I wonder whether or not in concord NH, if their is a harassment law that the police officer could be sited with since he was clearly harassing the OP. be nice for the officer to lose his job for trying to violate the OP's civil rights. good for him to stand up for his rights.
I wonder what would happen if in the cell phone contract that the provider would forward ALL such requests for location based data to the subscriber? would the government then not request that information?
as I said in comments before, WHY isn't the UN screaming at france for violation of FREE SPEECH! this law should NEVER have been made, especially since doing this will have the WORST impact on the short sided media companies. they kick all the infringers off = they make the decision to boycott their LARGEST customer base. they GO OUT OF BUSINESS or start screaming at their captive government to come BAIL THEM OUT! >.
I'd prefer to trust the guys that created the internet and fully understand the technology involved. MPAA/RIAA would get sued by all the geeks I bet for their livelyhoods since they'd have to work 24/7/365 to make patches due to the fact that the internet won't run the way it was designed. or maybe google/microsoft/all the rest of the big companies might just decide its time to BUYOUT ALL the recording companies and just shut RIAA/MPAA DOWN!
looks like german people need to find what drugs GEMA is smoking and destroy them. or maybe its time for ALL the authors to sue GEMA out of existence, or maybe take it over in a hostile buyout of GEMA stock!
the politicians for sure won't ever make any anti-troll legislation since the biggest troll is the MPAA/RIAA. so I do hope some good comes out of this like making it harder to bring real lawsuits for what is in the public best interests!
my two cents. not a crime but sure is creepy. and to all the trolls technically a mall is a PUBLIC place and all the pertaining laws apply. the worst that could happen is civil charges for hmm possible violation of TOS IF they had that posted clearly near or on entrance to the shop.
Actually, Fort Wayne would be a good example. In obscene literature, there is often plenty of non-obscene material. That is to say, the entire work isn't an endless obscenity, but rather portions of the book are obscene, and the rest of it would be acceptable.
"once upon a time" isn't obscene. Neither is "and they all lived happily ever after once their wounds healed".
So what if 50% of the book isn't obscene? Should it all be protected because there is some protected speech in there?
The argument is key here. If the websites are rife with copyright violations, the presence of some protected speech on them shouldn't give them any more coverage than the book that is less than 50% obscene by word count.
The other examples you cite are similar. You cannot protect criminal actions behind free speech (unless you are in politics). You cannot use the first amendment as some sort of bunker to hide your illegal activities in.
As a result, the first amendment arguments are nice, but they are relatively meaningless, because they ignore the basic facts about the websites in question.
but would the author of the non-infringing work have proper standing in terms of court for censorship?
same as to first coffee right now so patience :-) my thinking is basically even if you can change where you can send the message, hasn't the speech been censored when they took the domain offline? and as for an analogy, consider this, a police officer tells you to move away when you peacefully are waving a sign in front of a court house. you could very well change your location, but in the end the harm has already been done.
something to point out in terms of my views. I have actively seeded a video on Pirate bay denouncing the evils of the PROTECT IP act since Its likely to pass. and at least in my view when they take the pirate bay I believe I will have standing to sue the USA government for censoring political speech!