Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike, will you equally condemn freetards for taking music itself?
I think Blue is seeing less replies to HIS comments and therefore thinks it means less regulars around. The truth is more along the lines of less replies to his comments because most are realizing that arguing with crazy is a wasted effort.
What part of your rights of free speech has been stepped on?
For starters, the constant attack of fair use has definitely created chilling effects in regards to speech.
The domain name seizures by ICE/DOJ/Disney has already caused huge collateral damage. (Does mooo.com ring a bell?) COICA would have been even worse and PIPA doesn't look much better, especially in terms of the ability to overreach the original intent of the laws and very little protection against prior restraint.
The three (or six) laws/agreements could assuredly restrict an individuals free speech based on mere accusations.
The recent attacks on 3rd party service providers could also pose free speech problems, especially if the legal atmosphere makes it impossible to host user comments anymore.
I agree. The word "homeless" does invoke visions of a dirty street person trying to wash your windshield with newspapers.
Unfortunately, the homeless problem has grown exponentially in the last couple of years. Whole families living in cars or in shelters when there is space for them and trying to keep the kids in school at the same time. A lot of these people are still employed (or underemployed) or are trying to find work and that is made even more complicated when you don't have a permanent address.
It would be nice if you weren't so fucking lazy and actually read and understood the proposed Act:
Well, since my job isn't to spin detrimental proposed Congressional acts on various blog sites, I don't always have the time fully investigate these things. But, you can call me lazy all you want if it makes you feel better.
...or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action...
So basically, if the site's owner is not resident of the US then there is no need to actually try to find them, right?
Regarding the ICE seizures, it's a different law entirely, though it does comport with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
I realize that the ICE seizures were done under existing law, not PIPA. But, the in rem procedures on those cases are so extremely disturbing with regards to prior restraint and due process issues that I firmly believe we will get similar or worse results with PIPA.
A judge would, using something similar to the following standard:
And will this take place at an adversarial hearing, prior to any asset seizure, with all parties present, so to be sure that is no prior restraint on speech and that all entities are able to present their side of the issue?
(A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the...
Hmmm. That definition didn't seem to work out so well for some of the hip hop blogs that have been seized by ICE. Their PRIMARY use was to discuss music and still they were seized.