Posted by michael on Wednesday January
01, @12:31PM from the no-sense-of-humor
dept. tres3
writes "I stumbled across this item
on Wired about Verio cutting off The Thing's Internet access after
seven years of service. It seems that The Yes Men have upset DOW Chemical with
their parody
press release concerning a poison gas leak at the Union Carbide
plant (now owned by Dow) in Bhopal, India, in 1984, that killed
thousands. It was posted by RTMark.com, one of hundreds of
customers (mostly artists and political activists) of The Thing, but
has gone missing following the DMCA claims by DOW. Some European
sites are now hosting the site here and
here (slightly
different). What really sent me into orbit was Dow's response
to all of this. While writing this submission I noticed that I have
become a victim of The Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one
of their parodies!:-) The story is still valid
but the only thing I could find that really came from DOW was the
DMCA complaint
(pdf) to Verio. To add insult to injury (and death (pun
intended)) Dow has committed a reprehensible act, even for corporate
America, by suing
the survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting Dow's
failure to clean up the mess. Greenpeace has set up
a site for you to protest
this action." We did an earlier
story on this.
Im talking about the trend these days to value
corporate freedom above individual freedom. I mean,
when did a *corporation* get the right to free
speech? The people that make up and run that
corporation certainly have that right, but this
trend of treating corporate entities as individuals
is getting out of hand.
Forcing a number of (presumably) individuals with
something to say off the web with the stroke of a
pen doesn't seem totalitarian to you? Due process
isn't even an option due to the cost.
Nope, for two reasons. First, they
didn't have the right to say what they said in
the first place; false representation and
defamation are illegal...(Parody is, of course,
but this work was not a parody. It was fraud.)
To be defamation, or more
precisely, libel Dow would have to show false
facts. What are the false facts that have been
published?
Second it is not false representation.
Parody by nature requires one to create an image
of what you are making parody of. To be fraud,
they must be attempting to get something of
value.
Second, this activity wasn't a
government action at all; the government was
never involved. Rather, Dow complained to Verio
and asked that they enforce their AUP, and Verio
complied. The rules were laid down right from
the beginning; Thing.net chose to ignore them,
so they lost their
service.
Asking a court to
restrict someone's right or penalize someone for
their speech is an infringment of the first
amendment. Using the threat os this should also
be considered the same.
Whether this was parody or fraud should have
been a matter for the courts to decide. Thanks
to the provisions of the DMCA, they didn't have
to get involved for censorship to occur. This is
what is meant by the term, "Chilling Effect." As
for defamation, printing negative information is
not libel if it is true, no matter how negative.
A biting satire of the company that continues to
ignore their responsibility for Bhopal, and is
even suing Bhopal survivors, that appears at
first glance to be Dow's real website is a valid
exercise in free speech in my opinion. I think
that the Supreme Court would eventually agree if
they heard this case, as it did in the Larry
Flynt vs. Jerry Falwell case. Dow deserves to
have the screws put to them. I support the Yes
Men, and Greenpeace for doing just that. Dow
could have avoided a lot of negative publicity
by ignoring the yes men. Now, more people than
ever before are learning that Dow is Union
Carbide, and people are still dying every day
because of their irresponsibility.
the Virgina Colony. The Hudson Bay Trading
Company. The East Indian Trading Company.
Etc.
The framers of the Constitution knew damn
well what corporations "would become." They had
*already* become them.
Provisions were made in
the Constitution and legislative law to deal with this
issue. Great essays were written on the subject by
learned minds such as Thomas Jefferson. 50 years later
such matters were still uppermost in the minds of
America's great social philosopher's, such as
Thoreau.
Our forefather's weren't idiots,
weren't ignorant and weren't "cavemen." Their world
was, in many respects, "more like our own than our
own."
Stock markets, insurance companies,
leveraged buyouts and hostile takeovers, all done on a
global scale, were already a century or more of old
news before the first shot of the revolution was fired
on the green at Lexington.
For God's sake man,
Jefferson and Adams were *lawyers* and had actually
participated in such actions. They learned their
loathing of them first hand.
So what went
wrong?
Well, let me put it to you this way. Do
*you* still do business with these large corporations,
giving them the money and power to buy law? Traded a
little freedom for luxury items and security
maybe?
I forget who it was, but an ancient
historian, commenting on the aculturation of the
Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along these
lines:
"And so, the gullible natives,
eventually came to call their slavery
"culture.""
Ring any bells close to
home?
That's the problem with republicanism,
don't you see. The problems start at the top, more
often than not, but *responsibiltiy* always, always,
alway, falls to the bottom.
People don't want
responsibility. They want a Big Mac while bopping to
the latest Brittney Spears "tune."
I forget who it was, but an ancient
historian, commenting on the aculturation of the
Britons under Roman rule, wrote something along
these lines: "And so, the gullible natives,
eventually came to call their slavery
"culture.""
Tacitus, Agricola
[aol.com] (hagiography of his father-in-law, a Roman
governor of Britain), s.21.
"To accustom to rest and repose
through the charms of luxury a population
scattered and barbarous and therefore inclined to
war, Agricola gave private encouragement and
public aid to the building of temples, courts of
justice and dwelling-houses, praising the
energetic, and reproving the indolent. Thus an
honourable rivalry took the place of compulsion.
