ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend

from the not-slowing-down dept

Tue, Oct 25th 2011 9:08am — Mike Masnick

Despite challenges concerning the legality of ICE seizing domain names prior to any sort of adversarial hearing, it appears that ICE has no intention to slow down. The group quietly seized 20 more domain names over the weekend, and it looks like most involved sites selling unauthorized NFL jerseys. ICE has been a bit slower about going after copyright related domain names, focusing more on trademark domain names recently, but it's still questionable as to whether or not the group really has the right to censor domain names without an adversarial hearing. Of course, ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up, which is why it gets away with its out-and-out censorship. In the meantime, you would think that ICE would have more important things to do than be the personal private police force of various entertainment industry entities.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, domain seizures
Companies: ice, nfl

134 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:20am

>In the meantime, you would think that ICE would have more important things to do than be the personal private police force of various entertainment industry entities.

Those other responsibilities aren't paying for political campaigns, therefore they by definition can't be more important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:26am
  
  Re:
  ICE Is a piece of dog poop.They are disgusting and only go after the sites because they have been payed off somewhere by the Industry with large money donations and large money lobbying.
  Look at the fucken protect-ip act.That fucker passes i am never voting for a democrat or republican.they will be traitors at that point and should be pulled out to the street and tarred & feathered.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    You should always vote for someone based on who they are, not what party they're in.
    Vote for someone that you think will act on their own opinions and convictions, rather than being swayed by lobbyists.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Vote for someone who will act for their citizens, not their own opinions or lobbyists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, is that the turd sandwich or the giant douche?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Vote for a pre-selected agent that will enact the laws you agreed in an open forum.
        
        I don't get this poop, of voting for a candidate, we don't need a candidate, we just need any ignorant bastard that will agree to do what he was told and come back to consult with people who put him there on the issues.
        
        People need to learn to draft their own laws which is not that difficult, just use the old ones as templates and discuss it in smaller groups(cells) and go find consensus on the issues.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    Until we get rid of the dreadful "winner take all" electoral system, you'll always be voting either Republican or Democrat
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or, we get people to agree to something.
      
      The Tea Party did it, and they are not that right in the head, how is that others can't?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Notice that the Tea Party didn't really gain traction until they were a part of the Republican party.
        
        We've had a Libertarian Party along with various other parties that can't get any traction because of the rules enforcing the two party rule.
        
        The problems are detailed here the best.
        
        One, you'll have two parties that don't represent the majority rule.
        
        Two, it results in a two party system regardless of results. By voting third party, you take away votes for a person that may be closer to you. Remember how Ross Perot ran as an independent, taking votes away from the main presidential candidates in 92 and 96? Yeah, that's a result of our system. People blame Perot for causing the defeats of Bush and Dole respectively.
        
        Three, gerrymandering laws are still ridiculous.
        
        There's more here, but that's the gist of the video.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That video is hilarious, though it does have some merit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:20am

"ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up, which is why it gets away with its out-and-out censorship."

Come on Mike, can't you even pretend for a second that the copyright laws apply here?

If there was a guy selling counterfeit merchandise outside an NFL game, the police would arrest the guy and seize the merchandise, all without a warrant. Why are you seeing such a problem here?

"any speech" != "free speech". Fire!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:31am
  
  Re:
  The police going to a football stadium and seizing things without a warrant is different from customs agents going to China and seizing things without a warrant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:32am
  
  Re:
  "If there was a guy selling counterfeit merchandise outside an NFL game, the police would arrest the guy and seize the merchandise, all without a warrant. "
  
  Analogy fail. In the ICE domain seizures, no counterfeit property was seized. Just the big sign saying "Get your NFL shirts here!". They only seized the "speech" part, not the actual part that does harm.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    The speech was for an illegal act, therefore not protected by the first amendment. Sorry, try again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If the act was so blatantly illegal, then why the hell didn't ICE take them to court? Wouldn't that have been an easy win? It would have justified their pay checks, done something to curtail the counterfeiting, and made them look relatively competent. Just taking the names without any kind of oversight makes them look like dictators.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ok my turn.
      
      They took down a website based on information handed to them by an informant. They did nothing to make sure it is actually true or not, they assumed that it must be true. The informant stood to gain by taking out competition in the marketplace. ICE is the correct option to make this happen? A government agency that is bound by laws is doing whatever a corporation demands without any legal review or due process, there is a problem with this. As the merchandise, which might be fake might not no one can prove it right now, is not going to animate and murder people who purchase it - it is not an immediate threat where taking down the site needed to be done before a legal review.
      
      Oh and "the speech was for an illegal act".
      Please explain why there are not more radical religious leaders in prison then. Not the scary "brown" kind, but those fresh faced white ones who called for the murders of abortion providers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "They took down a website based on information handed to them by an informant. They did nothing to make sure it is actually true or not, they assumed that it must be true."
        
        Plaintiff said "they don't have rights to our names or to sell our trademarked products". ICE looked at the website, found the material for sale, perhaps even went the step to purchase from them. They then moved for a warrant, and away they went.
        
        You think they did it without even opening the website in a browser? Are you fucking serious?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You think they did it without even opening the website in a browser? "
        
        You know damn well that's not what he meant. You also understand that at no time have any of the domain owners been able to defend the allegations against them before the domain seizures are completed. So the fact is, a government entity is taking away a domain with a one sided look at the law, protecting the antiquated business model of the NFL (in this case).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You also understand that at no time have any of the domain owners been able to defend the allegations against them before the domain seizures are completed. So the fact is, a government entity is taking away a domain with a one sided look at the law, protecting the antiquated business model of the NFL (in this case).
        
        If ICE does not seize the domain name, the trademark owner will likely have its goodwill irreparably harmed every day the site remains live. So at some point, ICE has to make a judgment call as to what is more important: respecting the rights of the domain name owner, or preventing future harm to the TM holder's goodwill. Justifiably, ICE deems the rights of the TM holder more important and seizes the domain because the TM holder is more likely to prevail under the law. If the domain owner wants to dispute that, the domain owner can have a hearing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "We are the 1%!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm trying to think of a way you could be more oblivious and it's just not coming. I mean this:
        
        "Justifiably, ICE deems the rights of the TM holder more important and seizes the domain because the TM holder is more likely to prevail under the law."
        
        Really? It's ok to take action because it's more likely than not that it's the right action? This is the standard you would extol? You've got to be fucking kidding me right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? It's ok to take action because it's more likely than not that it's the right action? This is the standard you would extol? You've got to be fucking kidding me right?
        
        Have you never heard of "probable cause"? That's the standard for issuing search warrants and authorizing seizure of property which is the subject of a criminal investigation. It's also the standard for arresting a person for the commission of a crime.
        
        So I suppose you feel that no one should be arrested for a crime until a court convicts? No property should ever be seized until a court deems it just? Do you not see the potential for mischief if that were the standard?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No property should ever be seized until a court deems it just?
        
        My views on asset forfeitures are fairly simple.
        
        Criminal asset forfeitures shouldn't be allowed unless it's accompanied by criminal charges and then automatically returned upon acquittal or retained if found guilty of the criminal charges. This silliness we have now where one has to prove the property's innocence goes against the basic tenets of the Constitution.
        
        Civil asset forfeiture shouldn't allowed until after being found liable. Period.
        
        Guilt need to be proven prior to punishment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Criminal asset forfeitures shouldn't be allowed unless it's accompanied by criminal charges and then automatically returned upon acquittal or retained if found guilty of the criminal charges. This silliness we have now where one has to prove the property's innocence goes against the basic tenets of the Constitution.
        
        Guess what? Property does not have rights under the Constitution; people do. Certain property can be deemed contraband even if its purported owner is not deemed a criminal.
        
        Civil asset forfeiture shouldn't allowed until after being found liable. Period.
        
        Please show me an example where this does not happen.
        
        Guilt need to be proven prior to punishment.
        
        The rights of the law-abiding public should also be protected in the process. Principles of equity demand it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Guess what? Property does not have rights under the Constitution; people do.
        
        People have the rights against unreasonable search & seizure under the Constitution.
        
        Certain property can be deemed contraband even if its purported owner is not deemed a criminal.
        
        Well, yeah. That's the part I believe needs to be changed. Seizing property and forcing the owner to prove the property's innocence is an end run around "innocent until proven guilty" and shifting the burden of proof to the accused. These go against the basic tenets of the Constitution in my opinion.
        
        Please show me an example where this does not happen.
        
        Happens all the time. Civil forfeiture is what is being used here in these domain name cases. The government is suing the domain name and seizing it prior to an adversarial hearing. (IE: forfeiture prior to being found liable)
        
        The rights of the law-abiding public should also be protected in the process. Principles of equity demand it.
        
        True. But Constitutional issues should take precedence, because those rights are the fundamental ones. The entire foundation of our legal system demands it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        People have the rights against unreasonable search & seizure under the Constitution.
        
        And those rights are vindicated when the government obtains a search warrant from a judge after presenting probable cause.
        
        Well, yeah. That's the part I believe needs to be changed. Seizing property and forcing the owner to prove the property's innocence is an end run around "innocent until proven guilty" and shifting the burden of proof to the accused. These go against the basic tenets of the Constitution in my opinion.
        
        Again, property is not afforded rights under the Constitution; people are. Only people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Inanimate objects do not enjoy such rights or privileges. If the government can present a prima facie case for certain property being illegal, then it is up to the property owner to rebut that presumption. Deeming certain property illegal does not require charging the owner with a crime, even though that can and often does happen.
        
        Your opinion of the "basic tenets" of the Constitution does not appear to be grounded in anything other than what you want them to be.
        
        Happens all the time. Civil forfeiture is what is being used here in these domain name cases. The government is suing the domain name and seizing it prior to an adversarial hearing. (IE: forfeiture prior to being found liable)
        
        I thought this was based in a criminal action, not a civil one.
        
        True. But Constitutional issues should take precedence, because those rights are the fundamental ones. The entire foundation of our legal system demands it.
        
        And what Constitutional issues do you see with this? 4th Amendment rights are vindicated by the use of a warrant. If the site owners want to challenge the seizure, they can file suit. So what's missing?
        
        If you say "a hearing", the hearing can happen at any time; it does not have to happen before the seizure takes place. The government only has to provide notice of the seizure to the domain owner (which, upon looking at some of the sites seized, is clearly being done) and the owner can challenge the seizure in court if it so chooses. Giving the site owner a hearing prior to the seizure presents the opportunity for mischief on the part of the domain owner and alleged infringer. I see no reason to allow the rights of the aggrieved (i.e., the trademark owner) to be further trampled just because you would prefer to have a hearing before the seizure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More facts you leave out Wilton: You keep claiming they need the domain to support a criminal investigation, yet that makes utterly no sense. A domain offers no information that could help in any investigation. I'd love for you to try and explain why it's necessary for the government to seize it given it offers them nothing to further that goal...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More facts you leave out Wilton: You keep claiming they need the domain to support a criminal investigation, yet that makes utterly no sense. A domain offers no information that could help in any investigation. I'd love for you to try and explain why it's necessary for the government to seize it given it offers them nothing to further that goal...
        
        Where did I claim that? Show me where.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've ignored everything about "prior restraint" in order to apologize for ICE, haven't you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He also conveniently missed the fact that site owners have TRIED VERY HARD to get hearings and were either intimidated with threats of expensive litigation until they gave up or were completely ignored altogether.
        
        The 'irreparable harm' argument is a joke... not only is it unprovable but if it were true, THEY should have a hearing to show it first (that's what due process means). Another fact conveniently ignored here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Every time someone rolls out "prior restraint" on one of these things, my eyes roll. If the site doesn't have a license from the trademark holder, and is in fact selling counterfeit or illegal goods, they don't get prior restraint because their speech isn't protected!
        
        The case is a very good one, it is clear, you don't need anything beyond the statement of the trademark holder to show that the material being sold is likely illegal, and that is more than enough for a judge to sign off.
        
        How hard is that to understand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you aren't just shutting down the sales, you are shutting down the entire domain name. Maybe the website has a forum where you can discuss the NFL. Clearly protected speech, but the hammer is so large that it comes down on ALL speech on the website.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As always, a small amount of protected speech does not cover for or protect the obvious and clear infringement.
        
        Sorry, play again!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        hi, im a micropost
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As always, a small amount of protected speech does not cover for or protect the obvious and clear infringement.
        
        Small? If there is a forum on the site, then I wouldn't consider that a small amount. Also, if it's user comments, then that would most certainly be protected speech, since the illegality comes from selling illegal goods on the site and would be directed at the site owner, not the users.
        
        And isn't the government required to limit the collateral on the speech as much as possible? Doesn't seem like ICE is doing that at all with the past examples of seized domains.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        err....*collateral damage
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But you aren't just shutting down the sales, you are shutting down the entire domain name. Maybe the website has a forum where you can discuss the NFL. Clearly protected speech, but the hammer is so large that it comes down on ALL speech on the website.
        
        Where is your evidence that such a forum exists on these sites?
        
        Furthermore, even if such a forum exists, you think that its existence should hold up a criminal counterfeiting investigation? If so, what's stopping every other counterfeiting enterprise from setting up a sham forum on their website in order to avoid seizure from ICE?
        
        If the forum is a legitimate exercise of free speech, then the forum should extricate itself from the criminal enterprise with which it associates. If the forum instead decides to hitch its wagon to the criminal enterprise, it should not complain that it goes down with the rest of the site.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Where is your evidence that such a forum exists on these sites?"
        
        Well, gee. It's conveniently hidden behind the BIG SIGN that ICE put up that says "You can't go here". I guess when anyone wants to talk to the merchant and see if this stuff is counterfeit, no one will know because we can't see the merchandise for ourselves.
        
