> Take, for example, the issue of extrajudicial executions > via drones ("murder from the sky"). The Obama > administration embraced this strategy gleefully, after it > was started by the previous administration of George W. > Bush.
How in the hell was this started by George Bush? We've been bombing enemy targets from the air since the invention of military aircraft, for gawd's sake.
There is *no* legal or moral difference in dropping a bomb on the enemy via drone than there is dropping that same bomb on that same enemy from a fighter plane. The only difference is where the pilot is sitting when it happens, and that has zero relevance to the operation's legality or morality.
A bombing sortie on the enemy conducted via F-16 doesn't suddenly become "murder from the sky" when done via drone.
And yes, operations conducted in the theater of combat are by definition extrajudicial. That's hardly the bad thing your tone implies. The last thing we need or want is our military commanders hamstrung by having to run to a judge to plead their case and get a warrant before being able to strike an enemy target. And more to the point, such silliness is required nowhere in the Constitution. The judiciary has *no* place whatsoever in military combat operations.
> Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks > American law rules the world.
He doesn't think American law rules the world. He thinks American law rules America, which is where Masnick, his website, and the comments at issue, are located.
> An Australian Court can also order Google to remove all > of these posts and articles.
That would be impossible, since Google doesn't own or have access to the servers on which Masnick's website resides.
> Perhaps once a judgment is entered and Gibson's client > moves for a citation of assets/discovery and Tech Dirt > refuses to comply, it can be held in contempt.
Which also wouldn't be enforceable. What does Masnick care what some judge in Australia says about him being in contempt? It's not like the American government is going to allow Australian cops to come to California, put him in handcuffs, and ship him back to Oz to serve time.
"Please explain the exact circumstances in which said defamation perpetrator would be required to travel to a foreign country to face trial on charges which are perfectly legal in their own country."
"There is no extradition that I am aware of in this case, and no way Gibson could win a judgment in California, which is in the US."
Y'all are confusing criminal and civil law. Extradition only occurs for criminal cases. In civil cases, if the defendant is a foreign person or corporation, then then only money damages are at issue (not prison time), so there is no need for the court to extradite the defendant's physical body from one country to another.
If the foreign defendant loses the case, the plaintiff can seize any assets the foreign defendant has in the country to satisfy the judgment. If the foreign defendant has no assets in the country, the plaintiff has to take his judgment to the courts in the foreign defendant's country and ask them to enforce it.
In the present case, if Trkulja/Gibson do that, the US court will look at the judgment, see that it doesn't comply with US principles of free speech and due process, and reject enforcement of it under the SPEECH Act.
At no point will Masnick ever be in danger of extradition to Australia.
Spying aside, I will support the notion that people need to get their heads out of those damn phones and look where they're going.
Walking to lunch today, I was run into twice by idiots who were too busy texting to look where they were walking and one moron nearly walked into an intersection against the light and barely avoided being turned into road pizza, again had his face buried in his screen instead of eyes up, looking where he was going.
> Someone will find a way to call 9-1-1 if there's a real > emergency.
No kidding. And honestly, if you're in an active shooter situation and you're actually in danger (as opposed to someone outside who is just hearing the gun fire), then the absolute *last* thing you should be fucking around with is your goddam cell phone. You either need to be evacuating most riki tik, or, if you're trapped inside, deciding the optimal way to counter-attack the shooter.
> I've never once actually seen the mythical "disruptive > cellphone yakker" that everyone loves to wring their > hands about. That sort of thing could almost lead one to > believe that he doesn't exist
Yes, because your personal experience is the objective benchmark by which reality is judged.
The one I patronize doesn't allow babies at all. For movies of any rating. If you're too young to understand language, you're too young to be in a movie theater.
They're also very good about policing people who talk or otherwise disrupt the movie. They "profile" customers and if, for example, a huge gaggle of loud and chatty teen girls shows up for movie, they'll pop in occasionally during the film to make sure they're not f'ing it up for everyone else, either by talking amongst themselves, or using their phones.
That theater is all about maximizing the customer's experience, and for that reason it gets all my business.
> Elbakyan, perhaps unsurprisingly, feels the new domain > doesn't violate the injunction. As a Russian citizen, > Elbakyan is free to raise dubious legal arguments.
There's nothing dubious about it. As a Russian citizen operating a foreign web site, she *isn't* subject to court orders from New York judges.
Depending on the status of international agreements, an infringement of a US copyright might be actionable in Russia, but Elsevier would have to sue her in Russia and get an order from a Russian court to address that. New York courts have no jurisdiction over her whatsoever.
> It's called the internet. The website is not specifically blocked in Australia, > thus it is available to Australian people.
Putting a website up on the internet does not make me subject to the laws of every nation from which it can be viewed.
If it did, I could be prosecuted by Germany for putting a swastika on a web page; I could be prosecuted by Saudi Arabia for blasphemy if I say Islam isn't the one true religion; I could be prosecuted by the UK for "being racially offensive" for cracking an off-color joke.
I don't lose the my right to free speech in *this* country merely because I conduct my speech on the internet.