But it does apply to third parties that offer a service which in this case is all of those websites.
Not if that service is infringement. Nor does Section 230 protect any criminal activity:
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
In order for there to be an actual conspiracy (as opposed to the fantasy kind you're talking about), the conspirators have to actually know each other and affirmatively enter into an agreement to commit a criminal act.
In the case of one website linking to another, the person doing the linking hasn't even met the people running the other site, let alone affirmatively agreed enter into criminal activity with them.
Bottom line: conspiracy = fail
We don't know what facts the investigations turned up, so your claim that there can't possibly be a conspiracy is pure conjecture.
Then what exactly are they if ICE is allowed to continue to treat them as if they are criminals prior to a conviction?
They are treating them like they would treat any other person against whom they have evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Instruments of crime can be seized and forfeited in a civil forfeiture proceeding.
Mr. Levy, (if you're reading this) I'm curious about this statement:
"Judges should demand some evidence of wrongdoing before they allow discovery to identify the alleged wrongdoers . . . ."
Is there not prima facie evidence in these cases that when balanced against a defendant's right to privacy would allow production of their identifying information to help redress the plaintiff's injuries?
If you've got a brief of your position, or if you've got time to explain, I'd love to hear your arguments against production.
I know you're kidding, but for those who don't know, they aren't the same person. This Evan Stone is a recent law school grad who set up an AWESOME website: http://www.wolfe-stone.com/
If there is probable cause since they didn't even prove that there was cause to do it instead relying on flimsy assumptions they should never have been granted in the first place.
Remember that distribution of material is not enough to claim any wrong doing.
What else do they got there?
The willful part is EASILY proved. Do you think these sporting events are rebroadcast on accident? LOL!
Good grief, Karl. Like I told Jay, "there's a reason you need a license to practice law." It cracks me that speak with such authority about things you know nothing about. Your understanding of things is so poor and so wrong, that it actually causes me physical pain to read your post.
Like I told Mike above:
The HUGE POINT that you consistently seem to gloss right over without any explanation is the fact that when the primary thing being seized is not potentially protected speech, the First Amendment does not bar its seizure absent a prior adversary hearing.
As we've discussed, criminal accomplice theory requires a much higher bar than anything shown in the affidavit.
Red herring. The only thing the affidavit need show is that the property is used to facilitate crime. For the seizure it matters not who is the principal criminal and who is the accomplice or the conspirator.
If I supply a bank robber with a car to use in the robbery, that car can be seized. It doesn't matter that it's my car, not the robber's, nor does it matter that I'm only an accomplice and/or a conspirator. The car gets seized because it's property used to commit the crime.
And what crime has ANY of the people that lost their domain names been charged with?
Irrelevant. The property can be seized and forfeited without the criminals ever being charged. That's how it works. Should it work that way? Perhaps not. But that is how it works.
The site (and the actual domain name itself too) it points to is NOT being used to commit a crime since no crime has been charged nor prosecuted with a finding of guilt, either civil nor criminal, nor even administrative law.
Snore. It's being seized because a judge signed off on a warrant based on probable cause that the domain name was being used to facilitate crime.
It's not that hard to figure out. If the servers were located in the U.S., you could seize those. Same goes for the criminal's computers. The internet as a whole would not be seized, nor would the browser company.
Think about this one. Say I run a child porn server from my house on my home computer. Say too that I also use the same computer to publish my latest novel on the internet. Do you think the cops can get a warrant ex parte and kick in my front door to seize that computer? Or do you think that since I use that computer to also serve my novel, that changes the calculus, and there has to be an adversary hearing before the seizure can take place?
According to you, once the novel is also on the server, there has to be a prior adversary hearing. But that's just not how it works. If it worked like that, every criminal would just put some sort of protected speech on every instrument of their crime. That way there would be a prior adversary hearing, and the criminal would never be surprised by a warrant. That would do wonders for the criminals, but that's just not what happens.
The HUGE POINT that you consistently seem to gloss right over without any explanation is the fact that when the primary thing being seized is not potentially protected speech, the First Amendment does not bar its seizure absent a prior adversary hearing. You're a smart guy, Mike, but it baffles me that you don't grasp the difference between the target of the seizure being the potentially protected speech or being something else. How is it that you can't comprehend the meaning of "incidental"? C'mon, you have to be pretending, right? You can't be that dumb, can you?
So far none. I mean, you and some law school students have been screaming this, but the lawyers I've discussed this with -- including some of the most respected lawyers in the biz, all have noted that the seizures are almost certainly illegal.
But, we shall see once it gets to court.
Terry Hart is not a law student and you know it. Why must you lie to try and discredit people? Why don't your "most respected lawyers in the biz" stop by and give us their arguments? I'm sure we'd all rather hear it straight from them. If they can't stop by, why don't you tell us what their legal arguments are? Either of those would be more productive than you lying about Terry Hart and then proffering hearsay about how some mystery bunch of genius lawyers tells you you're right. I'd like to debate them. Surely they could school a lowly law student like me. Are they not up for it? You certainly aren't, and that's fine... I wouldn't last two seconds in a debate on economics with you. But what's their excuse?