He likewise provided a liberal education for the
sons of the chiefs, and showed such a preference
for the natural powers of the Britons over the
industry of the Gauls that they who lately
disdained the tongue of Rome now coveted its
eloquence. Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our
style of dress, and the “toga” became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose
to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance they called
civilisation, when it was but a part of their
servitude."
Heh.. you forgot the "Oh, but wait, as I'm writing
this I realized that the first half of my submission
was utterly ridiculous and actually wrong, but I'm
continuing anyway..." and the "Oh wait, we already
said this" from the Slashdot editors.;)
OK, here I go again, grousing about my stories that get
rejected, but apparently all I need to do is dig up a
previously covered story and link it all to
hell.
There's really nothing new here, other than to
say 'wired picked up a story that we did two weeks ago.'
There's really nothing new here, other than to
say 'wired picked up a story that we did two weeks
ago.'
The news that Dow is suing the Bopahl survivors to
try to silence their protests over Dows failure to
clean up is news to me.
The Union Carbide disaster at Bopahl was due to
sheer negligence and greed. Dow still refuses to clean
up the site of the disaster and has yet to pay
compensation to most of the victims.
Perhaps if students stopped and considered the
wisdom of joining a company that could kill 800 people
with its negligence and not care a damn Dow might have
a lot more difficulty recruiting on campus.
If you are choosing an employer in the chemical
business their safety record should be your first
concern. If you work for a company like Dow that is
saying that they can kill 800 people, create pollution
that will kill even more and they just don't care you
are quite litteraly putting your own life on the line
for their corporate profits.
The same goes for communities that have Dow
installations near them, or planned to be built near
them. Make sure that your representatives are aware
that Dow cannoit be trusted.
I read through the original discussion. It was really
interesting, especially posts like this
one [slashdot.org] and its
replies. [slashdot.org] The parody site is pretty
convincing.
This is the kind of stuff that threatens to GUT one of the
most important benefits of the internet. The ability to
ridicule a company or government for things it has done to
cause real harm to others is quite possibly one of the most
important types of freedom of expression.
It is
absolutely vital to the continued existence of the internet as
a medium of free speech that large corporations are NOT
allowed to squelch opinions that do not cast them in a
favorable light.
There is, however, a place where the
line should be drawn. When creators of parody sites or
critical sites start publishing people's real life names, home
addresses, and other personal information against their will,
then they have gone to far. At that point, they are putting
actual people and their families at risk. When you create a
parody or critical web site, you do not know what kind of
people will visit the site. Some of the people who visit the
site may be very unstable individuals capable of all sorts of
terrible things. For a host of reasons, they might decide to
utilize the personal information in order to cause real
physical harm to the person being criticised or that person's
family.
Perhaps the web site riled up their anger, or
perhaps they thought the site was so amusing that they want to
"thank" the creators by going out and causing real harm to the
targets of the web site. This kind of stuff DOES happen folks,
so don't blow it off as mere paranoia.
The reason I
even bring up this issue is because of this part of the
article:
> "We even put down James Parker's real
home > address! Very funny, right? Yes! Funny!" >
the Yes Men said in a statement.
Actually no, that is
not funny. The only funny part about that was that James
Parker was able to seize the domain name by presenting his
drivers license and proof that he was the James Parker in
question.;p
> "But on Dec. 4,
James Parker himself, with the > help of a team of Dow
lawyers, sent a Xerox of > his driver's license and a
letter by FedEx to > Gandi.net, saying, basically, "This
domain > belongs to me. See, that's my home
address, > too. Give it to me!" > >
According to rules established by the Internet >
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers -- > an
organization responsible for, among other > chores,
Internet address disputes -- Parker was > correct and
Gandi.net had no legal choice but > to hand over
Dow-Chemical.com to James Parker.
That part I find
absolutely hilarious =).
So while it is absolutely
IMPERATIVE that governments and corporations NOT be allowed to
squelch parody sites or sites that are critical of their
behavior, it is equally important that the creators of such
sites be prevented from distributing personal information
about individuals.
The dangers inherent in the former
put our freedoms at risk, just as the dangers inherent in the
latter put lives at risk.
Isn't it James Parker's actions that put him and
his family (THINK OF THE CHILDREN!) at risk?
What you are suggesting is - effectively - that
those with power and influence must be protected from
the consequences of their own actions. Does anything
strike you as wrong with that?
I think for once, the parody artists have gone too far and
I have to line up on the side of the big business.
Even
the/. poster admits that he got fooled into
thinking the "response" from Dow was really from The Yes Men.
That's over the line. It's one thing to be critical of Dow's
actions, but it's another thing all together to confuse people
into thinking you are Dow while making statements that Dow
doesn't want make.
Yeah, Dow was a little underhanded
to make the phone call after business hours, but The Thing
could have blocked that trick simply by having a 24/7
answering service and an admin with a beeper. It's hard for
them to try to claim that they aren't responsible for striking
a website when they are told that what the site owners are
doing is against the law, and I don't see why doing exactly
what they were doing should be legal.
The entire point of the Yes Man's actions
has always been that it is confused with the real
thing. They've done a couple things that make you
really think about it, and they could only do it the
way they did.
If corporations have free speech,
why can't the Yes Men? Honestly, what's the worse
crime - poisoning a couple thousand people, or
impersonating someone who isn't even a
person?
(If anyone says "who cares," when they dump the chemicals
in your neighborhood and your kid is born with flippers,
realize that the great wheel has come full cirle. You get back
what you deserve!)
