Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
highlighted the appropriate section.
Wonder what Aussie law says. Let's look shall we? Let's look at Section 415 of the criminal code of Queensland
415 Extortion (1) A person (the demander) who, without reasonable cause, makes a demandâ€”
(a) with intent toâ€” (i) gain a benefit for any person (whether or not the demander); or (ii) cause a detriment to any person other than the demander; and (b) with a threat to cause a detriment to any person other than the demander; commits a crime.
(a) if carrying out the threat causes, or would be likely to cause, serious personal injury to a person other than the offenderâ€”life imprisonment; or (b) if carrying out the threat causes, or would be likely to cause, substantial economic loss in an industrial or commercial activity conducted by a person or entity other than the offender (whether the activity is conducted by a public authority or as a private enterprise)â€”life imprisonment; or (c) otherwiseâ€”14 years imprisonment. (2) It is immaterial thatâ€”
(a) the demand or threat is made in a way ordinarily used to inform the public rather than a particular person; or (b) the threat does not specify the detriment to be caused; or (c) the threat does not specify the person to whom the detriment is to be caused or specifies this in a general way; or Exampleâ€” a threat to cause a detriment to the public or any members of the public (d) the detriment is to be caused by someone other than the demander. (3) A reference to making a demand includes causing someone to receive a demand.
(4) A reference to a threat to cause a detriment to any person other than the demander includes a statement that gives rise to a threat of detriment to the other person.
(5) A prosecution for an offence in which it is intended to rely on a circumstance of aggravation mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of the penalty can not be commenced without the consent of the Attorney-General.
(6) In this sectionâ€”
threat includes a statement that may reasonably be interpreted as a threat.
Yep, looks like it's basically the same, if not broader. How about New South Wales? Pretty much the same (don't have a citeable reference, only the text of the 2007 Crime Amendments bill).
Now, if the threats in the lawsuits were CREDIBLE (they're not, which is why they've backed off from pursuing them when a fight is made) or if it wasn't made with Menace (defined as "A threat against an individual does not constitute a menace unless: (a) the threat would cause an individual of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly in response to the threat, or (b) the threat would cause the particular individual to act unwillingly in response to the threat and the person who makes the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the particular individual to the threat.". They specifically dismiss cases against some people to avoid part b there) then they wouldn't be extortionate, but they are. And the credible and menacing aspects were also why the courts wanted oversight of the letters.
So yeah, looking at the facts of the cases, comparing them to the laws, yep, 'extortion' still pretty much fits the bill.
Re: First, it's not "extortion" if the content was viewed.
First, it IS extortion. Don't take my word for it, take the word of Federal Appeals Court Judge Pregerson, who called it extortion (a good dozen times, in fact) earlier this month.
When you demand money 'or else', that's extortion. These cases use the court as an 'or else', but refuse to follow through. Their refusal to undertake the full legal process, and just leave it as a threat makes it extortion.
As for the second point, it follows from the first. A company that is attempting to make money from extortion is quite rightly being dealt a blow. If they were legitimately concerned with enforcing copyright, they'd be all for pursuing the case to its conclusion, must as Capitol V Thomas or Tennenbaum did. They don't, in fact they deliberately shy away from doing so, showing it's just an attempt to make money, through threats. I think that's quite rightly been dealt a blow.
Finally, your third point about 'duty to suppress infringements', is kinda true, but only for PROVEN infringements. Otherwise, it's just a baseless accusation. Now, what iiNet also knows is that such cases are expensive and that they're often too expensive to contest for the average person, plus it's specialist law. All companies also have a duty to generate profit, and as a member of society, the rule of law and justice'. In standing up for its customers in what it feels like a perversion of justice, they're making the company prove their accusations of infrignement before they demand enforcement (which would be costly for iiNet) as well as a positive PR move for the ISP, which will encourage customers.
in short, your claims make 3 assumptiosn - Voltage is concerned about stoppin infringement, that their accusations are flawless, and that requiring voltage to actually prove their infringements in court is somehow aiding infringement.
The reality is that Voltage has stated it's not about infringement, but money. Their evidence is notoriously bad, unreliable and at best flimsey, and finally if you're going to make a threat through the courts, you'd best be able to back it up, and an assisting people in proving that is not 'helping infringes', as if they have proof of infringement, then it's still going to be found as such in court.
Again, if you want to use the HOV lanes on I85 in Atlanta, you HAVE to have one.
I'm not sure if it also worked on GA-400 (our only toll road) as I've never traveled the toll area (which stopped being a tolled road a year ago).
I don't go to the NE corner of greater Atlanta much, but the roads can be pretty bad (as can Atlanta traffic in general - last month it took me 4.5 hours to drive the 80-odd miles along I75 from near Macon to downtown atlanta, was a 'typical saturday'.
