Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Permalink for comment 451330
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Correction
by jack_perry on Sat 27th Nov 2010 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Correction"
Member since:

Uhm, it's still censorship.

Thom, the statement I'm referring to was, "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that a government institution issuing fines for profanities on broadcasting networks is a direct violation of this First Amendment."

Depending on the circumstances, profanities can be interpreted as "obscenity"; therefore, they aren't always protected under the first amendment.

Notice that the FCC's regulation of profanities was a consequence of a judgment by the US Supreme Court, in keeping with a very long history of how to interpret the First Amendment. Your comments were at best misinformed.

Again, the point isn't whether I agree with you in the circumstances that inflamed you; the point is that you were making grand legal pronouncements without knowing what you were talking about. That may be highly self-gratifying and it may get you a lot of high-fives from the small crowd who agree with you, but it's not responsible journalism, and most people who have thought about this will roll their eyes.

So, again: go look up what a "seizure warrant" is; go look up what "probable cause" means. Only then can we have an intelligent conversation about "guilty until proven otherwise".

Reply Parent Score: 3