What gets me here is that, get this,
from Dow's own web site:
The provider, Verio, graciously complied with
our letter citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA). Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as
a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire
network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while
unrelated to dow-chemical.com, appear to serve no commercial
purpose, being dedicated to the unproductive analysis and
critique of society and corporate behaviour.
Yep,
that's right, sports fans. If you serve no commercial purpose,
you have no right to exist. Such corporate arrogance is
horrid. In true W-esque fashion, unless you consume, you're
worthless. What do these guys want? Web sites for companies
only? What a yawn that would be. Remember the article a while
back, noting that the web has been growing in capabilities and
innovation not by big corporate bozo's but by, yep, web porn.
We may not like it, but those sleazy guys are the ones
Dow can sell fiber in the first place!
Lastly, I am so
pleased to have Dow no inform me as to the unproductive
analysis and critique that Thing.net was providing.
Before, I considered it merely satire or commentary. Now I see
what it truly was . . . a communist plot to keep Dow from
cleaning our water and preserving our precious bodily fluids.
Thanks Dow!
Um, no. The above quotations are from DOW
Ethics.com [dowethics.com], which is
obviously one of the parody sites.
I say obviously, because I do not for one hot
second think that anyone here can or should defend DOW
Chemical in this matter. Yes, The Onion is an obvious
parody, but not because of the disclaimers or the site
design, but because of the content.
And don't pull out your tired and elitist "Joe
Average" arguments, because Joe Average is probably
not surfing the DOW chemical websites anyway. Those
sites are for investors and business types and if they
aren't smart enough to tell when they are being had,
well, fuck 'em.
These are very strange times we live in today, and
strange times call for strange measures. Yes, the
parody people took some extreme steps (ripping off
corporate design, registering similar domain names)
but that's what it might take to get attention. And it
certainly did get some attention, now didn't it? How
many of you would even be thinking about the policies
and procedures of DOW chemicals today if it weren't
for this story? Probably three of you. Certainly not
me, I'm nursing a headache from lack of sleep.
I happen to think that for the most part you have the
right to put anything you want on your website. If you want to
run a parody of Dow, the Pope or John Lennon, go for it.
However, with that being said. Your ISP doesn't
necessarily have to put up with that. They also have a right
to decide what content they will host on their servers. If
they take offense at your postings or bow to pressure from a
corporation or the government, that's well within their right.
They run a business. Just because you want to take a
risk with something you choose to write. Doesn't meant they
have to take the risk with you.
OK people, let take a chill pill and look at the
situation. In my opinion a parody should be an original
creation, be distinct from the object of satire, and not be
deceptive. The Onion
[theonion.com] is an excellent example of effective and
creative satire.
In the case of the "Yes Men" the attempt seems to be using
parody and satire to effect social activism. This, in itself,
is not a bad or uncommon thing. However, if one is going to do
this, one has to make sure the creation is actually satire.
The main tool that they use on the web appears to be
'Reamweaver', a tool to copy a website and modify in small
ways. From the Reamweaver website we have Reamweaver has
everything you need to instantly "funhouse-mirror" anyone's
website, copying the real-time "look and feel" but letting you
change any words, images, etc. that you choose. and Use Reamweaver for fun, or, if you like, for
lots of fun... by obtaining speaking opportunities on behalf
of your adopted organization. Here's how to that: 1.
(Optional) Register a domain not too different from your
target's domain - e.g. we-forum.org, world-economic-forum.com,
wtoo.org, rncommittee.org. 2. Put
Reamweaver on your domain. 3. Tell search engines about
your domain. 4. When invitations arrive, accept them!
This does not seem to a tool conducive to satire. This
appears to be a tool that is to be used to misrepresent,
decieve, and ultimately allow an individual to go into the
community as the perceived representative of the company under
attack.
Social activism is good. Trying to create a better world is
good. However, when you invite a person from Dow Chemical to
your office, one would expect that the person is actually from
dow chemical. Furthermore, I am not sure I would equate the
Reamweaver technique to a person who registers a slightly
misspelled domain name and then puts up tons of pop ups and
installs viruses when some unsuspecting visitors accidently
hits the site.
I understand that the intention of the Yes Men are probably
just. I understand that they are probably good people,.
However, copying someone else's website and representing it as
your own is not good. It is one thing to rip other artists CDs
for personal use. It is another thing to rip those CDs and
then sell the copies. It is yet another thing to rip those CDs
change a few seconds, and then represent the tracks as your
own. What they are doing might be peaceful disobendience. It
does not seem to be satire
Another example of the corporate concern with possible and
potential profits taking precicence over any sense of ethics.
the mafioso mentality continues to spread. It must be nice
as a stock holder, to have someone like this, who will make
money for you without any heavy duty ethical pondering on you
part.
Flush the toilet before it backs up.....
oops, too late.
...that bit about DOW suing the families that were
destroyed/hurt by their Bhopal disaster?
A bunch of
women marched on DOW HQ in India, delivering some of the
contanimated soil and water from Bhopal. The protest lasted
two peaceful hours. A single DOW employee greeted
them.
DOW is now suing them for the equivalent of
US$10K -- a helluva lot of money, particularly in India -- for
"lost wages" because of the "work
disruption."
Disgusting. First they slaughter hundreds
and thousands of employees and families through cost-cutting,
undertraining, and poor plant maintenance; then they refuse to
clean up the mess; then they sue the very people who were hurt
by the accident.
