Talk:Lightpaws

Should his past identity and infamy be added to this page? He used to go by "Buster Bunny".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.137.138.136 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 September 2013

Request for removal of controversy section or exclusion

Lightpaws has requested that we remove coverage of the topic covered by the current "controversy" section as "the information is not correct". He says that, as part of ongoing legal action, he has obtained a court order to compel removal of the listing we referenced. Though he declined to provide a copy of this order (and says his case material is "not public information and not allowed by law to be posted on any website"), the listing appears to have gone. He says he is "in the process of suing law enforcement officials" regarding the charges that led to the listing, the records of which remain publicly accessible.

Lightpaws said that while he would prefer for editors to agree not to cover the topic in question, if we do not agree to do so, he would like to be excluded from WikiFur. I would be keen to hear other editors' thoughts on both of these requests. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (EST)

"(He) says his case material is "not public information and not allowed by law to be posted on any website"." Incorrect. all arrest and conviction [[W:Criminal records in the United States|Criminal records in the United States) are available to the general public by law (exception: US Juvenile records). As for Exclusion, is the denial of such request for people who may be detrimental to people in the furry fandom still in effect? (Mitch Beiro, Mozdoc, Tora, Evil Sibe, Frank Gembeck, Ted Sheppard, Alan T. Panda, Mizzyam, Formic Hivemind, Wolfie Stonespirit, Brown Leopard, Keba, etc,...). If so, a no vote.

"He has obtained a court order to compel removal of the listing we referenced". There is no such law that allows this. The only related laws that allow this type of information to be taken down is if an arrest did not lead to a guilty conviction, and it's only enforced in four US States (Georgia, Oregon, Utah, and Texas).

"in the process of suing law enforcement officials" is not furry related data, and it is not a reason to excise the public available information.

Caveat: The possible exception to the rule, which I have brought up in the past, is expunging said material from articles if the user was falsely accused, or found not guilty of the crime, but this has not been brought to final discussion yet. - Spirou 05:00, 17 February 2014 (EST)

A clarification: when he said his case material was "not public information", he appeared to be referring to the basis for the case he was bringing against law enforcement, not vice versa. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:48, 17 February 2014 (EST)

Yes, in relation to the "in the process of suing law enforcement officials regarding the charges that led to the listing". Still, there is no current or prior civil law in any US jurisdiction where as a local, state, or federal judge in a General District Court can instruct the removal of any Public an/or Criminal record as soon as they have been released into the public domain (e.g., news releases, RSOs requests, and even the copy/paste of it on any printed/electronic site. Exceptions: Juvenile records, and ongoing criminal proceedings that have not reached a final judgement/sentence).(*)

In short, a defense attorney or presiding judge cannot request or demand an injunction the listings posted in the referring site, or this article using the report as reference. TROs, RoPs, and DMCAs cannot also be used for this purpose, as for example, to compel a service or host provider into doing such, even if the individual is currently appealing the sentencing and/or suing the law enforcement officials involved.

([*] Retrials, appeals, and lawsuits challenging sentencing whose data have been released are not exceptions). - Spirou 00:22, 31 March 2014 (EDT)

Because you are not taking this matter seriously and have no clear understanding of the law, The Federal Communication Commission, GoDaddy, and Cloudflare are now involved. Legal action at this point is unavoidable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 50.126.207.110 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 February 2014

Please see: "Legal threats and Wikifur." FYI, the Federal Communications Commission does not (can't) handle this type of legal requests, as we are not a media corporation, GoDaddy is an ICANN Registrar, and also cannot handle this type of request. They can only issue DMCAs, and this article is not a copyright infringement, but an entry supplied with public record retrieved via third parties.

And CloudFlare is a content delivery network and distributed domain name server service marketed as improving website performance and speed and providing security. in simple terms, a tool to provide reliable web performance to a site. They have much access or clout over a site's content as a maintenance railroad worker watching a full passenger train going by.

And you continue to ban evade and abusing multiple accounts. Until such time next when you have registered a valid, legal account, then. - Spirou 20:50, 17 February 2014 (EST)