Foreign-owned property used to commit crimes gets seized all the time. It's been that way since the founding of the nation. Are you guys just noticing this for the first time?
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Re: Re: Due diligence?
Not if that service is infringement. Nor does Section 230 protect any criminal activity:
47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1)
On the post: Homeland Security Tries And Fails To Explain Why Seized Domains Are Different From Google
Re: Due diligence?
Section 230 does not apply to copyright or trademark infringement.
On the post: Public Citizen & EFF Plan To Continue Pursuing Evan Stone Over Questionable Subpoenas
Re:
I'll give that and the Dendrite ruling a read. Thanks!
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In order for there to be an actual conspiracy (as opposed to the fantasy kind you're talking about), the conspirators have to actually know each other and affirmatively enter into an agreement to commit a criminal act.
In the case of one website linking to another, the person doing the linking hasn't even met the people running the other site, let alone affirmatively agreed enter into criminal activity with them.
Bottom line: conspiracy = fail
We don't know what facts the investigations turned up, so your claim that there can't possibly be a conspiracy is pure conjecture.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are treating them like they would treat any other person against whom they have evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Instruments of crime can be seized and forfeited in a civil forfeiture proceeding.
On the post: Public Citizen & EFF Plan To Continue Pursuing Evan Stone Over Questionable Subpoenas
"Judges should demand some evidence of wrongdoing before they allow discovery to identify the alleged wrongdoers . . . ."
Is there not prima facie evidence in these cases that when balanced against a defendant's right to privacy would allow production of their identifying information to help redress the plaintiff's injuries?
If you've got a brief of your position, or if you've got time to explain, I'd love to hear your arguments against production.
Thanks!
On the post: Public Citizen & EFF Plan To Continue Pursuing Evan Stone Over Questionable Subpoenas
Re: Re:
:)
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Try and keep up. Google "17 U.S.C. 506" and "18 U.S.C. 2319" and then get back to us.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember that distribution of material is not enough to claim any wrong doing.
What else do they got there?
The willful part is EASILY proved. Do you think these sporting events are rebroadcast on accident? LOL!
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: No, this is not legal.
Like I told Mike above:
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re:
Red herring. The only thing the affidavit need show is that the property is used to facilitate crime. For the seizure it matters not who is the principal criminal and who is the accomplice or the conspirator.
If I supply a bank robber with a car to use in the robbery, that car can be seized. It doesn't matter that it's my car, not the robber's, nor does it matter that I'm only an accomplice and/or a conspirator. The car gets seized because it's property used to commit the crime.
Basic stuff, Mike.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
Speak for yourself. :)
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. The property can be seized and forfeited without the criminals ever being charged. That's how it works. Should it work that way? Perhaps not. But that is how it works.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Snore. It's being seized because a judge signed off on a warrant based on probable cause that the domain name was being used to facilitate crime.
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where does it end?
It's not that hard to figure out. If the servers were located in the U.S., you could seize those. Same goes for the criminal's computers. The internet as a whole would not be seized, nor would the browser company.
Think about this one. Say I run a child porn server from my house on my home computer. Say too that I also use the same computer to publish my latest novel on the internet. Do you think the cops can get a warrant ex parte and kick in my front door to seize that computer? Or do you think that since I use that computer to also serve my novel, that changes the calculus, and there has to be an adversary hearing before the seizure can take place?
According to you, once the novel is also on the server, there has to be a prior adversary hearing. But that's just not how it works. If it worked like that, every criminal would just put some sort of protected speech on every instrument of their crime. That way there would be a prior adversary hearing, and the criminal would never be surprised by a warrant. That would do wonders for the criminals, but that's just not what happens.
The HUGE POINT that you consistently seem to gloss right over without any explanation is the fact that when the primary thing being seized is not potentially protected speech, the First Amendment does not bar its seizure absent a prior adversary hearing. You're a smart guy, Mike, but it baffles me that you don't grasp the difference between the target of the seizure being the potentially protected speech or being something else. How is it that you can't comprehend the meaning of "incidental"? C'mon, you have to be pretending, right? You can't be that dumb, can you?
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
But, we shall see once it gets to court.
Terry Hart is not a law student and you know it. Why must you lie to try and discredit people? Why don't your "most respected lawyers in the biz" stop by and give us their arguments? I'm sure we'd all rather hear it straight from them. If they can't stop by, why don't you tell us what their legal arguments are? Either of those would be more productive than you lying about Terry Hart and then proffering hearsay about how some mystery bunch of genius lawyers tells you you're right. I'd like to debate them. Surely they could school a lowly law student like me. Are they not up for it? You certainly aren't, and that's fine... I wouldn't last two seconds in a debate on economics with you. But what's their excuse?
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Full Affidavit On Latest Seizures Again Suggests Homeland Security Is Twisting The Law
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question @ Joe
Trust me.
I should have included you too. Sorry. :)
Next >>