Sometimes it would be e'er so nice to
be able to punish CEOs as if they'd committed the crimes
themselves.
...that bit about
DOW suing the families that were destroyed/hurt by
their Bhopal disaster?
How do we know
that that story isn't another "parody"? I can find no
reference [google.com] to it outside of Greenpeace
[greenpeace.org] (which is not high on my list of
reliable news sources,) and it seems even more absurd
than The Yes Men's original forged press
release.
Half of the "informative" posts on
this article cite anti-Dow hoaxes as "facts," and use
them to justify their opposition to Dow's attempts to
suppress hoaxes. If that doesn't prove libel, I don't
know what could.
(Having said that, I can't see
what any of this has to do with the DMCA. But hey,
libel cases are expensive. Why bother suing, when you
can just say the magic words and make any website
dissappear?)
... of 200 women survivors from Bhopal delivered toxic
waste from the abandoned Carbide factory back to Dow's Indian
headquarters in Bombay...
From reading between the
lines of the article, it appears that they are suing the
protesters, and not all the survivors, for what sounds like an
irresponsible protest rather than a peaceful one. If someone
showed up at my company's door with deadly chemicals, we'd
have to shut the place down for security reasons, at a cost to
the business.
Dow may be wrong or negligent in
compensating the survivors, but protesters causing a business
to loose money to gain their attention or try and get them to
change their action is about as effective as spanking a child
when they don't eat their peas. They're just going to grow up
hating those that spank them.
Dow chemical suing people who have a yearly income of
$1000 for $10000 after the tragedy in Bhopal (which still
hasn't been cleaned up) is so low and disgusting that one
wonders what kind of snarling inhuman lunatics run that
company.
It is this kind of thing that breeds
terrorists and whips up frenzy amongst people who have no
recourse to medical care, much less fat corporate
lawyers.
I can't carry on because I am absolutely
speechless with disgust at those fucking bastards.
First off there seems to have been a genreal uproar over
dows "response" link, notice even the author raelised it was a
parody and not in any way from dow, so you can't really fault
dow for that peice (though the author says " While writing
this submission I noticed that I have become a victim of The
Yes Men and "Dow's" response is actually one of their
parodies!:-) The story is still valid " -
umm, dow didn't write it but lets hate them for it anyway?
plenty of reason to hate dow but using a parody to hate them
really weakens your position.)
I don't really know why
the copyright violations in this are DMCA, it seems that
normal copyright and trademarks cover thier violations, and
yes they are violations. They were before DMCA and still will
be if the DMCA is repealed. Though this should not have forced
the whole site down, just the removeal of the
copyrighted/trademarked images (hey, make some parody version
of them - that's legal, but you can't just copy thier images
and pretend to be them). Plus they quote cybersquatting
statutes, they don't really seem to be cybersquatting (though
using dow-chemical is iffy on copyright, had they used
something like dow-chemical-sucks they would have easily been
in the parody/protest stuff, but they seemed to have
intentionally tried to fool someone into thinking they were
dow to get them there).
And lastly "Dow has committed a
reprehensible act, even for corporate America, by suing the
survivors for ten years of income ($10,000) for protesting
Dow's failure to clean up the mess." No, even according to the
greenpeace article the survivors carried contamited material
to thier site - that's not legal. While I greatly sympathise
with them (and definatly think they got screwed royally) that
doesn't give you the right to do that. As neither does being
rich give someone the right to pollute with impunity. Much
like in the US many protestors seem to think that the first
amendment gives them the right to trasspass and destroy
property, it doesn't - gather on public land all you want,
don't block traffic and not only are you legal but you garner
much more sympathy.
In sum, they have a very legitimate
complaint, dow chemical did some VERY bad stuff and deserve to
be raped in court, and never have and probably never will. But
that doesn't give you the right (in the US, or apparently
india either) to do whatever you feel (eye-for-an-eye,
tooth-for-a-tooth isn't in the constitution). Plus my final
complaint is that we have only heard one side, greenpeace
isn't really know for being exactly unbiased and giving
complete stories. There are much more effective ways to try
and get something, they failed, now all they do is make people
much less sympathetic overall to their cause (maybe it makes
them feel better though).
This kind of misrepresentation and use of Dow's
trademarks in a way that makes people thing The Yes
Men's site belonged to Dow has always been illegal
under assorted trademark and copyright laws, and has
nothing to do with the DMCA.
Where the DMCA
kicks in is the takedown provisions. Dow called Verio
and said "Get this off the Web now!" and Verio was
required to honor that request. Verio tried calling
The Thing, but they weren't available because they had
shut down for the day and didn't leave anyway to
contact anyone in control. Verio had no way to delete
the site other than to pull their whole line, so they
did.
Eventually The Thing pulled the illegal
site, and Verio restored access. However, because The
Thing caused this whole mess by not having somebody on
call who could respond to the takedown demand, they
downtime was theirs even though Verio is taking the
blame. Verio has now decided they don't want to do
business with The Thing anymore, because they don't
like being blamed for their customer's inactions.
Is anyone else more than a little confused about what is
and isn't a parody in all of this?
Dow killed lots of
people and released a press release about it and now people
have made a parody of it but the parody supposedly infringed
on the DMCA and DOW released another press release but that
was just a parody but DOW is really suing people but that's a
parody of a parody and now the DMCA has grown arms and a mouth
and is devouring babies?
