Re: Response to: average_joe on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 10:49am
Just asking questions isn't grandstanding. These are questquestions that should have been answered by someone before any of these seizures happened, so it should be easy to answer them.
Grandstanding is when a politician plays to the public to garner favorable attention. He's writing a letter to two people who have no duty to answer him, asking all sorts of questions that aren't going to be answered, and then providing a copy of the letter to the press. This is plain vanilla grandstanding.
There's nothing wrong with it, and his questions are good ones, but it's grandstanding nonetheless.
Holder, the Attorney General, answers directly to the President. Morton, Director of ICE, answers to Napolitano, Secretary of DHS, who in turns answers directly to the President. That's my understanding anyway.
This looks like garden variety grandstanding to me. Holder and Morton don't have to answer questions whenever a Senator feels like firing off a letter. Give me a break. If you didn't agree with this guy, you'd be all over him for grandstanding.
Dig in a bit further? But that's not how The Masnick Effect works. Chant with me: "Down with the DHS! Down with the DHS!" Get with the techdirt program, dude. We WANT an "international incident."
You're essentially saying that the laws of every country apply to every person in the world; that the question of jurisdiction is moot because every nation has unlimited jurisdiction over everyone and the only limitation on it is the question of practical enforcement.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
You're essentially saying that the laws of every country apply to every person in the world; that the question of jurisdiction is moot because every nation has unlimited jurisdiction over everyone and the only limitation on it is the question of practical enforcement.
That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
It says in the story that not all of the students were given the GPS devices. It sounds like the focus is on those who fraudulently obtained documents or who have problems with their documents. Would you prefer that ICE just held them in custody until a deportation hearing?
Either way he'd write a hit piece on the DHS. He can't resist. The Masnick Effect in full force.
Amazon is selling nazi/racist material under the cover of liberal US free speech laws. It may be legal in the US, but it's illegal in France and Germany. Residents of France and Germany can however access this material on amazon in the US via the Internet.
The real analogy would be if France or Germany controlled .com and now decided to seize the amazon.com domain, preventing amazon from doing business on that domain in the US, where their business of selling racist content is apparently legal.
Not just an analogy, but just like an actual case: Yahoo v. LICRA
In that case, a French court ordered Yahoo to "take all necessary measures to dissuade and render impossible any access [from French territory] via Yahoo.com to the Nazi artifact auction service and to any other site or service that may be construed as constituting an apology for Nazism or a contesting of Nazi crimes."
Then later, the Ninth Circuit held that French groups were under U.S. jurisdiction because there were sufficient contacts in the U.S.
Courts make orders that affect foreigners and foreign websites with regularity--and no "international incidents" come from it. Don't buy the FUD.
I have found lately that AJ is no longer replying to many of my posts.
Sorry if I missed a post of yours. I try and respond to posts directed at me if I have something to say.
And if you follow most of his comment threads, he repeats the exact same thing over and over far more often then he ever offers actual proof to back stuff up or respond to new points.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be proving. Most of my arguments are legal arguments. I could cite legal authority for what I'm posting, but that doesn't really seem to interest many people, so I don't. If you want me to offer "proof" for any particular point, just ask.
He has a very limited argument set and I find myself losing respect for him lately.
Oh well, I'm not here to make everyone happy. I here to discuss issues and law.
I used to welcome the additional debate from somebody who seemed intelligent and was able to respond to questions. Now he just ignores most questions and repeat what he said 3 posts ago. It is getting pretty lame.
I'll try and freshen it up. I think we're all just repeating ourselves though, really.
What a fantastic rule. If you applied that to the real world that would mean that if you I set up a signpost in Florida that said "Lotus cars, Norfolk, England 4300 miles" they would suddently become subject to US laws.
That rule does apply to the real world--the real world of domain name registrations, not signposts in Florida. Your point makes no sense.
Presumably in reality that applies only to the domain name itself and not the company, which makes only marginally more sense.
That rule applies to whatever company agrees to it, no matter where they are located.
You realize of course this is likely to be precisely why AJ is so interested in it.
