Let's not forget that the police who detained this man for hours, despite the fact that he was under no suspicion of wrongdoing, did so in order to confiscate evidence of their own wrongdoing. Every possible reading of this story absolutely screams police cover-up. Are you sure this is the hill you want to defend?
"Police officers have the right to detain you if you have evidence related to an investigation and to prevent you from either destroying that evidence or releasing it to social media or the news."
I don't believe that right is nearly as broad as you think it is, but can you explain how being detained, handcuffed, in a car for hours was required in order for the police to remove a hard drive? You can't possibly believe that's not grossly overstepping what the law allows and what was even necessary.
Way to completely miss the point of the article, which is the abuse of the copyright system for purposes other than what's is supposed to be for. Your frustration with cheating is entirely understandable, but still doesn't excuse fighting it this way.
"I don't know why Techdirt is complying with the wishes of this person."
This article twice states they are not complying with the request to remove the old stories.
"Any request by this person to erase their mistakes should only be honored if they have provided restitution to the victim."
Given Mike's extremely low tolerance of requests to delete relevant truthful info, if the circumstances of this case have led him to decide not to further publicize this person (but not remove the story) then I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
As is your simplistic and rigid thinking about, well... everything.
"Burning the Flag could be perceived as a threat as well, why are once class of people protected from that perception but not others? That would be racism under the color of law."
First, for flag burning to be considered a threat it would actually have to be threatening. Clearly that is not the case here. Second, race has nothing to do with it nor are we discussing different "classes of people". Flag burning is an action, and it's treated legally according to the context just like many other actions.
Except Netflix didn't "creep" into my television, I invited them in willingly. And into my computer, iPad and phone. Because that's what I decided I wanted. The implied insidiousness falls a little flat when you remember that.
"...the minute they solicited one million dollars through social media platforms, the Star Trek: Axanar movie ceased to be a fan film and crossed over into professional film production."
This is the arrogant attitude of old school cultural gatekeepers who are seriously butthurt that we've reached a point where technology has allowed true fans to make the films they want rather than hoping film studios, who are not fans, will make them.
Paramount are not suing to protect their rights, they're suing to protect their position of power, which is being eroded by the rapidly dropping cost of high-quality movie production and the ability to effectively crowdfund.
"Is anyone expecting to find an official ISIS membership card before saying, yes, it is terrorism?"
If by "membership card" you mean actual evidence of communication with and support from ISIS, the yes that's exactly what's required. All he basically said was "I like this guy!" Taking that on its own as proof of anything would be stupid.
"He was twice investigated by the FBI for ties to terrorism."
And twice they found nothing.
"He claimed allegiance to ISIS and its leader by name during the attack on the phone to 911."
Literally anybody can do that, it means nothing without actual evidence of a genuine connection, like communication records. I could just as easily claim allegiance to the Nazi party and Hitler, but few would take me seriously.
"He also attended a mosque with a suicide bomber for ISIS who attacked overseas."
Being in a building with someone is again a very weak connection unless there's also evidence he communicated and plotted with this other person. Lots of other people would have attended the same mosque. Are you branding them probable terrorists too?
It's entirely possible he was just an extremely messed up, anti-gay, attention-seeking nutjob. In the absence of any evidence of an actual ISIS connection, this seems more likely.