreader stated, you don’t need brains to make it in hollywood these days.

Sheep are raised and killed for meat. Using the skin for ugg boots and rugs makes sure that all parts of the sheep are used.

I remember years ago we had some American friends in NZ and the wife thought that the sheep were being skinned when they were being shorn. We explained that “no” if you raise sheep for wool production, they actually need their skin so the wool will regrow.

Blogger Jailed for 4 years – Abdel Kareem Nabil

//  Leave a Comment

It never fails to amaze me how Governments are able to jail and silence anyone who disagrees with their doctrines.

An Egyptian student, Abdel Kareem Nabil has been jailed for 4 years for expressing his views
in his blog about fundamentalism, conservative Muslim movements and denouncing the Sharia Law as it applies to women.

In one post to his blog, he called Al-Azhar University “the university of terrorism” suggesting it encouraged extremism.

So much for freedom of speech as it applies to blogging. This medium is considered to be a place where you can say pretty much what you like about how you feel about things. Well maybe not.

The world is full of injustice.

Golfer Sues over Wikipedia Comments Fuzzy Zoeller

//  1 Comment

US law protects online publishers who operate sites allowing open comment from readers and community contributors. According to the section of US Legal Code covering “Telegraphs, Telephones and Radiotelegraphs”, (Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter 2, Section 230), “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” (subsection C, point 1)

This effectively allows anyone to write whatever they like on an open comment site and the publisher cannot be held liable. Fair enough, it is after all an open forum.

PGA Golfer Fuzzy Zoeller has filed a suit against a Miami company, Josef Silny & Associates because of comments about him that were added to Wikipedia from an IP address at Silny’s firm under the name Damien Lynch on August 28, 2006. Zoeller considers the comments to be defamatory. The comments said Zoeller admitted to, “… polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of Vicodin pills.” Another entry suggested Zoeller had admitted to beating his wife and children while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Although Wikipedia has removed the offending references, a mirrored copy of the comments can still be found at Answers.com. Here is an extract from the comments:

“Later Zoeller went public with his alcoholism and prescription drug addiction, explaining that at the time he made those statements, he was “in the process of polishing off a fifth of Jack (Daniels) after popping a handful of vicodin pills”. He further detailed the violent nature of his disease, recalling how he’d viciously beat his wife Dianne and their four children while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also admitted feigning a ruptured spinal disc in 1985 so as to be prescribed a multitude of prescription medication. [4]

He sought professional help and mended his fractured family relationships. In May 2006, Zoeller said in an interview with Golf Digest magazine that he hadn’t beaten his wife in nearly five years.”

As Zoeller is unable to sue Wikipedia because of their protection under the law, he will instead sue Silny’s. Zoellers lawyer states “Courts have clearly said you have to go after the source of the information.”

And that is exactly what Zoeller intends to do.

Even if the case comes to court, Silny believes he will not be held responsible as he was unaware of the post and even though the offending comments may have been entered by one of his employees using the firm’s property, his lack of knowledge and intent should protect him from liability.