Far be it from me to think walking away from an ecological
disaster is a good thing, but from what I can see, according
to both the US and Indian courts, Dow has done everything they
said they'd do relating to this, and everything the lawsuits
against them said they had to do.
The paid ~$500
million to the Indian Government for ongoing cleanup, to
create a medical program for anyone who lives in the affected
area, and to cover things like ongoing monitoring of the
chemical creep. They also paid out an additional ~$20 million
to build and maintain a new hospital specifically in the area
to handle any related medical claims. They also added an
additional ~$55 million dollars to the hospital support funds
when they bought out UCI.
They actually have paid out
far more than the lawsuits against them in US courts
originally stated (where the Indian government received a
ruling for ~$350 million). I think all told that Dow has
produced over $600 million for cleanup and ongoing support and
healthcare.
All in all, most of the cleanup, treatment
and monitoring of chemical contamination in the area is
supposed to be handled by the Indian Government, not by Dow
directly. If those hundreds of millions of dollars are being
spent somewhere else, are people asking the government (or
whoever they've appointed to handle the situation) where it's
going?
This is especially apt as many of the court
cases have focused on Dow's liability, and the majority still
uphold the 'reasonable doubt' that Dow was criminally liable
(which is why they still haven't tried very hard to get Warren
Anderson shipped their for homicide charges), and even some
went so far as to support the findings of 3rd party teams that
the chemical release was a result of a deliberate act by a
disgruntled worker.
Now, it's been 18 years, and I
don't personally have any knowledge of anything to do with
Bhopal beyond what I can read. However, based on that
information, I think a lot of this is the result of PR by
Greenpeace and others who conveniently ignore the things that
Dow *has* done.
As an aside, I don't work for Dow, have
any relatives who work for Dow, or own stock in Dow (unless
one of those pathetic 401k funds that are basically WORTHLESS
right now has shares, in which case I don't give a damn). I
just see a lot of knee-jerk reactions and wonder if a lot of
people who 'know about bhopal' have ever done more than read 1
website or less? Could Dow be a tool of Satan designed to make
life on Earth a living hell, run completely by unfeeling
demons who want to kill and maim innocent people? Sure. Is it
probably that black-and-white? I really doubt it. It's only
fair to research both sides.
I grew up in India and whenever I think back to the Bhopal
tragedy, I still feel nauseated. American politicians today
who scream about Iraq gassing its own people should take a
look at this.
A negligent American company releases poisonous gases in a
third-world country and kills or injures tens of thousands of
(dark-skinned) people. You would think the world would be
outraged.
No. Suddenly, Dow chemicals was no longer a global company
- it was an American company, run by American citizens who are
bound only by American laws! The Indians had to struggle very
hard to bring these people to court - it is still not over, 18
years after the 'accident'.
Globalization is a wonderful thing, but only if all such
aspects are dealt with. People tend to forget that free
markets in countries like the USA work well only when the
companies are governed by law and regulated by watchdog
organizations. While the West aggressively pushes for global
free markets, they don't seem to realize that there is no
global law and no global watchdog or regulatory body.
What Dow chemicals did is an extremity, but there are many
other simpler violations. Think about it - Coke sells cans in
USA, among hundreds of other countries. That is great. But,
how many of these countries have proper recycling facilities?
Many third world countries are being pressurized by the world
bank to open up to MNCs and are they are all becoming dumping
grounds for these multi national companies. Heck, most of
these countries don't even have proper drinking water for its
population, but Coke and Pepsi are available
everywhere!
American politicians today who scream about
Iraq gassing its own people should take a look at
this.
A negligent American company releases
poisonous gases in a third-world country and kills or
injures tens of thousands of (dark-skinned) people.
You would think the world would be
outraged.
Your comparison between Carbide
and Hussein is morally bankrupt.
There is a
very large difference between the negligence (if there
was actual negligence) of Carbide and murderous intent
of Saddam Hussein to commit genocide. Carbide
certainly did NOT go out and say 'let's kill off a
bunch of folks using MIC to cut down on these local
protests'.
There is also the fact that the
UCarbide plant in West Va, had problems with MIC
accidents as well. The concept that Carbide was doing
anything in India because it felt that Indians were
less worthy than Americans is speculative, to say the
least.
UC does bear a great deal of
responsibility for what happened in India. But it was
not genocide, murder, chemical warefare or any other
such act. It was an unintended industrial accident of
unprecidented impact.
Maybe UC was negligent in
it's operations of the Bhopal plant - but the fact is
that best practice standards then and now are two very
different things. And the fact is that ultimately that
local management of a chemical plant is in the best
position to address safety issues. That local
management must share a great deal of the
responsibility for what happened, including ultimately
the leaky valve that was the immediate cause of the
accident. That local management was
Indian.
The United States is the world's biggest polluter. This
isn't trolling. This isn't flaming. This is fact.
Four
percent of the world's population, 25 percent of the
pollution. Way to go, USA.
Recent American achievements
in the "who cares if your kids got asthma?" race:
Torpedoing any serious effort to curb greenhouse gas
emissions in the 1997 Kyoto agreement (thanks, Bill
Clinton).
Later reneging on America's commitment to ratify that
agreement, despite the fact that 178 other nations have done
so (thanks, George W. Bush).
Failing to tackle arsenic pollution in its own drinking
water (currently at levels way above those that would be
illegal in Europe and elsewhere) until 2004 (thanks again,
Bill).
Attempting to reverse that legislation, only to have it
blow up in his face (thanks again, Dubya).
Allowing Alcoa, the world's third largest Aluminium
maker, to profit from a loophole in Texas environmental laws
by further polluting that state with 60,000 tons of sulphur
dioxide each year (from which Paul O'Neill, Dubya's
Secretary to the Treasury profited).
Cutting funding for research into cleaner, more fuel
efficient cars by 28% (Dubya again).
Reversing an age-old bi-partisan policy of demanding
more fuel effieciency from car makers (Bill again).
Carrying on that policy (Dubya again).
Exempting SUVs from having to meet the same minimum
mileage requirements of other cars (Bill again).
Cancelling the 2004 deadline for car makers to develop
prototype high-mileage cars (Dubya again).
Breaking a campaign promise to invest $100 million into
rain forest conservation (Dubya again).
Vetoing a proposal to increase public access to
information about the potential consequences of chemical
plant accidents (Dubya again).
Refusing to honour an international accord to enforce a
1972 treaty banning germ warfare (Dubya again).
Cutting $500 million from the Environmental Protection
Agency's budget (Dubya again).
Ignoring campaign promises to regulate carbon dioxide
emissions (Dubya again).
Proposing the opening up of previously unspoilt national
monuments in Alaska and elsewhere in the hunt for yet more
coal, oil and gas (Dubya again).
Permitting oil and gas developments off the coast of
Florida and in Montana forests (Dubya again).
Attempting to reverse legislation protecting 60 million
acres of national forest from logging and road building
(Dubya again).
Promoting the development of "mini-nukes, in direct
violation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (Dubya
again).
The list goes on and on.
Not only is
the US the world's biggest polluter, it's also the world's
biggest consumer. Per capita, Americans use more energy,
more oil, more gas than any other nation in the
world.
Even the most patriotic simpleton has got to
see that this isn't something to be proud of - if nothing
else, the shit's going to hit the fan sooner or later. Why
not try and do something about it?
...are going to use the Greenpeace
letter generator [greenpeace.org] to send a complain to
the Dow CEO? It'd be interesting to get a gauge on how much
mail he'll be getting...
A lot of people don't understand the concept, so I'll
explain. Everyone in America can think of at least 10 good
laws about speech that would improve society. I know I can.
Ban hate speech, ban those psychic ball-gazing frauds, ban
tobacco advertisements, and so on. And those would be good
laws. In my opinion.
Unfortunately, everyone else has a different set of good
laws for restricting speech. And I probably don't agree with
most of them. The only way to come to agreement on how we
restrict speech will therefore be through our elected
officials.
The founders understood that. And they also understood that
the government bodies they were setting up simply wouldn't be
perfect enough to be trusted with making these kind of laws.
For that reason they put up a fence around that area of the
law. The First Ammendment establishes that the government
can't make laws regarding speech, and that it can't make laws
regarding religion. Sure, some good might be accomplished if
the fence wasn't there, but eventually the damage would
outweigh the good.
So everytime you see some piece of speech that you think
shouldn't be allowed, restrain yourself. Don't call for it to
be banned. The government isn't smart enough to be messing
around in there. Protecting that speech protects your
speech.
RTMark sent out spam. Unsolicited mass email. Whether it
was a political rant, a parody, or "INCREASE YOUR PENIS SIZE"
doesn't matter, I didn't ask for it, I didn't want it, and it
still arrived in my (and many other people's) mailbox.
I sent a message to RTMark's ISP (The Thing),
complaining about the message, and that it violated their
Terms of Service. This isn't the first time that I have
received spam from RTMark, or is it the first time that I have
complained about it, and yet it had not stopped. If The Thing
refused to do anything about it, or if they condoned it, then
they are no better than a bunch of worthless spammers, and I'm
glad that Verio cut them off.
Don't ya just love the web? Here's the
link [greenpeace.org] to instantly write a letter to
Dow.
And here's what I just sent them:
As the
new CEO and President of Dow Chemical Company, I am stunned at
your actions against the survivors of the Bhopal, India
industrial tragedy. Dow has been a respected name in corporate
America for so many years. But this incomprehensible treatment
of the poor and sick, when you should be doing everything in
your power to make things right, to offer aid and rebuilding,
health care and clean up, changes my vision of Dow and its
executives and my family and I have lost all
respect.
Once again the almighty dollar rules a
corporation rather than the fundamental care of the people who
once supported it. It matters not that this incident occurred
under Union Carbide, you knew this when you bought them.
You know quite well that if this had happened in the
U.S., this would have been fixed by now. To attack a poor and
innocent people, those that have lost many family and still
struggle to survive, shows your true bully side. To think that
you would do this because they dared to perform a peaceful
protest is nothing more than shocking to me. Dow was always
such a respected name.
When you add to that your
treatment of the parody site Dow-chemical and the whole YesMen
fiasco, to use such an ill-gotten law as the DMCA to silence
the web and force the take down of not only a web site, but
also an entire ISP is unfathomable. It shows that your new
stance is to merely silence those who would dare stand up to
you, and this is nothing more than a cartelish, mob mentality
than can no longer have respect.
I implore you to
correct this. To drop your charges against the poor and
suffering of India, and to drop your charges against a parody
web site, which under the US copyright law, it is perfectly
legal to parody just about anything.
I have begun my
march to inform those in my family and my place of work of
your actions. Others are doing the same. Will you sue me too
just to silence me?
I grew up with the name of Dow and
have always believed it be an important and respected company.
Unless these serious issues are corrected, I can no longer
ignore the truth, nor can I think of Dow with any high
regard.
Take note that I am writing this to you via the
convience of the web. Yes, the Internet is a wonderful and
rich thing which allows us to recieve such information and
respond accordingly, even on New Year's Day. The DMCA does
nothing but silence this information. But I include my own
salutation, because I do not agree with the one built into
this online form.
I never find myself on this side of the argument, but the
only thing I see here which is not steaming troll meat is the
Dow DMCA complaint, which is actually pretty reasonable. The
owner of the dow-chemical domain is not named George
Dow-Chemical, images and text WERE taken from the dow web site
without their permission, and all of this was used to deceive
the public as to the intents and actions of Dow.
One could actually make a pretty good argument that those
opposed to the DMCA wish only to plagarize and deceive, based
on the actions of these parodists. For this reason, I cannot
support their efforts. Freedom of information is too important
to me.
I tried to send this to the story gods at slashdot as an
amendment to my posting of this story. I guess that it didn't
get there in time or they chose not to amend my submission
(Although it was edited from the way I submitted it). Anyway
here is a link to The Register's article
[theregister.co.uk].
Yes, I thought "The Thing" was in reference to the Adam's
family (you know: dum, dum, dum! dum dum! dum dum... No? Oh...). Of course then I read the article
and...
The movie Problem Child 2
[imdb.com] has a scene where LaWanda Dumore is going through
Junior's file which has most of his shenanigans from the first
movie and also reveals... He's the one resposible for the
Union Carbide plant explosion.
Of course, when you're a
movie studio, your right to parody is backed up by your high
priced lawyers.
"We are being portrayed as a heartless giant which
doesn't care about the 20,000 lives lost due to Bhopal over
the years," said Dow President and CEO Michael D. Parker. "But
this just isn't true. Many individuals within Dow feel
tremendous sorrow about the Bhopal disaster, and many
individuals within Dow would like the corporation to admit its
responsibility, so that the public can then decide on the best
course of action, as is appropriate in any democracy.
"Unfortunately, we have responsibilities to our shareholders
and our industry colleagues that make action on Bhopal
impossible. And being clear about this has been a very big
step." This Parker guy is truly evil. He has no conflict
whatsoever about what he's doing . He even admits it within
his comments. "Many others" might be outraged that Dow is
responsible for the deaths and suffering of thousands and
thousands of people, but not Mr. Parker! The fact then Dow is
(then) able to use the DMCA to cut off discussion of their
nightmarish deeds gives the perfect example of why this evil
law needs to be overturned.... NOW!!!
If anyone bothers to read the Dow complaint pdf, they'll
note that Dow is suing for trademark infringement, and for
sqatting on dow-chemical.com. I don't know what the law says
about using a companies trademarks in a parody, but I can see
where they'd have a case. Their website name claim is clearly
valid as well. If you're going to make a parody site, you
should do so within the law. I can see why their ISP dropped
them.
This owners of this web site, http://www.slaverready.com/[slaverready.com]
is also getting sued. Not for the content of the site but
because the logo on the site supposedly infringes on Labor
Ready's logo. What a bunch of BS.
You may not be able to fight city hall but you can't fight
corporations without getting crushed.
Let's see them thrown in jail with lots of publicity-
provided the WHOLE story is told.
In news today, terrorist group The Yes Men are
threatened with jail for impersonating representatives of
Dow Chemical. The Yes Men sent email and built a web site
parodying Dow's recent lawsuit against Bhopal
survivors. The lawsuit was brought when 200 women
survivors of the Bhopal chemical disaster brought toxic
waste to Dow corporate offices in Bombay. The protest was
said to be peaceful and nonviolent. Under Indian law, Dow
inherits responsibility for criminal acts of Union Carbide,
which it acquired. The survivors have been in fruitless
negotiations with Dow headquarters in Mumbai for over a
year, in efforts to persuade the company to undertake
cleanup of the disaster site. The disaster of almost 20
years ago left tonnes of toxic waste on the plant site,
which still remains and is leaching into the ground water of
the area. Union Carbide did not clean up the toxic waste,
though they did pay a settlement to the Indian government in
1989 that amounted to a few hundred dollars for each person
affected, injured or killed by the continuing disaster.
Health care costs for those living in the area with the
toxic waste have rapidly passed this figure. Dow has
expressed its regret and states that it cannot justify the
expense of a cleanup of the disaster site. Back in the
US, the Yes Men are looking at jail sentences for their
activities- which largely consist of putting cruder words in
the mouths of Dow representatives to justify actions Dow is
actually taking. The lesson for all of us- it's not what you
say, it's how you say it! Over to you, Binky...
The amazing thing to me is that no mainstream media seems
to have picked up that astonishing, week-old "Dow sues
protestors" story. It doesn't seem to exist outside of indie
and activist sites. Guess that's not the sort of anniversary
they want to allude to this time of year? Another reason to
hate xmas, I suppose - it makes the media even more useless
than it usually is.
Dow is a Corporation. As such, they don't really respond
to moral issues -- only financial issues that fall out of
moral upsets. Saying "oh, Dow are nasty people" won't do much
to get their attention. Cutting Dow purchases by 10%, on the
other hand, would.
If you want to get Dow's attention, tell people to stop
buying their produ cts, and tell them why. At the end of Dow's
2001 financial report [dow.com], they have a partial list
of Dow and associated company trademarks.
