Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 21:11 UTC
Legal "Three weeks ago the 23-year-old UK-based administrator of a TV show and movie links site was arrested by police. The site, referred to only as TVShack, could be one of three domains of which two are already controlled by the US government after their seizure as part of Operation in Our Sites. Following his detention in the UK's largest prison, the admin is now fighting his extradition to the U.S. with the help of Gary McKinnon's lawyer." His site only linked; it did not host. The most damning point is that he was found not guilty under UK law. So, does this mean The Netherlands can request extradition of, say, Rick Santorum for his blatant anti-homosexual remarks, which are illegal under Dutch law? That would be fun.
Thread beginning with comment 503548
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Santorum"
Member since:

That's a much longer elaboration on your thesis that it's OK to abuse people with whom you disagree, but I'm afraid I didn't find it any more convincing than the short version. Sorry.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Santorum
by JAlexoid on Mon 16th Jan 2012 17:43 in reply to "RE[7]: Santorum"
JAlexoid Member since:

Sorry, that was a long explanation why people shouldn't just stay quiet and take the physical or verbal abuse.

Santorum got what he deserved, you can go on all about the sanctity of marriage(which was born in the idealised world of 1950's US), but he did go too far. Just like his gaffe with "black people don't need welfare" or his continuing remarks against gays.

His speech amounts to the same level of speech that school jocks direct at the geeks. No wonder the other side responded with an appropriate response. Or would you tell your kid to suck it up and ignore it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Santorum
by ricegf on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:02 in reply to "RE[8]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:

At no point have I defended Mr. Santorum's speech, nor did I ever suggest that those who feel attacked by his comments should just "take it". Please check me on this assertion. You're totally missing my point.

Let me put my point another way. Is a vigilante response to a crime justifiable? Or should the victims of that crime follow the prescribed judicial processes to seek redress?

The attack on Mr. Santorum that the OP was soliciting is essentially a virtual vigilante action that I'm arguing is NOT an "appropriate response". Better options are available.

Love Thom's idea to try to extradite him for violating Dutch law, though, as morally equivalent to the US effort wrt TVShack. THAT's an appropriate response!!! :-D. I sometimes just stand in awe of the arrogance of my own government. *sigh*

Reply Parent Score: 2