A would-be candidate for Governor of New York who failed to gather enough signatures to be placed on the ballot has failed in his attempt to sue Yahoo! and Ask.com for undermining his 'master election plan'. William Murawski describes himself as a 'frequent political candidate' who wanted to run in the 2006 election to be …
Keepin' the little man down?
The comrade shouldn't be ashamed to show his beliefs. This should only incite the oppressed masses of the Proletariat to support him should he become a member of the local Politburo and start the inevitable Revolution!
Man, I hate those candidates who only run for a <insert position here> only because they have the right to do, and never actually gather more than a couple of hundred votes. We have tons of them in my country, at every election.
Oh and more entertaining lawsuits please!
"The Court rejects plaintiff's contention in his opposition that Yahoo! Inc. is transformed into a state actor because it benefited from early public funding of the development of the internet," said US District Judge Richard Holwell.
See, he sued the wrong guys......maybe he should have sued (D)ARPA instead, after all, no 'NET, no problem. I'm surprised he didn't sue YouTube as well - 'They didn't make me popular wiv da masses, so they hampered my election chances, innit'
Ugh I shame myself.
As my grandpappy always said... Some people are born assholes. And then they grow up.
Politician named `sue´
I have always been under the impression that any aspiring politician would want to try to present an appealing public face, one that makes people think , `this is a good person and has a good agenda, I would like to vote for him´.
However, nowadays it seems each time a disgruntled politician fails in an attempt to get elected, pass a bill,get a leg over etc, they want to sue someone out of spite just to get a little of their own back.
What happened to gutsy people who took setbacks and everything else in their stride and presented a strong self sufficient face to the public? the world is full of woossy people who depend on suing everyone at the drop of a hat to try and get their own petulant way, no wonder less and less voters vote, there is no-one worth voting for!
If this prat had put as much effort into being a politician as he does at being a prat maybe he'd be a first class politico! As it stands he's just a prat.
That, of course, is my opinion, as expressed under my right to free speech. Of course, Yahoo and Ask may well wish to present it slightly differently - but if they do I'll sue for those missing commas!!!
Any New Yorkers want to fill us in...
...on what this guys platform was? I'm guessing that if he couldn't get 15000 signatures in a city as big as NY then it must have been pretty far out.
I'd check myself but I'm too lazy.
Landmark decision here
I believe this decision will be heavily referred to in the future, either within a court context or even outside of one. Indeed, I cannot begin to count how many times I have read that, by censoring forums or somesuch, such-and-such a company or website is guilty of restricting free speech.
Well now it's official people : private companies have NO OBLIGATION to uphold free speech.
This is one bookmark I'll certainly be referring to in the future.
It isn't a landmark decision, it is just stating what anyone interested in law has always known, and had been frequently referred to in the past.
Yes, lots of people whine on net forums about free speech. They're idiots.
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes