I don't think Google is actually punishing them for the spam links. They're just no longer rewarding them for it, causing a drop in rankings to where their site should have been all along. The sites are then misinterpreting that as a punishment.
Of course all 3 branches approved of it....in secret, when they thought the public wouldn't find out about it. But now that the public knows and is yelling for reform and lots of the elected officials fear for their jobs and want to get re-elected, they will publicly claim that they want reforms. But it will be the same as all the rest of their security theater: make it all look good (as in theater), but don't actually do or accomplish anything real.
Where do you draw the line with Section 230, tho? With Techdirt, it would be quite simple, if someone posted something illegal in comments. Site operator isn't liable. With a UGotPosted site, it's sole purpose for being is to allow and invite the illegal posts. The site operator might not make the posts himself, but it seems to me he's a clear participant of the posts since he not only invites only that type of post but it's the sites only reason for existence. Same for a "reasonable" administrative cost charged by a site to remove any such post. $25-$50 nuisance fee to the person that posted it, like you mentioned about spam comments? Or charge several hundred dollars to somebody else who didn't post it? And again, that's the sites sole reason for existence.
All these little bits of news about Prenda are always great, but I can't wait for the really good stuff when we start hearing about any of the multiple criminal investigations by the DOJ, IRS, and the multiple Bar Associations they've been referred to.
It was not an unrelated search, it was an unrelated warrant. They got exactly what they came and were searching for; her notes and sources. But, the only way they could do that, is on a semi trumped up warrant for a decades old charge against her husband. "Flimsy" excuse, is a major understatement. It might as well be a completely made up excuse, because if they didn't have the decades old charge, they would have just made something up.
It may really be about Bitcoin. Or it really could just be about the bank checking on any activity that is outside his account's normal activity level, just the way they're supposed to do. Banks are required to file an SAR - Suspicious Activity Report, for such things. SAR is not to be confused with a CTR for $10k - Currency Transaction Report. You can see the forms and their FAQ's here: http://www.fincen.gov/forms/bsa_forms/
Of course the first thing they'll say is their precious little snowflake didn't do it, and the Facebook account was hacked. A subpeona for Facebook logs will show if the account was hacked or not. It will show the IP address the account was logged in and posting from. Then a subpeona to that ISP will show the home address. Doesn't matter who's account it really is, simply where it was logged in and posting from. If it really was hacked, it will show it logged in from the hacker's home address, not the bully's. If it shows the bully's address, then we'll know it wasn't really hacked at all and they're just lying.
The question keeps coming up, "How are these guys still practicing law?". Since we know that Judge Wright referred all of them to every bar they belong to, and the DOJ, and the IRS, can anyone take a guess as to how long any of those investigations might take, or till we at least hear anything more about any of them? I understand it's a long and slow process, but how long and how slow is that? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years?
If they've already decrypted 1 drive, and supposedly found cp on it, then they can go ahead and charge him with that. They want more, so they can pile on the charges and recommended sentencing, but do they really need more? Did they really decrypt the 1 drive and did they really find cp on it, or is it a ploy?
More people might want to start using apps that upload video to the internet as it's being recorded. Lose the phone or memory card, or have it deleted, they'll usually miss the uploaded version. Some, like the free ACLU app, even use secure servers so uploaded videos *can't* be deleted.
Yes, as many others say, expect them to appeal.
But I think the only thing they can appeal is the fee award. The referrals to the various bar associations, the DOJ, and the IRS, aren't court orders making somebody do something, so they can't be stopped. They're just notices to completely separate agencies about what's going on. If any/all of these other agencies decide to start their own investiagation/prosecution, they do it under their own power and not via this court order, so it can't be stopped by appealing this. Not to mention that