"...federal government gets all upset when you use their various logos and seals without permission..."
It was my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that the pranksters were setting up a redirect that pointed to ICE's actual site. If that's the case, no one is actually using the logo/seal other than ICE itself who own and operate the site.
Of course, I'm sure they'll bend the law in some way to make it work in their favor, like they always do.
If I recall my US history correctly (and I may not, so please correct me if I'm wrong) one of the grievances against the British "empire" and reasons for rebellion was that of an objection to debtor's prison. Basically, if you owed someone money - at least a well-connected someone - you could lose your freedom.
This makes me wonder about how that applies EXCEPT when you owe the gov't money. You can quite literally go to jail for A PARKING TICKET. How does THAT make any sense?
No surprise, then, that we have SWAT collection agecies.
From the article: "Of course, it's true that Harley Davidson has its own history of being massively overprotective when it comes to its own trademarks and such"
Totally brought to mind a long time ago when I heard that Harley was trying to patent (or maybe trademark?) the sound of their bikes. I thought then, and think now, "What a bunch of dipshits!" Don't know if they succeeded - suppose the answer is only a Google away.
A small digression: the South Park episode about Harley "fags" is hysterical and every Harley rider should be forced to watch it, Clockwork Orange style.
Just look at some of the comments on the site you referenced: "I like you am associated with carpet cleaning and it is
wonderful to see fellows associated this industry with the same mentalities and thoughts" Yeeeaaa ..
In response to the direct question, "Do you actually have any evidence of a specific incident where a person has been harmed because of what's come out from Wikileaks?" he blathers on vaguely for a while implying that there are people at risk, and then she pins him down with, "Specifically because of the Wikileaks information?" and he says, "Yes."
Well, who ARE these people? If they really are "at risk" what are you doing to "protect" them?