The Virginia Supreme Court confirmed in Network Solutions that neither telephone numbers nor domain names were garnishable personal property because "neither one exists separate from its respective service that created it."
This may have been true in the days of Ma Bell, when phone numbers were assigned, but with number portability (i.e., your number is transferable to different carriers) and with domain names since the beginning, the respective services are not creating or assigning the numbers/names so much as they are registering them.
Contrast this writer's group (which according to Wikipedia, is a labor union) with another - the Authors Guild (which, again according to Wikipedia, is a "not-for-profit American organization of and for authors").
While both groups purport to represent writers, their attitudes towards the implementation of copyright could not be more different. This paper by the WGA shows a practical and nuanced acknowledgement of the way the world is, rather than the "All infringers must die!" ravings of the Authors Guild, the MPAA/RIAA and others.
It's almost like they want to reach the widest possible audience. Huh.
I somehow doubt the inadvertent naming of an NSA employee responsible for preparing PowerPoint slides carries the same emotional loading as the rather breathless declaration that:
It’s finally happened. The name of an NSA agent has been accidentally leaked to the public via an NSA document stolen by Edward Snowden.
...unless that employee was working out of a rathole in Iraq, smuggling dangerous presentation materials out of the country by shoving up his bum, in which case I'd have to ask, what, they don't have affordable office space in New Jersey or some other comparable american rathole?
Nixon lived in the sweaty nightmare world of a paranoiac; he came by his attitudes honestly. Rogers is just a cynical, paid-for politician who will be working for some aspect of the defense industry once he leaves office.
This Court holds by reason of the very name of the site, the manner in which it is managed, and the personal comments of defendant Richie, the defendants have specifically encouraged development of what is offensive about the content of the site.
We therefore conclude that a service provider is “responsible” for the development of offensive content only if it in some way specifically encourages the development of what is offensive about the content.
The 9th Cir. was using the word 'offensive' in the sense of 'This action is an offense',i.e., a crime. The 6th Cir. was seeing the word 'offensive' in the sense of 'I am offended by this action'.
Re: Re: You are slowly re-capitulating the good parts of 1980's conservatism.
There's a theory that states the larger the organization, the less personal responsibility each individual member feels towards the success of that organization, thereby enabling the Second Law of Dynamic Laziness: In the absence of sufficient motivation, a person's laziness trends towards maximum entropy.
The MSM aren't individually stupid; there's just no reason for them to do more than the minimum requirement for their employment: reading whatever press release someone hands them.
Likewise with the NSA - it's just easier for them to, for example, walk into the Level 3 Communications office and demand they install a tap, rather than do something cool and clandestine like digging up a fiber bundle out in the woods and actually splicing their own fucking taps.