I love how you guys think you know me so well. My plan is to clerk for a judge for a couple of years (I love/respect the judiciary, and I've greatly enjoyed working for judges while in law school) and then get a job teaching law (IP, of course) while having a small practice on the side, hopefully IP. I'm following these mass litigation/Righthaven suits closely because I'm hoping to defend some people once I'm able to. Heck, I'm planning to do it pro bono at first just to get some trial experience.
But hey, if demonizing me makes you guys all feel good...
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Response to: average_joe on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 10:49am
Grandstanding is when a politician plays to the public to garner favorable attention. He's writing a letter to two people who have no duty to answer him, asking all sorts of questions that aren't going to be answered, and then providing a copy of the letter to the press. This is plain vanilla grandstanding.
There's nothing wrong with it, and his questions are good ones, but it's grandstanding nonetheless.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re:
Holder, the Attorney General, answers directly to the President. Morton, Director of ICE, answers to Napolitano, Secretary of DHS, who in turns answers directly to the President. That's my understanding anyway.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
On the post: Homeland Security Strapping GPS Devices To Indian Students Victimized By Scam
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
On the post: Homeland Security Strapping GPS Devices To Indian Students Victimized By Scam
Re:
Either way he'd write a hit piece on the DHS. He can't resist. The Masnick Effect in full force.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Analogy
Amazon is selling nazi/racist material under the cover of liberal US free speech laws. It may be legal in the US, but it's illegal in France and Germany. Residents of France and Germany can however access this material on amazon in the US via the Internet.
The real analogy would be if France or Germany controlled .com and now decided to seize the amazon.com domain, preventing amazon from doing business on that domain in the US, where their business of selling racist content is apparently legal.
Not just an analogy, but just like an actual case: Yahoo v. LICRA
http://files.grimmelmann.net/cases/Yahoo.pdf
In that case, a French court ordered Yahoo to "take all necessary measures to dissuade and render impossible any access [from French territory] via Yahoo.com to the Nazi artifact auction service and to any other site or service that may be construed as constituting an apology for Nazism or a contesting of Nazi crimes."
Then later, the Ninth Circuit held that French groups were under U.S. jurisdiction because there were sufficient contacts in the U.S.
Courts make orders that affect foreigners and foreign websites with regularity--and no "international incidents" come from it. Don't buy the FUD.
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're saying it was censored. That sounds about right. I would expect no less from the "minions."
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, I'm in 21st grade now. LOL!
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry if I missed a post of yours. I try and respond to posts directed at me if I have something to say.
And if you follow most of his comment threads, he repeats the exact same thing over and over far more often then he ever offers actual proof to back stuff up or respond to new points.
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be proving. Most of my arguments are legal arguments. I could cite legal authority for what I'm posting, but that doesn't really seem to interest many people, so I don't. If you want me to offer "proof" for any particular point, just ask.
He has a very limited argument set and I find myself losing respect for him lately.
Oh well, I'm not here to make everyone happy. I here to discuss issues and law.
I used to welcome the additional debate from somebody who seemed intelligent and was able to respond to questions. Now he just ignores most questions and repeat what he said 3 posts ago. It is getting pretty lame.
I'll try and freshen it up. I think we're all just repeating ourselves though, really.
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Shenanigans
On the post: Perfect 10 Aiming To Lose Yet Again; Sues MegaUpload
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Domain Names
That rule does apply to the real world--the real world of domain name registrations, not signposts in Florida. Your point makes no sense.
Presumably in reality that applies only to the domain name itself and not the company, which makes only marginally more sense.
That rule applies to whatever company agrees to it, no matter where they are located.
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Again? Don't be ridculous
That was supposed to be a funny joke. Guess the humor didn't come through...
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re:
I love how you guys think you know me so well. My plan is to clerk for a judge for a couple of years (I love/respect the judiciary, and I've greatly enjoyed working for judges while in law school) and then get a job teaching law (IP, of course) while having a small practice on the side, hopefully IP. I'm following these mass litigation/Righthaven suits closely because I'm hoping to defend some people once I'm able to. Heck, I'm planning to do it pro bono at first just to get some trial experience.
But hey, if demonizing me makes you guys all feel good...
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Would US Politicians Respond If Spain Seized Domains Of American Companies?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>