I peeled out that data, paired it with the company name,
and then sorted the result.. If you want to boycott Dow
products, these names would probably be a good start.
I'll also place a copy of this list on my website (
http://www.bcgreen.com/dow/trademarks.html [bcgreen.com])
where I can update it as necessary. (147 references so far).
damn lameness filters force reformatting.
Affinity:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Amerchol:: Union Carbide Corporation, &
subsidiaries Amplify:: The Dow Chemical
Company | | Aspun:: The Dow Chemical
Company Attane:: The Dow Chemical
Company | | Betabrace:: Essex Specialty
Products, Inc. Betadamp:: Essex
Specialty Products, Inc. | | Betafoam::
Essex Specialty Products, Inc. Betaguard:: Essex Specialty Products, Inc. | |
Betamate:: Essex Specialty Products, Inc.
Betaseal:: Essex Specialty Products,
Inc. | | Blox:: The Dow Chemical Company
Calibre:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Carbowax:: Union Carbide Corporation, &
subsidiaries Cellosize:: Union Carbide
Corporation, & subsidiaries | | Confirm:: Dow AgroSciences LLC Covelle:: The Dow Chemical Company | | Cyracure:: Union Carbide Corporation, & subsidiaries
D.E.H.:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
D.E.N.:: The Dow Chemical Company
D.E.R.:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Daxad:: Hampshire Chemical Corp.
Derakane:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Derakane Momentum:: The Dow Chemical
Company Dithane:: Dow AgroSciences LLC
| | Dow:: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowex:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Dowfax:: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowflake:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Dowlex:: The Dow Chemical Company
Dowper:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Dowtherm:: The Dow Chemical Company
Drytech:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Dursban:: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Elite:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Emerge:: The Dow Chemical Company
Envision:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
Ethafoam:: The Dow Chemical Company
Ethocel:: The Dow Chemical Company | |
FilmTec:: FilmTec Corporation
FirstRate:: Dow AgroSciences LLC | |
Flexomer:: Union Carbide Corporation, &
subsidiaries Fortress:: Dow
AgroSciences LLC | | Fulcrum:: The Dow
Chemical Company Garlon:: Dow
AgroSciences LLC | | Gas/Spec:: INEOS plc
Glyphomax:: Dow AgroSciences LLC | |
Goal:: Dow AgroSciences LLC
Grandstand:: Dow AgroSciences LLC | |
Great Stuff:: Flexible Products Company
Hamposyl:: Hampshire Chemical Corp. | |
Immo
The website was an affront to our right to Free
Speech, and we immediately contacted the upstream provider
for this false website, gently requesting that our rights be
protected.
The provider, Verio, graciously complied
with our letter citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(DMCA). Not only did they shut down Dow-Chemical.com, but as
a good corporate citizen, they agreed to shut down an entire
network (Thing.net) of websites many of which, while
unrelated to dow-chemical.com,
The web
site was an "affront to our right to Free
Speech".
So something someone else said was an
affront to their right to free speech? How the hell is that
possible? You can talk about slander and liable, but saying
something on a web site is affecting their right to free
speech?
"Not only did they shut down
Dow-Chemical.com, but as a good corporate citizen", I
don't have much to say here but good corporate citizen?
God that just sends chills down my spine. Thank god for those
corporate citizens who kowtow to their corporate
betters.
"appear to serve no commercial purpose, being
dedicated to the unproductive analysis and critique of society
and corporate behaviour. "
How dare they! Serve no
commercial purpose!
But the worst is the statement of
what they do instead of serving a commercial purpose. Analysis
and critique of society and corporate behavior?
All I
can say is Thank God people do that! What the hell is wrong
with Dow for saying any of that?
I used to think that
freedom of speech was one of those protections for the little
guy (individual), to keep the big guy(corps, and gov) from
squelching his point of view.
America is truely
becoming a corporate state, and this is just sad.
Sorry
if its a tad over the top, up at 4 am will do that.
But out concern here at/. isn't really with the environmental issues
(though, some/.ers may have concern with
that), but rather with the free speeach issues.
The author ofthe number is not using the british system,
but the European system. This is evident from the use of
-illards, the absence of 'and', and a few other things.
The selected number here is 2^64, the decimal expansion of
which is 18 446 744 073 709 551 616.
USA = eighteen pentillion, four hundred forty six
quadrillion, seven hundred forty four trillion, seventy three
billion, seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty one
thousand six hundred sixteen.
EUR = eighteen trillion, four hundred forty six billiard,
seven hundred forty four billion, seventy three milliard,
seven hundred nine million, five hundred fifty one thousand
six hundred sixteen.
UK = eighteen trillion, four hundred and forty-six
thousand, seven hundred and forty-four billion, seventy-three
thousand, seven hundred and nine million, five hundred and
fifty-one thousand six hundred and sixteen.
NEW = three hundred and sixtynine billion, one cention,
fiftyseven thousand, thirtyone hundred and eleftynine million,
fifty centions, seven thosand, ninety hundred and sixteen.
when Down acquired Union Carbide, they acquired all of
Union Carbide's unmet responsibilities. Trying to keep the
assets of Union Carbide and ignore the liabilities is grossly
irresponsible - that is to say, typical corporate behavior.
Parodies
should be allowed, but the supposed parody web site did
not look like a parody to me. It was trying to pass itself off
as the real Dow site, which is not allowed. Fraud.
Deception. etc...
Dow vs.
Parody
