If not, there's no "strange dichotomy" that I can see.
While I see your point, and agree that we've lived in a censored America for some time (FCC overlording TV and radio), Mike is speaking of Internet censorship, which has been something of a Wild West for policymakers, so it's more than possible there's been some doublespeak amongst the elite ranks of society.
Well that's my point exactly. If the US Gov't just seized the domains, and not even the content, then this is clearly censorship.
But if they seized the domains as evidence (i.e. you had servers containing illegal content, which were externally accessible via this URL), along with the servers, and prosecuted the owners, that that might be a different story, unrelated to censorship. I mean it's censorship in the general sense that they are scrubbing a certain ideology, but you could also make the argument that drug laws are a form of censorship.
I don't get it. Why would it not be censorship if it was followed up with something else? How are silencing a website and police searches to gather evidence related?
In all fairness, I believe warrants were issued for the seizure of these domains - however, did DHS seize the servers, or the actual infringing content? I don't believe so, so yes this would qualify as censorship.
But my point being, if the US properly seized the domains via a valid warrant, then seized the servers containing the infringing content, then served notices to appear in court for the owners of the domains, then I would simply see this as nothing more than a criminal investigation based on copyright infringement.
However, if they simply swiped the domains, leaving the content on the servers, then what really was accomplished here? It was certainly censorship, but simply point a new URL to your servers and voila, you're back up and running.
Just a quick question regarding the recent domain seizures:
Are the owners of these domains facing any further action from the US Gov't? Or are their domains simply seized, and that's the end of it?
If the former, then this really wouldn't enter the realm of censorship, since it's akin to the police serving a warrant on a drug-den. They seize the drugs, then prosecute the parties via due process. Seems about right.
If the latter however, then I believe this would qualify as censorship. Since it's plain to see that the US Gov't simply seized the domains, and let the owners go on their way, without due any process.
The offered "solution" is vague and clearly tongue-in-cheek. I agree we need better tactics, but ignoring Al Queda by sticking your head in the sand, is not a viable option.
Great addition to the discussion. Seriously. I love folks who's only joy is commenting on other folks' posts while simultaneously bringing nothing insightful to the conversation. Bravo!
Call it an injunction, or call it the minor step before being charged with the Espionage Act, either way the gov't tried to stop what was happening. Your previous comment seemed to offer the notion that nothing was ever lodged against the folks behind the PP (publisher or leaker). However, this is not true, both were attacked for generally the same reasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Here I thought folks were talking of charging them with espionage, which would render your entire point moot.
I suspect they are simply charging him with the crime that would procure the longest sentencing.
If you ain't going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers
Um, they did. It went to the Supreme Court...Moreover, Ellsburg and his accomplice were charged with the Espionage Act of 1917. However it was declared a mistrial given some illegal evidence gathering by the government's prosecution.
Considering the government (IRS) is keeping these for you, please feel free to forward me over your SSN and latest W2. After all, it's my right to know exactly how much you make, and I'll do my own digging once I get your SSN.
I was not aware one could steal goods, physical or virtual, and simply provide it to another party, and that qualifies as passing it to the public domain.
Could I steal a Picasso, pass it off to someone, and then claim the owner no longer has rights to it since it's now public?
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re:
While I see your point, and agree that we've lived in a censored America for some time (FCC overlording TV and radio), Mike is speaking of Internet censorship, which has been something of a Wild West for policymakers, so it's more than possible there's been some doublespeak amongst the elite ranks of society.
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Censorship + no due process
But if they seized the domains as evidence (i.e. you had servers containing illegal content, which were externally accessible via this URL), along with the servers, and prosecuted the owners, that that might be a different story, unrelated to censorship. I mean it's censorship in the general sense that they are scrubbing a certain ideology, but you could also make the argument that drug laws are a form of censorship.
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Censorship + no due process
In all fairness, I believe warrants were issued for the seizure of these domains - however, did DHS seize the servers, or the actual infringing content? I don't believe so, so yes this would qualify as censorship.
But my point being, if the US properly seized the domains via a valid warrant, then seized the servers containing the infringing content, then served notices to appear in court for the owners of the domains, then I would simply see this as nothing more than a criminal investigation based on copyright infringement.
However, if they simply swiped the domains, leaving the content on the servers, then what really was accomplished here? It was certainly censorship, but simply point a new URL to your servers and voila, you're back up and running.
On the post: US Has Lost All Moral High Ground On Internet Censorship
Re: Censorship + no due process
Are the owners of these domains facing any further action from the US Gov't? Or are their domains simply seized, and that's the end of it?
If the former, then this really wouldn't enter the realm of censorship, since it's akin to the police serving a warrant on a drug-den. They seize the drugs, then prosecute the parties via due process. Seems about right.
If the latter however, then I believe this would qualify as censorship. Since it's plain to see that the US Gov't simply seized the domains, and let the owners go on their way, without due any process.
Anyone?
On the post: How The US Response Turns 'Failed' Terrorist Attacks Into Successes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ignore them
On the post: How The US Response Turns 'Failed' Terrorist Attacks Into Successes
Re: Re: Ignore them
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-pressured-germany-not-prosecute-cia-officers-torture -and-rendition
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101121/21414311956/president-obama-after-traveling-with-naked -scanner-ceo-defends-naked-scans.shtml
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: FTC Wants Do-Not-Track Browser System... But Does The Government Need To Be Involved?
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
So, when do I get to hop in a Stealth Bomber for a quick jaunt?. After all, I apparently own 1/300,000,000th of it.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States
Call it an injunction, or call it the minor step before being charged with the Espionage Act, either way the gov't tried to stop what was happening. Your previous comment seemed to offer the notion that nothing was ever lodged against the folks behind the PP (publisher or leaker). However, this is not true, both were attacked for generally the same reasons.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
I suspect they are simply charging him with the crime that would procure the longest sentencing.
If you ain't going to charge the publishers of the Pentagon Papers
Um, they did. It went to the Supreme Court...Moreover, Ellsburg and his accomplice were charged with the Espionage Act of 1917. However it was declared a mistrial given some illegal evidence gathering by the government's prosecution.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: No secrets
Thanks!
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Could I steal a Picasso, pass it off to someone, and then claim the owner no longer has rights to it since it's now public?
Next >>