        "If the forum is a legitimate exercise of free speech, then the forum should extricate itself from the criminal enterprise with which it associates."
        
        Yet again... When were they determined to be a criminal enterprise by a court of law when they have had no hearing to discuss it with the judge?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, gee. It's conveniently hidden behind the BIG SIGN that ICE put up that says "You can't go here". I guess when anyone wants to talk to the merchant and see if this stuff is counterfeit, no one will know because we can't see the merchandise for ourselves.
        
        I see. So you're speculating. Good to know that you have no facts to back up your fanciful theories.
        
        Jay, you are not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. No judge has to speak to you prior to issuing a warrant for the seizure of a domain name. Perhaps it would be best to not assume that every judge and every ICE agent is up to something nefarious when it performs a seizure of a domain name.
        
        Yet again... When were they determined to be a criminal enterprise by a court of law when they have had no hearing to discuss it with the judge?
        
        If the domain name owners want a hearing, they can file suit. Nothing is stopping them from doing so, aside from perhaps the likelihood that they would lose on the merits, and perhaps being charged with a crime the minute they step on U.S. soil.
        
        And if the forum is legitimate, it can set up shop elsewhere. It should not be difficult to disassociate one's self with a site that sells counterfeit goods.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I see. So you're speculating. Good to know that you have no facts to back up your fanciful theories."
        
        Neither are you. Did you visit any of the sites before they were taken down? Nice to know that you can't use facts to support your position when you have none.
        
        "Jay, you are not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. No judge has to speak to you prior to issuing a warrant for the seizure of a domain name. Perhaps it would be best to not assume that every judge and every ICE agent is up to something nefarious when it performs a seizure of a domain name."
        
        Did I say that Judge Nagle was up to something nefarious because she signed the takedowns in February? No, I did not. I have less regard for ICE since they're the ones stretching the law. The fact is, if a judge signs anything that comes to their desk for law enforcement, then that's not a protection.
        
        And yet again, the fact remains, no judge has heard from the domain user about this. So it's akin to ICE coming into your home at 6 in the morning to check your legal status. Oh wait, they already do that. They barely respect the rights of immigrants. I'm supposed to believe they'll follow the law in regards to copyright?
        
        If the domain name owners want a hearing, they can file suit.
        
        Ah, increased liability, similar to 3 strikes. "You're a criminal before you're allowed to protest what's happened to your site". Tell me, how well did that work for mooo.com again? How hard is it to get a judge to see them before going to seize a domain to allow both sides in a hearing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I see. So you're speculating. Good to know that you have no facts to back up your fanciful theories."
        
        Neither are you. Did you visit any of the sites before they were taken down? Nice to know that you can't use facts to support your position when you have none.
        
        I have the fact that the domains were in fact taken down, presumably by government officials who are trying to do the right thing and did their best to verify the facts that the NFL claimed. I also have the fact that the names of the domains seized(i.e., cheapjerseys16.com; nflcheapjerseys.com; nhlnflwholesale.com; ravensjerseysshop.com; etc.) appear to advertise that they are selling NFL paraphernalia. And since NFL is the complainant, I can reasonably guess that the site owners did not get a license from the NFL to sell such paraphernalia. So is that concrete? No, but its better than your entirely fabricated claims of there being forums at which protected speech is present.
        
        Did I say that Judge Nagle was up to something nefarious because she signed the takedowns in February? No, I did not. I have less regard for ICE since they're the ones stretching the law. The fact is, if a judge signs anything that comes to their desk for law enforcement, then that's not a protection.
        
        And what evidence do you have that "a judge signs anything that comes to their [sic] desk for law enforcement"? What evidence do you have suggesting that a judge was merely rubber stamping these seizure warrants?
        
        Oh, that's right: you have none. You only have your paranoid speculation.
        
        And yet again, the fact remains, no judge has heard from the domain user about this. So it's akin to ICE coming into your home at 6 in the morning to check your legal status. Oh wait, they already do that. They barely respect the rights of immigrants. I'm supposed to believe they'll follow the law in regards to copyright?
        
        Then the domain user should speak up. No one is going to vindicate their rights for them, assuming they have any in this case. And the aggrieved party should have to wait around for the domain owner to show up for a hearing while the aggrieved party's legal interests are irreparably harmed. As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.
        
        Ah, increased liability, similar to 3 strikes. "You're a criminal before you're allowed to protest what's happened to your site". Tell me, how well did that work for mooo.com again? How hard is it to get a judge to see them before going to seize a domain to allow both sides in a hearing?
        
        Pretty hard when the domain owner doesn't live in the United States, which is the case here. It could take weeks for the domain owners to travel to the United States from wherever they are located, especially since the expense of traveling is on them. And while we wait for those domain owners to show up, the goodwill of the aggrieved party gets continually tread upon as each day goes by. Once again, justice delayed is justice denied.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have the fact that the domains were in fact taken down, presumably by government officials who are trying to do the right thing---
        
        Excuse me for one second.
        
        BWAAAHAHAHA! AND HE'S SERIOUS ABOUT THIS *snicker*...
        
        Okay, continue.
        
        and did their best to verify the facts that the NFL claimed.
        
        The dissonance is strong with you. ICE's track record in regards to constitutional rights is not very strong, given their persecution through the Secure Communities program they endorse. Here's the stats for ICE in regards to deportation:
        
        + 1.6 percent of those arrested were actually U.S. citizens
        
        + 39 percent of people arrested through Secure Communities have at least one child or spouse who is a U.S. citizen
        
        + 93 percent of those arrested are Latinos, even though they account for 77 percent of the entire undocumented population
        
        + 83 percent of people arrested via Secure Communities are placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] detention; the average Department of Homeland Security immigration detention rate is 62 percent
        
        + Only 24 percent of individuals arrested via Secure Communities had a lawyer present during an immigration hearing; in general, about 41 percent of all immigration court respondents do
        
        So what we can surmise:
        
        �The results are disturbing because they point to a system that is funneling people towards deportation without due process,� said the study�s lead author Aarti Kohli. �Based on our findings, we recommend that the Department of Homeland Security suspend the program until the government addresses the issues we identify, particularly wrongful U.S. citizen arrests, potential racial profiling, and lack of discretion in detention.�
        
        So would I believe that ICE is following the law or just the claims of one side of a civil argument? Are they being paid for their private police force? All signs seem to be that court dates are anathema for ICE. They shoot first and deal with collateral damage later. This occurred with Moo.com along with every domain seizure since. All to support businesses that don't need it.
        
        So is that concrete? No, but its better than your entirely fabricated claims of there being forums at which protected speech is present.
        
        My argument is that ICE is proceeding with takedowns without due process. Fifth Amendment, not the First. If a judge declares the site illegal then by all means take it down. But the least they can do is have a chance to answer the allegations, fight the seizure, and find out if the site is within its means to takedown. But I guess that's too much work for these "people trying to do the right thing". Hilarious.
        
