Wow. First you don't care if ICE's actions are legal, then in the very next sentence that's all you care about. Contradiction much?
It's all the negative connotations of "can legally get away with" that I don't care about. That's all I meant.
I'm not familiar with your views in general, but you remind me of the fellow who keeps pointing defending the Nazis by pointing out how perfectly legal their actions were under Nazi law. And then you're amazed at catching flack?
Around here, unless I'm screaming about how bad it is and unless I turn my back on reasoned analysis, I'm shunned. That speaks poorly of others, not myself, IMO.
You don't care? That's certainly not what you said earlier after engaging in some name calling.
Bruce has been pissing me off over a series of posts and threads, and I think he's a fucking idiot. I don't care if people think I'm paid to be here because I think it's an utterly ridiculous belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Try and catch me on a little perceived contradiction if that's the best you can do. If you want to talk about things that actually matter, that might be time better spent. I'll be here...
Mostly it's been you using US law as an excuse. I really don't see many here arguing that their ICE's action was illegal under US law, but that it was wrong. Your argument boils down to "if ICE can get legally get away with it, then it's A-OK!"
Nonsense. Whether it's legal is a separate issue from whether it's a good idea. I'm interested in the legality, so that's what I comment on. I'm not making any excuses, nor do I care about what ICE "can legally get away with." Is it legal, or is it not? That's my focus. It never ceases to amaze me how much shit I catch for my views. Apparently most people here think that if someone disagrees with them, that person must be wrong and evil. It's pretty much middle school thinking, IMO.
The term that comes to my mind is "apologist". Look it up.
No need to look it up, as I know what it means. Rather than just say, "This is bad, so it must be wrong," I'm able to analyze the situation with detachment. That concept apparently blows a lot of people's minds. No surprise there since very few commentators here appear to do be able to do the same.
Spanish courts disagree with you. It was a legal business operating under the local laws. The US has no right or dominion over them.
Absolutely untrue. Are you just making this stuff up? You can't just say how you think it should be and try to pass that off as how things really are. If a website is being used to violate U.S. law, that website is subject to U.S. laws. The question is whether the U.S. can do anything about it. When a website has their domain name managed on U.S. soil, the answer to that question is yes, they can do something about it.
I would argue that the domain names reside in international space, not US soil. The US retained control of the DNS servers by international agreement, and current actions are going to cause the international community to review that decision. If the current DNS scheme is to stay as it is, the US is going to lose control. Otherwise, expect changes to be made that the US cannot control.
You can argue that, but I think you just made it up. Care to cite any authority for the proposition that "domain names reside in international space"?
Because we are not discussing what you believe is allowed by the law. We are discussing what is right and just. The law has nothing to do with justice these days.
I don't buy it. We've been discussing the legality of these seizures, among other things. Read through the thread and tell we haven't been discussing what is or isn't allowed by law.
Yeah except that in this case neither judge nor court order is involved.
You'd better try again.
I don't follow you. Why do you think this seizure wasn't done pursuant to a judge-issued warrant like all the other domain name seizures have been done?
So Germany could seize an American's website for talking about denying the Holocaust, because that's illegal in Germany, despite it being protected speech in America?
And Iran can seize any website which depicts or endorses women acting "immodestly" as that term is defined under Shari'a law?
You're basically endorsing the notion that the entire internet is only as free as the most restrictive and oppressive nation's laws allow.
Not at all. Lots of countries don't like what other countries post on the internet. The question is whether or not they can do anything about it. If a U.S.-based/hosted/managed site isn't liked in some other country, what are they going to do about it? They may block their own people from accessing the site, but they surely can't seize anything if there's nothing in their country to seize.
The issue here is that if a website is going to be used to break U.S. criminal laws, then a U.S. court can issue a warrant to seize that domain name if it is managed in the U.S. It doesn't matter who owns the property. It only matters that that property is used for crime (purportedly).
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's all the negative connotations of "can legally get away with" that I don't care about. That's all I meant.
I'm not familiar with your views in general, but you remind me of the fellow who keeps pointing defending the Nazis by pointing out how perfectly legal their actions were under Nazi law. And then you're amazed at catching flack?
Around here, unless I'm screaming about how bad it is and unless I turn my back on reasoned analysis, I'm shunned. That speaks poorly of others, not myself, IMO.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bruce has been pissing me off over a series of posts and threads, and I think he's a fucking idiot. I don't care if people think I'm paid to be here because I think it's an utterly ridiculous belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Try and catch me on a little perceived contradiction if that's the best you can do. If you want to talk about things that actually matter, that might be time better spent. I'll be here...
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonsense. Whether it's legal is a separate issue from whether it's a good idea. I'm interested in the legality, so that's what I comment on. I'm not making any excuses, nor do I care about what ICE "can legally get away with." Is it legal, or is it not? That's my focus. It never ceases to amaze me how much shit I catch for my views. Apparently most people here think that if someone disagrees with them, that person must be wrong and evil. It's pretty much middle school thinking, IMO.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No need to look it up, as I know what it means. Rather than just say, "This is bad, so it must be wrong," I'm able to analyze the situation with detachment. That concept apparently blows a lot of people's minds. No surprise there since very few commentators here appear to do be able to do the same.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think it needs refutation. If people are dumb enough to believe that I'm paid to post here, let them think that. I don't care.
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Re: Legal Shenanigans
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: waitaminute
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely untrue. Are you just making this stuff up? You can't just say how you think it should be and try to pass that off as how things really are. If a website is being used to violate U.S. law, that website is subject to U.S. laws. The question is whether the U.S. can do anything about it. When a website has their domain name managed on U.S. soil, the answer to that question is yes, they can do something about it.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can argue that, but I think you just made it up. Care to cite any authority for the proposition that "domain names reside in international space"?
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't buy it. We've been discussing the legality of these seizures, among other things. Read through the thread and tell we haven't been discussing what is or isn't allowed by law.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re:
What does my understanding of the legality of these seizures have to do with my morality? Seriously, I'm curious.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You'd better try again.
I don't follow you. Why do you think this seizure wasn't done pursuant to a judge-issued warrant like all the other domain name seizures have been done?
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re:
I'm not sure if it would be possible since Verisign is headquartered in the U.S. I don't really know though. Good question.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why does my explaining the legality of these seizures offends you? Should I just be screaming about how bad it all is without any analysis? No thanks.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Iran can seize any website which depicts or endorses women acting "immodestly" as that term is defined under Shari'a law?
You're basically endorsing the notion that the entire internet is only as free as the most restrictive and oppressive nation's laws allow.
Not at all. Lots of countries don't like what other countries post on the internet. The question is whether or not they can do anything about it. If a U.S.-based/hosted/managed site isn't liked in some other country, what are they going to do about it? They may block their own people from accessing the site, but they surely can't seize anything if there's nothing in their country to seize.
The issue here is that if a website is going to be used to break U.S. criminal laws, then a U.S. court can issue a warrant to seize that domain name if it is managed in the U.S. It doesn't matter who owns the property. It only matters that that property is used for crime (purportedly).
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There was a trial in Spain applying Spanish law. What's that got to do with the U.S.?
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
LOL! You guys are great! :)
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>