Feds Ignore First Amendment, Supreme Court Precedent In Seizing Domain Of Social Network For Sex Workers
from the based-on-what? dept
The disturbing trend of the federal government seizing domain names without regard to the First Amendment continues. The FBI, along with the IRS, apparently seized a number of websites associated with MyRedbook.com, and arrested the operator of the site. The FBI notes that the site, which was a social network and resource for sex workers, included advertising that "facilitated prostitution." It also accused the site of money laundering.However, as the EFF is noting beyond the question of whether or not the FBI should even be in the business of targeting sex workers, there are serious First Amendment questions around such a seizure of a website:
As we've discussed many times in the past with regards to the government's seizure of websites, these appear to be classic cases of prior restraint -- the effective equivalent of the government rushing in and smashing the printing presses for a publication. In Ft. Wayne Books. v. Indiana, the Supreme Court is quite clear that the government can't just go in and seize protected speech based on related illegal activity, especially without first holding an adversarial hearing to explore the First Amendment implications. The court noted:MyRedBook and its companion sites served a large and diverse community of sex workers. The sites functioned as social media platforms, with discussion boards for users in topics from politics to financial tips. It also served as a resource guide with information ranging from explanations of the law as it pertains to sex work to health information. For archived versions of the forums sex workers no longer have access to, click here.
These sites were essential tools for First Amendment protected speech and association—especially important for a community that values its privacy for a variety of legitimate reasons. This platform has been pulled out from under the feet of this community.
...our cases firmly hold that mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation.The court is quite clear that the only purpose for which seizure is appropriate in such circumstances is to procure a single copy for the sake of evidence, but not to remove protected speech entirely from circulation. While that case was about RICO claims of racketeering, and this case is about money laundering and prostitution, the same principles should and do apply:
At least where the RICO violation claimed is a pattern of racketeering that can be established only by rebutting the presumption that expressive materials are protected by the First Amendment, ... that presumption is not rebutted until the claimed justification for seizing books or other publications is properly established in an adversary proceeding. Here, literally thousands of books and films were carried away and taken out of circulation by the pretrial order.... Yet it remained to be proved whether the seizure was actually warranted under the Indiana CRRA and RICO statutes. If we are to maintain the regard for First Amendment values expressed in our prior decisions dealing with interrupting the flow of expressive materials, the judgment of the Indiana Court must be reversed.I can't see any legitimate way that the DOJ/FBI can defend this seizure under such a standard. It clearly took down significant aspects of protected speech based merely on the assertion of related criminal activity, without any sort of adversarial hearing. The First Amendment, and the specific statements of the Supreme Court in this case, clearly forbid such actions.
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: domain seizures, fbi, first amendment, free speech, irs, money laundering, prostitution, sex workers, social network, supreme court
Companies: myredbook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dare I suggest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's been a while since the Executive last cared about the Constitution or judicial precedent...
Instead of doing this the Govt should be working to legalize this kind of work and grant the girls (and guys) protection and all the rights any other worker has.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gotta love it when they don't even bother hiding their moral policing. Lewd physical descriptions, oh noes!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'Most recently, JPMorgan made a so-called deferred prosecution agreement with U.S. Attorney Office for the Southern District of New York which will suspend a criminal indictment for JPMorgan’s violation of the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act, a federal statute that requires financial institutions to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities.'
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/justice-department-tells-banks-money-laundering-doesn t-pay.html/?a=viewall
So JPMorgan Chase gets a "deferred prosecution agreement" and MyRedbook.com gets their domain name seized without a trial.
Crime doesn't pay, unless you're a bankster!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Dare I suggest...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A nation of laws
After all, this nation was even founded in bloody rebellion against our lawful king.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe it is a crime syndicate running the country instead of a totalitarian police state. I don't see any difference. The laws do not apply to the people running the country. When more people realize that, these will seem like the golden years for how calm and ordered society used to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except that Goofy can shoot you for holding a Wii controller and Mayor McCheese can have the Seven Dwarfs raid your house just for making fun of him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fed and Sex
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tyranny amongst us
The irony of it is that they’ve now exposed many folks in the industry, providers and clients alike, to much more danger, fraud and chaos; people will die because of this government action, that is assured.
One thankful aspect of the current Executive Branch is that the country is now finally realizing how totally screwed up we’ve become. We are truly living in a post constitutional republic (if you can even call it a republic). Can you say REVOLUTION!
Thomas Jefferson knew this would happen at some point in time; that time is now. Carpe diem!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thanks, Obama!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alas, if the Necessary and Proper and Interstate Commerce Clauses were interpreted as intended, the Feds wouldn't be able to stick their noses in this case to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ercell
7 hours ago · Like
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glad they shut it down
[ link to this | view in thread ]