        Then the domain user should speak up.
        
        That's funny coming from you. You still advocate that Roja is a criminal site when the government hasn't said they were.
        
        No one is going to vindicate their rights for them, assuming they have any in this case.
        
        So you're saying that no one has rights for the government not to mess with them? Very dangerous ground here...
        
        And the aggrieved party should have to wait around for the domain owner to show up for a hearing while the aggrieved party's legal interests are irreparably harmed.
        
        [citation needed]
        
        It could take weeks for the domain owners to travel to the United States from wherever they are located, especially since the expense of traveling is on them. And while we wait for those domain owners to show up, the goodwill of the aggrieved party gets continually tread upon as each day goes by.
        
        Oh my gosh, the NFL loses a penny a day while someone travels to the US to answer for "crimes" against their economic hardship. *gasp* The ticket for one football game might go down by $1. How DARE these people cause such a travesty as having shirts similar to NFL jerseys that are already labeled as unofficial/unauthorized products!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're still leaving out key facts, as usual.
        
        It's not a criminal enterprise. The reason is that there has been no trial, no hearing, nothing. Your assumption that it is doesn't count as proof. A judge looking at a warrant is not proof either. This is the part where you say "but it's obvious", and this is the part where we say, again, if it were obvious then HOLD A HEARING first before you take it down.
        
        "Furthermore, even if such a forum exists, you think that its existence should hold up a criminal counterfeiting investigation?"
        
        More facts you leave out. No site has ever been investigated or charged, save one I am aware of. And besides, I DO think it should hold up a criminal counterfeiting investigation, there is no reason the right to free speech and the investigation can't both be preserved. Just because it's easier to ignore some rights and not others doesn't make what they do right, and in fact makes it very wrong.
        
        Clearly those running the site don't think they're "tying anything to a criminal enterprise", otherwise they wouldn't have it there in the first place. See? Your invalid argument works both ways! Funny that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Correction: by "otherwise they wouldn't have it there in the first place" I meant to say "otherwise they wouldn't have a forum there in the first place"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not a criminal enterprise. The reason is that there has been no trial, no hearing, nothing. Your assumption that it is doesn't count as proof. A judge looking at a warrant is not proof either. This is the part where you say "but it's obvious", and this is the part where we say, again, if it were obvious then HOLD A HEARING first before you take it down.
        
        Why? Why must a hearing be held before the site is seized? Why allow for the opportunity for the goodwill of a law-abiding citizen or entity be damaged continually as we wait to have a hearing? Why not prevent irreparable harm from being caused to the aggrieved entity before having a hearing on the merits? Why would you prefer to invite the opportunity for mischief by the domain owner?
        
        Would you do the same in the case of violent crime? Should we wait to arrest alleged violent offenders until we have a conviction?
        
        More facts you leave out. No site has ever been investigated or charged, save one I am aware of. And besides, I DO think it should hold up a criminal counterfeiting investigation, there is no reason the right to free speech and the investigation can't both be preserved. Just because it's easier to ignore some rights and not others doesn't make what they do right, and in fact makes it very wrong.
        
        A majority of the sites seized here, if not all of such sites, are owned by Chinese nationals. It is very difficult to charge Chinese nationals with crimes when they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And furthermore, just because you can't find any evidence of a criminal investigation going on does not mean that such an investigation did not take place.
        
        Whatever "speech" being provided on these sites was commercial speech, which is subject to less protection than non-commercial speech. If these sites were selling counterfeit goods (and I have no reason to believe that they were not), then whatever speech existed on these sites was affiliated with the selling of counterfeit goods.
        
        And in any event, if these domain owners want to vindicate their supposed rights, they are free to file suit in the United States. There is nothing stopping them from doing so, outside of perhaps their own belief that they did in fact break the law.
        
        Clearly those running the site don't think they're "tying anything to a criminal enterprise", otherwise they wouldn't have it there in the first place. See? Your invalid argument works both ways! Funny that.
        
        I find that very hard to believe. Counterfeiting has been illegal for a very long time, and those who sell goods on these types of websites know full well that they are doing something wrong. Anyone running a forum in connection with such a site would be a fool to think that they suddenly legitimize the site's existence in the eyes of the law.
        
        And in any event, the opinion of the people running the site as to the legality of their actions is of no moment to the justice system. Believing that you are innocent does not make it so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why? Why must a hearing be held before the site is seized? Why allow for the opportunity for the goodwill of a law-abiding citizen or entity be damaged continually as we wait to have a hearing?
        
        Amazing. What quantifiable harm is being hurt from a few days to a month with the trademark or material being displayed before it's seized? Loss of revenue? To whom? And what if the domain is that of a law abiding citizen that hasn't done any harm and doesn't know what's going on? Don't you think all of that would be ironed out before ICE takes up to a year and a half for proceedings to forfeit the domain?
        
        Why not prevent irreparable harm from being caused to the aggrieved entity before having a hearing on the merits?
        Because by the very logic professed in this sentence, you're assuming guilt before innocence. The domain has the right to face its accuser and answer the charges presented.
        
        Whatever "speech" being provided on these sites was commercial speech, which is subject to less protection than non-commercial speech. If these sites were selling counterfeit goods (and I have no reason to believe that they were not), then whatever speech existed on these sites was affiliated with the selling of counterfeit goods.
        
        Again, this is an assumption. You don't know and it's not like anyone can peer review the site in regards to legality.
        
        I find that very hard to believe. Counterfeiting has been illegal for a very long time, and those who sell goods on these types of websites know full well that they are doing something wrong.
        
        Your argument makes no sense. How does one know about the illegality of counterfeit goods if they possibly put up the fact that they're selling products at cheaper rates? What if the goods are official without a logo representing the NFL? You don't know that. All you know is that the NFL wanted these seized for being competitors to their product and the ICE bent over backwards to oblige them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Amazing. What quantifiable harm is being hurt from a few days to a month with the trademark or material being displayed before it's seized? Loss of revenue? To whom?
        
        That's the thing: it's not quantifiable. Damage to a business's reputation is very difficult to quantify, much less remedy, and it's certainly difficult to remedy by the mere provision of money damages, which likely will not be paid by the infringing domain owner.
        
        And it's not just displaying a trademark; its the selling of counterfeit goods. If those goods are of lesser quality, it's a reflection of the business run by the trademark owner. Perhaps you should run a business to learn how damaging such sales can be to your business's reputation.
        
        And what if the domain is that of a law abiding citizen that hasn't done any harm and doesn't know what's going on? Don't you think all of that would be ironed out before ICE takes up to a year and a half for proceedings to forfeit the domain?
        
        Then it should not have been seized in the first place. But that's why we have the procedure of getting a judge-issued warrant. If a judge does not see probable cause, then it doesn't issue the warrant. So, short of ICE out and out lying about what the site contained, it is highly unlikely that a judge would issue the seizure warrant without there being some actual probable cause.
        