It's one reason I've avoided getting a 'Peach Pass'. You now need one of these to travel on the HOV lane of I85 north of Atlanta, because it was made into a toll lane 2-3 years back. Now, instead of getting into the HOV lane if you've got 2+ people (as you would on the I75/85 connector through downtown Atlanta) you have to get out of the lane on the north side if you don't have a transponder. Oh, and they upped the requirements to 3 people, and you'd better remember to set the account to 'carpool' online, else you're paying, and set it off carpool if you're not, else you're fined. All for 10 miles of lane with variable pricing (and which is often set at 1-2 cents per section, or about 14c for the whole length). And they're looking to expand this to I75N.
hmm, maybe I should get one and see how it goes off....
What is it about Patent offices and not liking comments put forth by people in a consultation? (I'm guessing something along the lines of 'exposing the flaws in the proposal they're trying to ram through')
I'm just surprised they could find the request in order to respond to it...
Maybe I should file a patent on 'method of misplacing open records requests and related papers in order to avoid compliance' oh yeah '...on a computer' (can't believe I almost forgot that essential last bit!)
Yes, 'sensor panic' (that's when something happens, and the various car sensors start feeding data that the cars computers can't make sense of, so they panic) is a massive concern. I've a friend whose trailblazer rolled 5 times because of it when a tire blew out on the interstate - luckily they made it through uninjured, but it seems like the blowout started a "panic" with the ESC/ABS/Traction control systems, caused the roll. I've been through several blowouts myself, at much higher and slippery conditions and never had an issue keeping control.
Now, I say this as a robotics engineer (which I trained to be, because I started the "pirate" stuff) but I almost always disable any electronic aids as best I can, be it ABS, ESC, traction control, or whatever other gizmo. It's bad, but I can't stand them (might be my racing driver past though, I used to rally and did some track racing until a few accidents combined led to a rethink - smashing your knee to pieces will do that)
Prohibition ended in 33, correct; bootlegging still continued afterwards, albeit not to the same level, yes. "Running Shine" still happened, with Bill France organising some races with the stock cars, until NASCAR started 67 years ago this coming Saturday (I live just down the road from AMS, number of friends with full-on Dale shrines, I've been lectured on NASCAR history more times than I can imagine)
I'm a Brit, I know the horsemeat scandal well. No-one died, most people never even noticed (not as surprising as you'd think, meat looks like meat on the whole) so it's not SO toxic. And everything can pass on toxins - see BSE/CJD.
As for Paprika having traces of nuts, well do you think the heat treatment planks, and the grinding mills etc. are ONLY used for Paprika? Plant I used to work at (evenings while at college) would run 13-ton a shift through single heat treatment unit, all hand-shoveled. They'd change all the time, and you could tell when they were going to do turmeric because they'd wear onsies to stop the staining, and damn the heat! Nut cross-contamination isn't as rare as you'd think. Especially as some nuts are not nuts (peanut's a legume)
A terrorist is someone who uses violence, or threat of violence, to [or attempt to] intimidate or cooerce societies to follow an ideological position which is usually political.
Saying 'you can't be a terrorist unless you belong to a terrorist organisation' is like saying 'you can't be a criminal unless you belong to a criminal organisation'. You don't suddenly become a terrorist when you need more than a minibus to get you around.
He has lots of convictions for violence, for attacking people based on their thoughts and beliefs, and prefaces them all with a justification based on his political ideology. That would fit him into the "terrorist" mold by pretty much any definition I've been able to find. Sure, he never blew anyone up, or shot them, but that's mostly because he's smart enough to know that never really works.
Is he a "terrorist" as most people would think of it? No. But then again, he's not really an 'activist' either. My experiences with him are more that he was a spoiled brat with minor aptitude in exploiting sql databases. However, instead of turning that to the hard, thankless work of actual activism, he acted like a spoiled brat, and now plays the Martyr card, because he isn't as smart as he thinks he is (the drug convictions alone should prove that!)
I'm reading the docs, and it seems like he was added to the screening center list in 03 (during his early days, when he was arrested at the RNC convention protests)
It also doesn't list his felony mob action conviction from 2010 (the announcing that Chicago wasn't getting the 2016 olympics - when he got home after being released, he was proud of is arrest, and the violence/damage he caused and openly boasted of it.
and it also doesn't mention the 04 battery conviction, or the 2010 'storming' of a restaurant as part of a masked group of 5 because he didn't like one of the people eating there's views.
He's without question a thug and an incredibly intolerant one at that. He's hit out at his victims for speaking out ("Snitches get stitches" is a favorite phrase of his), so is it really such a stretch that he should be on a list of people to watch?
He's not some innocent caught up in an overzealous dragnet, but precisely the kind of person these lists are designed to help monitor. That is to say, those that just don't care and have no hesitation to lash out at any they deem to be worthy of attack, because they don't share their views, or just because they dared to speak out against him.