Their immunized from constitutional oversight. Do you think the little detail of the 4th amendment actually stops them from doing what they want with the blessing of the Supreme Court?
Someone taking a half-assed understanding of her philosophy (or deliberately misunderstanding it for their own gain) and making policy out of it can't really be laid on her shoulders.
But Alan Greenspan was her most devout follower. We see how that worked...
The hard part here is that a lot of Objectivists seem to use her name for a lot of monopolistic behavior.
Absolutely none of those cases apply here because this isn't an obscenity case.
Here's one key fact that you're ignoring. All of those cases were presented before any seizure of property was completed. Right now, there was a gross overstep on constitutional grounds in all domain seizures with all of the problems coalescing in the Dajaz1 seizure.
Nice try, but what viewpoint is being suppressed exactly? You haven't identified it. There is no content-based restriction. Give me a break. Tell me exactly what viewpoint or content is being suppressed. You can't. The quote you provided identifies no viewpoint or subject matter. Besides, the government is seizing the domains as a subsequent remedial sanction. What the MPAA says is irrelevant regardless. You're really stretching things beyond the breaking point to pretend the government is trying to dissuade any conduct other than infringement.
There were forums attached to the blog of Dajaz1 which was taken down. The links to other materials were effectively taken down. The music which is speech itself was taken down and no one was allowed to hear it. Take your pick on expressive speech affected by the digital takedown of a domain for nothing other than an accusation. Then repeat it 758 times with little to no evidence from those accusing others of infringement.
I'm just not seeing any prior restraint.
Try harder since that's exactly what these domain seizures are. They're a DMCA takedown on steroids and are based on erroneous warrants as well as misleading charges brought about by a company that has a history of lying to get what it wants.
Civil in rem forfeitures are by definition subsequent sanctions, not prior restraints.
Uhm... So the domain is guilty of infringement? Wow...
You're making probably the best arguments there are for your side, but they're simply the wrong arguments
You're not explaining anything for your argument, merely moving the goal posts to try to say that somehow Karl is wrong in his analysis. Man up and explain the "extraordinary procedural requirements" since even Holder did such a spectacular job in front of Zofgren.
You're skimming over the details (like how obscenity doctrine doesn't apply to copyright) to arrive at what I can only assume was your initial conclusion.
Wrong. Why not do everyone a favor and quit grandstanding on this issue and say something substantive. All you've tried to do for two paragraphs is say how Karl is wrong as if somehow you're an expert. Nice try though.
ICE has no proof of actual infringement, opting for the info used by a trade industry to harry and harass people living their lives. It's the very definition of prior restraint by seizing property before an adversarial heating allows a defendant to be heard in court.
On the post: NSA: Figuring Out How Many US Citizens We Illegally Spied On Would Violate Their Privacy
Re: Re: Business as usual.
On the post: Funnyjunk's Lawyer, Charles Carreon, Continues To Lash Out: Accuses Matt Inman Of 'Instigating Security Attacks'
Re: Re:
On the post: DOJ Realizes That Comcast & Time Warner Are Trying To Prop Up Cable By Holding Back Hulu & Netflix
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But Alan Greenspan was her most devout follower. We see how that worked...
The hard part here is that a lot of Objectivists seem to use her name for a lot of monopolistic behavior.
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Police Arrest Woman For Filming Them, Take Phone Out Of Her Bra, Claim That It Must Be Kept As 'Evidence'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The DOJ's Truly Disgusting Argument For Denying A Megaupload User Access To His Legal Content
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Wyden & Udall Block FISA Amendments Act Until US Admits How Many Americans Are Being Spied On
Re: Re:
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Shut it down
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Shut it down
Here's one key fact that you're ignoring. All of those cases were presented before any seizure of property was completed. Right now, there was a gross overstep on constitutional grounds in all domain seizures with all of the problems coalescing in the Dajaz1 seizure.
Nice try, but what viewpoint is being suppressed exactly? You haven't identified it. There is no content-based restriction. Give me a break. Tell me exactly what viewpoint or content is being suppressed. You can't. The quote you provided identifies no viewpoint or subject matter. Besides, the government is seizing the domains as a subsequent remedial sanction. What the MPAA says is irrelevant regardless. You're really stretching things beyond the breaking point to pretend the government is trying to dissuade any conduct other than infringement.
There were forums attached to the blog of Dajaz1 which was taken down. The links to other materials were effectively taken down. The music which is speech itself was taken down and no one was allowed to hear it. Take your pick on expressive speech affected by the digital takedown of a domain for nothing other than an accusation. Then repeat it 758 times with little to no evidence from those accusing others of infringement.
I'm just not seeing any prior restraint.
Try harder since that's exactly what these domain seizures are. They're a DMCA takedown on steroids and are based on erroneous warrants as well as misleading charges brought about by a company that has a history of lying to get what it wants.
Civil in rem forfeitures are by definition subsequent sanctions, not prior restraints.
Uhm... So the domain is guilty of infringement? Wow...
You're making probably the best arguments there are for your side, but they're simply the wrong arguments
You're not explaining anything for your argument, merely moving the goal posts to try to say that somehow Karl is wrong in his analysis. Man up and explain the "extraordinary procedural requirements" since even Holder did such a spectacular job in front of Zofgren.
You're skimming over the details (like how obscenity doctrine doesn't apply to copyright) to arrive at what I can only assume was your initial conclusion.
Wrong. Why not do everyone a favor and quit grandstanding on this issue and say something substantive. All you've tried to do for two paragraphs is say how Karl is wrong as if somehow you're an expert. Nice try though.
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re: Re: Shut it down
On the post: Two Men Sue Chicago Police; Claim They Were Abused And Falsely Charged For Filming Officers
Re: Re:
On the post: Sen. Feinstein More Worried About Reaction To The Leak About Stuxnet, Rather Than Reaction To Stuxnet Itself
Re: Re:
On the post: Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog
Re: We need more politicos like these
On the post: Feds Say We Need Stronger IP Laws Because Grocery Stores Employ Lots Of People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: Re: I want a different candidate
On the post: Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
Re: I want a different candidate
On the post: Correction: Earn My Money, HBO
Re: Re:
On the post: LinkedIn Passwords Leaked... Congress Immediately Wants To 'Do Something!'
Re:
On the post: Author Using Kickstarter To Offer His Book To The Public Domain, And Help Other Creators To Do The Same
Re: Re: Re: Well, there's the sucker factor
On the post: Would Bradley Manning Face The Same Charges If He Leaked Same Info To NYTimes Instead Of Wikileaks?
Re: Re:
Next >>