        So what evidence do you have that these domain owners were law-abiding citizens?
        
        Again, this is an assumption. You don't know and it's not like anyone can peer review the site in regards to legality.
        
        You are incredible. Fine, prove me wrong. Give me some evidence that these sites were not selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
        
        Your argument makes no sense. How does one know about the illegality of counterfeit goods if they possibly put up the fact that they're selling products at cheaper rates? What if the goods are official without a logo representing the NFL? You don't know that. All you know is that the NFL wanted these seized for being competitors to their product and the ICE bent over backwards to oblige them.
        
        I know that the NFL is the only party that can determine whether a particular seller is authorized to sell first hand goods bearing the NFL mark, so I can reasonably assume that the NFL did its homework prior to asking ICE to shut these websites down. But if you have some evidence indicating otherwise, you're free to present it. Otherwise, you have little basis questioning the legitimacy of these seizures.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 8:04pm
        
        Too much unquantifiable...
        " Damage to a business's reputation is very difficult to quantify, much less remedy, and it's certainly difficult to remedy by the mere provision of money damages, which likely will not be paid by the infringing domain owner"
        
        The GAO piracy report says that people aren't fooled by counterfeit products. Also, I'm pretty sure if the business that is being "infringed" can't figure out the harm, then the government can't do it for them. I can't tell if you're actually looking at the prices between the official jerseys and the unofficial ones. Something else occurred to me... What happens if the people selling this paraphernalia were trying to sell official products at the wholesale price? What if they got this through third parties? Looking at the qualifications on the NFL website, it seems abundantly clear they only want to deal with licensors that already have previous experience, effectively splitting the market of vendors of products.
        
        "But that's why we have the procedure of getting a judge-issued warrant."
        
        That's laughable and erroneous. ICE is making a determination based on evidence from one side of the argument as has been explained. The court order is gained and they proceed without the holder having any type of say in the matter. The better solution maintains that before the government can do anything, they make their claims known in a court before a judge with the domain holder answering those claims. Seeing the "evidence" that ICE has used before, they know nothing about how domains function, merely echoing what other companies have said without any regard to due process.
        
        Give me some evidence that these sites were not selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
        
        You're incredible. Fine. Prove me wrong. Give me evidence that these sites were selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
        
        (You see how this works? There's no evidence either way, and the sites are locked up behind a server hack of ICE's. So unless you can show one way or another, this back and forth can continue ad nauseum)
        
        I know that the NFL is the only party that can determine whether a particular seller is authorized to sell first hand goods bearing the NFL mark, so I can reasonably assume that the NFL did its homework prior to asking ICE to shut these websites down.
        
        They've been wrong before. On various occasions. But I guess fumbling over takedowns isn't considered in this day and age is it?
        
        But if you have some evidence indicating otherwise, you're free to present it. Otherwise, you have little basis questioning the legitimacy of these seizures
        
        I can question the NFL as well as ICE since their past experiences show that they are censoring sites for supposed economic gain. I've done so with this post as well as one above focused on ICE's lack of due process in other issues relating to their job. If you believe them wholesale, feel free. But it's that much harder to take you seriously when evidence of their past behavior isn't very positive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only death is irreparable, even bankruptcy can be repaired, I mean look at the automakers and banks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is why the MAFIAA needs new laws because their lawyers can't figure it out how to use the ones they got and get their asses handed to them in court everytime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        negatron, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wouldn't a judge be more qualified to make that determination,rather than a rank and file ICE agent?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wouldn't a judge be more qualified to make that determination,rather than a rank and file ICE agent?
        
        Who do you think signed those search and seizure warrants?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Without any domain being at that hearing... Yeah.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Without any domain being at that hearing... Yeah.
        
        How many instances do you know of where an alleged criminal is given the right to protest an arrest warrant before it issues?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        An accurate point that falls on deaf ears.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, of course they opened the website in a browser. But maybe the website owners have some defense we don't know about. Maybe they have a contract from the NFL that they bought from someone else. Maybe the Nigerian Futball League predates the NFL by several years and used the same logo. They should at least get a chance to present their side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, of course they opened the website in a browser. But maybe the website owners have some defense we don't know about. Maybe they have a contract from the NFL that they bought from someone else. Maybe the Nigerian Futball League predates the NFL by several years and used the same logo. They should at least get a chance to present their side.
        
        And they will, if they ask for a hearing. But every day that expires waiting for the website owners to seek a hearing is a day the NFL is being harmed by someone arguably misappropriating their trademark rights and goodwill. So it makes more sense to vindicate the rights of the trademark owner at a preliminary stage (i.e., seize the domain) so that no future harm comes to the trademark owner. At this point, if the website owner has a colorable defense, then the website owner has a greater incentive to raise it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But every day that expires waiting for the website owners to seek a hearing is a day the NFL is being harmed by someone arguably misappropriating their trademark rights and goodwill."
        
        And every day that expires waiting to get the domain name back, the owners suffer irreparable harm, too. I hope you recognize that. That's why the hearing should come first where possible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And they will, if they ask for a hearing."
        
        Who gives a shit about due process and the presumption of innocence when there's a TM holders rights to consider! We should expand this example to every crime. I mean every day we don't arrest and incarcerate those suspected of murder or theft or fraud or any other crime is another day they could be committing more crime! We need to lock up everyone we're even suspicious of because what if we're right? I'm sure if they're not actually guilty in the end (haha, fat chance) things will all sort themselves out at some future trial that we don't even have to have.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Who gives a shit about due process and the presumption of innocence when there's a TM holders rights to consider! We should expand this example to every crime. I mean every day we don't arrest and incarcerate those suspected of murder or theft or fraud or any other crime is another day they could be committing more crime! We need to lock up everyone we're even suspicious of because what if we're right? I'm sure if they're not actually guilty in the end (haha, fat chance) things will all sort themselves out at some future trial that we don't even have to have.
        
        Your hyperbole is unwarranted. ICE had warrants to seize these domain names. Such warrants require probable cause to obtain, and that typically means proving that the seized property is likely the subject of an illegal act. Mere suspicion does not get one to probable cause.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Another AC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Still ignoring the fact that site owners have TRIED VERY HARD to get hearings and were either intimidated with threats of expensive litigation until they gave up or were completely ignored altogether...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Still ignoring the fact that site owners have TRIED VERY HARD to get hearings and were either intimidated with threats of expensive litigation until they gave up or were completely ignored altogether...
        
        Did they? You have evidence of this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See Here:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110521/15125114374/why-we-havent-seen-any-lawsuits-filed-a gainst-government-over-domain-seizures-justice-department-stalling.shtml
        
        And here:
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110613/12021514673/rojadirecta-sues-us-government-homeland -security-ice-over-domain-seizure.shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, here's a timeline of events for Ninjavideo and the problems of the domain seizures in general.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So there is only one possible party that can be harmed and that is the owner of the trademark.
        
