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.
Thread beginning with comment 451304
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Correction
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Correction"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Your position has been made indefensible by several facts listed by some posters,


Which facts?

'm reminded of another thread where you screamed about censorship in the US but clearly didn't know that obscenity has never been considered protected speech. (Or perhaos you knew and you pretended not to, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)


Uhm, it's still censorship. In China, criticizing the government too harshly is not protected speech either - does that mean the Chinese government does not employ censorship?

Edited 2010-11-27 15:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Correction
by jack_perry on Sat 27th Nov 2010 17:38 in reply to "RE[5]: Correction"
jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

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."

http://www.osnews.com/story/23739/FCC_Illustrates_Its_Inability_to_...

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

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=18508

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

RE[7]: Correction
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 17:56 in reply to "RE[6]: Correction"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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."


It IS a violation of the First Amendment, since the First Amendment ITSELF says NOTHING about profanities or whatsoever. In other words, if profanities are NOT considered protected speech, this decision was made IN SPITE of the First Amendment, NOT because of it. As such, it is STILL a violation of the First Amendment - it's just that lawmakers and courts sanctioned it as okay.

I have a rule in my house that states you're not allowed to smoke inside, period. However, since some of my friends do smoke, I make an exception when it's bad weather outside - just stand by the garden door in my living room while it's opened. This is still a violation of my no smoking rule - yet it is sanctioned as okay.

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".


Even a million search warrants and ten million probable causes does not make anyone guilty. Unless a judge (or in the case of the US, the rather - to me - curious and outdated 'jury') decides otherwise, no amount of policemen or warrants or hearsay will ever make you guilty of anything.

Reply Parent Score: 2