These third parties are not being enjoined under 502--the defendants are. 512 does not apply to these third parties since they're not being enjoined under 502 in the first place.
IANAL, but that doesn't seem right. They are enjoined under F.R.C.P 65, but the whole reason for enjoining them is because of a violation of 17 U.S.C. 501 in the first place. I'm not sure how you can just ignore that part when dealing with third parties. It's a copyright case to begin with.
The district court in the Cloudflare case said that it was in active concert with the Grooveshark websites, but there's not a lot of case law on this point.
I think that the court order in that case was wrong and was way overbroad. Cloudflare resisted up to a point, but still complied. I don't believe that the court order against Cloudflare would stand up under appeals.
And Mike's claim that 512 is "the part of the law that says this *isn't* allowed" is just silly.
It's not silly at all. 17 U.S.C. 512 enumerates the limitations of liability on service providers for copyright infringement. These limitations apply to the injunctive relief provided by 17 U.S.C. 502 as stated in the very first paragraph of 512:
A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright... (emphasis mine)
Just imagine how NSA loves Google! Snowden says it gives NSA "direct access".
Care to back that up with some citations, Blue?
All I've ever heard was that, unbeknownst to Google, the NSA was performing man-in-the-middle attacks on Google traffic when it traveled between Google's data centers. Google has since encrypted that traffic.
But as has been noted elsewhere, the right to free speech does not cover defamation.
You keep saying this and I know that it's correct, but my question to you is this: When does libelous speech become unprotected?
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be when that speech was declared libelous by a court of law. Prior to that moment occurring that speech would remain protected by the First Amendment. (Any lawyers out there please correct me if I'm wrong here).
So, if I am correct in this, the tweet in question would still be protected speech since a defamation ruling hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, our esteemed AC seems to think that this kid should be sent to the Group W Bench to sit with the mother-rapers, the father-stabbers and the father-rapers, all for what's most likely a stupid joke tweet about a teacher.
It was well after the Mary Kay Letourneau scandal. Van Halen's "Hot For Teacher" came out in 1984.
As an adult, I'm not saying that teacher-student romantic/sexual relationships are acceptable whatsoever. I'm saying that teenagers of both sexes, with their raging hormones do think about, talk about and joke about such things all the time.
If even a single kid at my high school had publicly claimed he was having inappropriate relations with one of the female teachers, even as a "joke", the rumors would have been flying and it would be all over the school in no time flat, but that never happened, because (among other reasons) we all knew that that was over the line.
Really? At my high school, jokes about "doing" the new, young, pretty English teacher were everywhere.
Heck, it was such prevalent theme at the time that Van Halen wrote a song about a year or so after I graduated, complete with a bikini-clad teacher in the music video.
Regret to inform you that is not absolute. Damn near every school - public and private - and every college in my neighborhood has policies established with due process that the school can discipline a student for misconduct
It's pretty well established, by SCOTUS no less, that schools receiving public tax dollars cannot discipline students for exercising their free speech rights while off-campus unless it somehow causes a "substantial disruption" of the school environment. I do not believe this tweet caused any sort of disruption, except for that manufactured by the school administrators themselves.
Students DO NOT give up their First Amendment rights just because they were forced to sign a Conduct Code in order to attend a school.
Some teenaged boy posts a comment that alludes to his making out with a teacher, which was a lie, and you guys are blaming the school for his suspension and blaming the police chief for investigating the incident?
I'm not blaming anyone other than Sagehorn for the contents of the tweet, which could possibly (remotely possible, IMHO) raise to defamation.
I am however blaming the school and the police chief for exacerbating an issue which really has nothing to do with them at all.
It's his parents who decided to escalate this rather than punish their son, meet with the school, and apologize on behalf of their son.
Wait, helping your child defend himself against a perceived injustice by the school is "escalating" the issue? In what world?
Also, I'm curious as to why to think the parents should apologize for the actions of their son? In most instances parents are not legally responsible for the actions of their children. I've never seen any case in which a court found parents negligent for failing to supervise their kids’ computer use.
If anything, the only thing this will accomplish is that any sworn testimony can be used in Sagehorn's criminal trial...
What criminal trial? What exactly do you think Sagehorn could be charged with? Nothing Sagehorn tweeted could even be remotely considered a threat here. All I see is the possibility of a defamation suit brought by the teacher and defamation is a civil issue, not criminal.