        All business are honest not one business ever tried to harm another right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        MrWilson, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "the NFL is being harmed by someone arguably misappropriating their trademark rights and goodwill."
        
        Emphasis mine. If it's arguable that someone is misappropriating their trademark rights, then they should argue that - in a court of law, where the defendants are provided due process and the opportunity to defend themselves.
        
        This is the equivalent of arresting someone and throwing them in jail and saying that they only get a trial if they ask for one, as if it's not a right or a requirement of the justice system to try defendants before sentencing them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You think they did it without even opening the website in a browser? Are you fucking serious?"
        
        Considering ICE has raided homes of the wrong people on several occasions do you really want to hang your hat on their strong investigative skills?
        
        Trademarks are an Immigration Issue? A Customs issue? A legal issue that should be pursued in court?
        
        Notice your use of the word perhaps, this is a word that means your unsure of the facts and want to leave an out.
        
        I can create a website called CokeSucks.com and make real looking products that I "sell" there. I may never take a dime, or deliver a product but one would expect that it should take more than Coke saying shut me down before they seize my domain. The problem is... it doesn't.
        
        I notice you avoided backing your speech for an illegal act statement, I'm guessing you figured out you were wrong?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Some Other AC (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      OK so by your logic, all websites devoted to racial prejudice are illegal if there are statements about proposed/supposed actions that are illegal? If on the site there are numerous comments similar to: "Let's beat/burn/torture all "pick your ethnicity/race" then the site should be seized and taken down even if there is no actual proof of illegal action?
      I loathe racial/ethnic prejudice. It is a haven for the weak minded. However, free speech is free speech. I may not like it or its content, but it is allowed under our Constitution. When and if there is proof that the speech led to and incited criminal action, then it can be viewed as criminal. But, remember, this requires multiple points and pieces of evidence before the label "criminal" can be applied.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, by your logic, stopping "bad speech", is more important than stopping "bad actions"?
      
      If the ICE action was part of a combined attack that takes down both the sites and the business, I'd say "Good job!". But what they did, well...it just looks like censorship. Even if the "speech" they censored was the "bad" kind of "speech".
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - meddle (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's not illegal until it is proven to be illegal. You need a court for that. The problem here is not that the domain was seized, it's that there was no due process.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Gadaphi tried that line, look where it got him.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    Excellent point, and I think that any seizure where the owner is known should require a hearing right after. Either charge someone with a crime, or prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the material was used in the commission of a crime. Due process demands it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:02am
  
  Re:
  Because ICE is supposed to be watching out for terrorists, not copyright violations...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave Zan, 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Because ICE is supposed to be watching out for terrorists, not copyright violations..."
    
    http://www.ice.gov/about/overview/
    
    "ICE's primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration."
    
    "The plan details four key priorities for the agency's future:
    - Prevent terrorism and enhance security
    - Protect the borders against illicit trade, travel and finance
    - Protect the borders through smart and tough interior immigration enforcement
    - Construct an efficient, effective agency"
    
    At least, that's what it says on their web site. *shrug*
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So why ICE let the banks receive and operate with the narcodollars coming from all around the world?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:19am
  
  Re:
  http://www.zeropaid.com/news/96391/how-to-watch-ncaa-college-football-online-for-free/
  
  http://www .zeropaid.com/news/9122/how_to_watch_nfl_games_for_free/
  
  Meanwhile, people keep finding ways to watch it anyways.
  
  Which is sad really, it empowers the NFL thugs to keep doing the same crap, but I hope people will just realize it that they can do better than to watch a game, which is kind of jerking off with somebody's else dick.
  
  There are tones of good online football games that are rapidly approaching photorealistic results, and with 3D coming maybe people can play instead of watching others do things.
  
  Even you couch potato would be able to do it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:22am
  
  Re:
  Now here is another idea, one guy could set up one encrypted stream to all his friends and give the url to all of them so they could watch.
  
  VLC can do it, it was build to stream things for universities, that needed a tool to stream their talks and classes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:25am

Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
Doesn't grab me, at least, but then I'm not sympathetic to the sport, and of course the way ICE frames it is designed to rouse the pro-NFL rabble. But it's still not "censorship" to "seize" a domain name. As someone has surely mentioned, getting a domain name is a contractual agreement. I don't like the whole "contract" trick in itself, and that's really where the argument should be. -- Oh, and doing away with the NFL's legalized monopoly. Should be NO copyright or trademark allowed for sports teams, nor any gov't funding, and so on, but I'd stop just short of outlawing "professional" sports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:36am
  
  Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
  Ahem:
  First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
    One of my favorite quotes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
    One of my favorite quotes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Charles (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
    One of my favorite quotes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Killer_Tofu (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
      You don't say?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
        He does say! Twice!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        heyidiot (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:51pm
        
        You can say that...
        ...again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:24pm
    
    Re: Re: Your "censorship" frame for this just doesn't work.
    Charles loves that damned quote!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:43am

The group quietly seized 20 more domain names over the weekend, and it looks like most involved sites selling unauthorized NFL jerseys.

Good. I'm not sure what the adjective "quietly" is supposed to mean though. How much noise does a seizure warrant make?

Of course, ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up, which is why it gets away with its out-and-out censorship.

On what basis do you make the claim that "ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up"? Is that just your unsubstantiated opinion? I.e., is it completely faith-based FUD? (I'll take your silence as a "yes.")

In the meantime, you would think that ICE would have more important things to do than be the personal private police force of various entertainment industry entities.

Yeah, enforcing the laws is stupid. "Law enforcement" should find something else to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  "Yeah, enforcing the laws is stupid. "Law enforcement" should find something else to do."
  
  What law are they enforcing?
  
  I can tell you which one they aren't, Due Process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    What law are they enforcing?
    
    They're enforcing the laws that let them seize and forfeit property used to commit criminal trademark infringement, apparently.
    
    I can tell you which one they aren't, Due Process.
    
    If these seizure warrants are issued by the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the domain names are registered in another state, say California, then you may be right. Maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but I think it does likely violate Due Process for New York to claim jurisdiction over property that exists in other states. So, yeah, you may be right about that.
    
    But as far and the general idea of the Due Process requirement of notice and hearing, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of seizures and forfeitures in general. So on that note, I'd disagree with you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Someantimalwareguy (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ...But as far and the general idea of the Due Process requirement of notice and hearing, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of seizures and forfeitures in general. So on that note, I'd disagree with you.
      This, with other misguided decisions, SCOTUS has introduced an intolerable level of corruption into our system through unintended consequences and human nature.
      
      So now money constitutes speech and LE can take anything they like when the conditions are "just so" (driving with a non-white color seems to be common in some states...).
      
      The pressure is building and an adjustment is almost certain to take place. It will be interesting to see where the hammer eventually falls with the probability it will not be on those the current set up is designed to suppress...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I can't get into that doom-and-gloom parade of horribles. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for the revolution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Someantimalwareguy (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL - no one said anything about a revolution and sometimes the best changes come from hard work on the inside of the system.
        
        As happens very frequently in our quaint republic, what is fashionable today gets kicked to the curb tomorrow. I think you should be paying close attention to the OWS movement and start reading between the lines...
        
        Though amorphous and confusing at times, the movement proves that there is an increasing level of dissatisfaction with, and anger towards the powers that be; not only here in the US, but world-wide.
        
        The conservatives jumped the shark and now will reap what they have sown as did the Democrats in previous years. Our society is cyclical and those who fail to pay attention to the traffic often get run over...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "But as far and the general idea of the Due Process requirement of notice and hearing, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of seizures and forfeitures in general."
      
      The Supreme Court can rule whatever they like. If the government is seizing your property without charging you or even notifying you, that can't be considered due process by a reasonable person.
      
      In the case of something like a drug bust, you don't get to keep the drugs while the government makes its case, because you'd be able to destroy, hide, or tamper with the evidence. That doesn't apply with domain names - since the underlying servers are not seized, you can still change what's on the computers, and the government can archive everything that was up anyway.
      
      A presumption of innocence should apply unless there is a very good reason for it not to apply. Heck, even accused felons normally get bail.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Supreme Court can rule whatever they like. If the government is seizing your property without charging you or even notifying you, that can't be considered due process by a reasonable person.
        
        The government has been giving notice of the seizures on the forfeiture.gov website. That comports with the statutory requirement and the Constitution.
        
        In the case of something like a drug bust, you don't get to keep the drugs while the government makes its case, because you'd be able to destroy, hide, or tamper with the evidence. That doesn't apply with domain names - since the underlying servers are not seized, you can still change what's on the computers, and the government can archive everything that was up anyway.
        
        Illegal drugs are contraband and you wouldn't get to keep them for that reason alone. The government here is seizing the domain names for the purpose of eventual forfeiture. They're keeping them (and not giving them back to the owner pending forfeiture) because they will be used to commit further crimes. The statute lists a few reasons that the government can use to hang onto seized property. Destruction of evidence is one, contraband is another, but so is prevention of further crime using the property.
        
        A presumption of innocence should apply unless there is a very good reason for it not to apply. Heck, even accused felons normally get bail.
        
        These is and was a presumption of innocence. A magistrate judge found that there was probable cause and issued a seizure warrant. That doesn't mean the presumption isn't being applied. Felons may get bail, but if their criminal tools were seized, the government would hang onto to those most likely.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Alright then...
        
        What did they charge the domains with? How is the domain a criminal tool when no one's been charged beforehand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What did they charge the domains with? How is the domain a criminal tool when no one's been charged beforehand?
        
        How do you propose they charge a Chinese national living in China for a violation of U.S. law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I want to see they charge foreigners for crimes and see how many Americans business people will be able to travel after that to other countries.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "They're enforcing the laws that let them seize and forfeit property used to commit criminal trademark infringement, apparently."
      
      There is no property being seized, definitely nothing that is used to commit a crime.
      
      There is more to Due Process then just a warrant or a notification. There's the entire concept of a trial (hell, is there even a warrant). You point it out, "Requirement of notice and hearing". There is no hearing, there is no chance to defend yourself, there's nothing. You don't have the chance to face your accuser, you don't even have a chance to be innocent until proven guilty. You're just guilty.
      
      And to top that all off, (assuming they were violating trademark) the crime wasn't stopped, the crime is still going on.
      
      And to add another cherry on top, VeriSign is a victim of a crime and they don't even know it. They are being forced/intimidated into not being able to do business with those names.
      
      I might even say that not only is ICE violating due process, violating human rights, but also defrauding the US. They spend all this money to do absolutely nothing productive. They're snake oil salesmen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  "Good. I'm not sure what the adjective "quietly" is supposed to mean though. How much noise does a seizure warrant make?"
  
  I think "quietly" in this case means no press releases.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think "quietly" in this case means no press releases.
    
    That makes sense. If history repeats, they'll issue a press release soon. I hope they give this one a cool name.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Atkray (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Quietly... as opposed to announcing the seizures from NFL (or Disney) headquarters.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Give 'em time. I'm sure Mickey Mouse is on the jet to NFL headquarters now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  quietly - without fanfare.
  
  When the FBI stops a terror plot that is a threat to the community they hold press conferences. (lets not rehash that the FBI is usually the catalyst for putting these plots into motion.)
  
  ICE has been facing pushback for violating peoples rights to settle trademark/copyright/"rogue" website issues for corporations. They seized foriegn domains that were ruled legal by local law, lied about the owners trying to get the domains returned, and dragged out their day in court while they tried to build a case where they didn't look like idiots.
  
  Aww FUD... why don't you review the case there ICE is having to explain why they feel they can ignore the law they are charged with upholding. There are several posts here on the website, but your reality filter might have kept you from understanding. I could read them for you but there are not enough pictures to hold your attention.
  
  Law enforcement should follow the law, not make up their own idea of what the law says and violate other laws to make corporations happy.
  
  5/10 - If your gonna troll with the big boys you need more broad brush.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's worse as I've seen and detailed here. ICE has been quite busy in destroying people's legal rights.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    As usual, I couldn't read your whole post (too many notes, Wolfie!), but I got the gist. ICE obviously doesn't think they're ignoring the law. In fact, their actions indicate the opposite--why else would they keep doing it? Mike is pretending that ICE is doing this "quietly" because (in his mind) they're unsure of the legality of it and are trying to get away with it on the sly. That doesn't make any sense to me, and frankly, taking one look at the banner they post on the seized sites tells me that being pretty open and vocal about what they've done. See for yourself: http://beawholesaler.com/
    
    Yeah, that's real quiet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As compared to their first domains where they had a press conference at Disney headquarters? Yeah, these are quiet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't think there's been one batch of seizures yet without a press release. Give it time. But I certainly don't think the government is hiding anything. If they were trying to hide this, they wouldn't post the banner on the seized domain. The domain would just throw an error message or something like that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't type "press release". I typed "press conference". Such as this right here. They haven't talked about the seizures in great length recently. Before, during the July and February takedowns, they were saying "mission accomplished". Now, people find out through their website.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "why else would they keep doing it?"
      
      Well incompetence is always an option. There's also the option that they do think they're ignoring the law but they think they can get away with it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:21am
  
  Re:
  "On what basis do you make the claim that "ICE is relying on the fact that no one behind these sites is likely to speak up"? Is that just your unsubstantiated opinion? I.e., is it completely faith-based FUD? (I'll take your silence as a "yes.")"
  
  The basis of the existing cases against them that contest the legality of their actions that they haven't managed to muster a reasonable defense for? I mean either you're right and they honestly can't tell that their legal reasoning just does not hold, i.e. they're completely incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to seize anything, or you're wrong and they're out and out lying about the legality and shouldn't be allowed to seize anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 9:58am

So guy with illegal shirts opens new domain. ICE FAIL. Glad my taxes are paying for them to not protect the country but block websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iamtheky (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:08am

If I sell counterfeit jerseys. And ICE comes and takes my sign that says "GetYourCounterfeitJerseyHere.com". I would not feel wronged, I would feel that I got off easy. They didnt take my product or my store, just my sign. It's more akin to government sponsored vandalism than it is police work.

That aside, it is only about the shield. These are clearly not sites merely discussing or furthering the discussion of official NFL shielded jerseys. Nor is the NFL supplying these folks with pre-release jerseys to increase the hype, and then sending the dogs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:53am
  
  Re:
  "If I sell counterfeit jerseys"
  
  ...and if you don't, but you get lumped in with those who do because ICE were overzealous? Would you still be OK with that, being branded a criminal and having your property taken?
  
  Remember, the whole problem being criticised is that nobody's even been charged with criminal wrongdoing before they have their property removed, let alone having had a chance to defend themselves against such claims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 25 Oct 2011 @ 10:20am

Corporatocracy
This is just more proof that America is not a Democracy, but a Corporatocracy. They are they to serve Corporations, not the citizens of the United States.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:51am

20 sites but how many of them are registered to the same group of people? Alot of them seem to be variants on cheapjersey which I bet are all registered to the same people.

I don't have any sympathy for counterfit merchandise peddlers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Oct 2011 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re:
  I don't want counterfeit stuff out there either. I do recognize that the NFL has trademark rights. I just don't like the methods used here. If a crime was committed, then charge someone with a crime. If you can't do that, then don't use other methods to harass the person you aren't charging with anything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't want counterfeit stuff out there either. I do recognize that the NFL has trademark rights. I just don't like the methods used here. If a crime was committed, then charge someone with a crime. If you can't do that, then don't use other methods to harass the person you aren't charging with anything.
    
    Do a "whois" on the registrants of the seized websites. You'll notice that many of them are Chinese nationals. It's pretty difficult to charge someone with a crime when said person cannot be arrested in the United States. However, just because the registrant can't be arrested does not mean that their website, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cannot be seized for illegal activity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 3:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "However, just because the registrant can't be arrested does not mean that their website, which is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cannot be seized for illegal activity."
      
      And the US has jurisdiction over teh interwebs why?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Willton, 25 Oct 2011 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the US has jurisdiction over teh interwebs why?
        
        Because the registering agencies in these cases (i.e., Go Daddy, Network Solutions) are based in the United States.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Now please point out where there was a legal finding of illegal activity.
        And then we have the problem, other than a corporation claiming rights and demanding action there was no due process. And while they keep trying to pass laws letting corporations be the arbitrator of due process none of them have passed yet.
        
        Why is ICE not seizing the assets of Go Daddy or Network Solutions for providing the connectivity to these evil illegal operations? How many do they have to take down until the corporations can just declare that they are supporting counterfeiters and thieves?
        
        The jurisdiction of the US includes a set of laws, and acting outside of those laws should be illegal. Otherwise you make a mockery of the law, like what ICE did when they first started and gave the first press conference from the Disney offices.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 26 Oct 2011 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Now please point out where there was a legal finding of illegal activity."
        
        Good luck on that one. Since the judges signed off, that makes it all legal, even though law enforcement has been prone to mistakes in the past. Observe
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see. Warrants should not issue if the one requesting a warrant has ever made a mistake.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Willton, 26 Oct 2011 @ 12:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Good luck on that one. Since the judges signed off, that makes it all legal, even though law enforcement has been prone to mistakes in the past.
        
        An imperfect system is better than no system at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave Zan, 25 Oct 2011 @ 5:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And to perhaps help be clear on that statement, U.S. authorities aren't exactly claiming jurisdiction over the entire Internet. I suppose that won't stop some folks from believing otherwise.
        
        Rather, they're claiming jurisdiction because those extensions are managed in hardware in U.S. soil. I also suppose they can move their hardware, assets, etc. outside, but that'll be costly, too.
        
        In any case, those domain registrants likewise have a chance of disputing those seizures. If they can't fly over, surely they can...what, insist on a teleconference perhaps? Just tossing that idea if it can apply.
        
        Until U.S. authorities or those domain owners perhaps provide more demonstrable facts, unfortunately the only thing we know is those domain names are seized due to allegedly selling counterfeit material.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave Zan, 25 Oct 2011 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why is ICE not seizing the assets of Go Daddy or Network Solutions for providing the connectivity to these evil illegal operations? How many do they have to take down until the corporations can just declare that they are supporting counterfeiters and thieves?
        
        Probably because ICE can't prove those entities are not "complicit" with those domain owners other than passively offering services open to just about anybody. Assuming all those seized are .com domain names, ICE likely went to the main, actual source which is the VeriSign COM/NET Registry itself.
        
        I'm just speculating as one who's worked with a domain registrar for at least four years before I moved on. If I were to ask my ex-registrar peers, though, I'm pretty sure I'm guessing right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Oct 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In answer to your question, the "property" in these cases falls under US jurisdiction, even if the website principals do not (e.g., they are located in a foreign country).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WEC, 25 Oct 2011 @ 11:59am

ICE != Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICE = Internet Censorship Enforcement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Tiger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re:
  Oh.
  
  Well there goes the better half of my argument.
  
  Bad half you ask? Fuck the law! Fuck IcE. Fuck SCOTUS. Fuck drug dealers. Fuck jersey stealers! Fuck the UcA!
  
  and fuck all you hoes making a living off the backs of the living and fuck all you mother fuckers manifesting your beliefs into "$" the swastika of today. Fascist pigs!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Tiger (profile), 25 Oct 2011 @ 2:15pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And yes! The little blue pill is no longer covered by my policy so you're stuck with it you little blue fucks. (please note the correct usage of "you" and "are" in the conjunction "you're" - it's not fucking "YOUR" - get it right or don't write because it's hard to read.. right?)
    
    I think I'm ok now. Thanks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Voter, 26 Oct 2011 @ 1:31am

The job of ICE is to evict illegals and toxic Chinese goods.

Instead ICE is a bully boy for the media cartel and the public money guzzeling, anti-American monopoly sports cartel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JackR, 26 Oct 2011 @ 9:54am

1984,,,,, Big brother!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave Zan, 27 Oct 2011 @ 2:33am

A tad late, but two things for people to read up on if they still feel like it: In Rem, and the Fourth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
packers, 22 Nov 2011 @ 11:00pm

http://www.baltimoreravensjerseysstore.com
New York Jets coach Rex Ryan was fined $75,000 by the NFL official for his "New York echo".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming NFL Games, 17 May 2012 @ 4:00am

Why now
Not sure why this is going on. Just let it all go and legalize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]