Re: Given the rather low percentages of terrorists out there
Depends on who you consider to be terrorists. For me there are a grand total of zero terrorists as I see them all as common criminals that are given too much attention by the media. Or it can be whole portions of the population that disagrees with the establishment.
The most terrifying thing about terrorism (pardon me) is that it can be defined to be whatever fits the interests.
Could he? Even though he tried and it didn't work? Even though almost every single attempt at 'whitleblowing via official channels' ever documented either went nowhere or ended with brutal Government harassment against the ones that tried?
Oh, I forgot you live in a rosy world where official channels work and unicorns poop candy. Sorry.
Careful. Brazil has this experience and replacing land that would generate food for fuel is pretty much fool's gold. There are problems with soil salinization due to the reuse of the byproduct (that is rich in potassium), huge swats of land with a single culture and the obvious food issue. You need fertilizers (that come from petroleum), the transportation of food from farther regions means more fuel used (specially when we stupidly decided to use trucks instead of trains and boats) and you still need to control pests. So it's not that good.
Even though this ended relatively well, the sad fact is that if it had been handled with any sort of common sense, we never would have heard about it at all.
No such a thing in our systems sir. But we've heard you produced a calendar with nudes of yourself a while back from our super effective surveillance dragnet that solves all crimes and terrorisms. Hee hee. - law enforcement creep
Actually you are wrong. We have seen studies showing that the lack of copyright is what caused a lot of development in the past. We've also seen evidence that besides big labels and artists, copyright does absolutely nothing for the artists (except maybe screw them when somebody sues) because they need the material to be spread and known so the infringement that is being considered here (file sharing) is actually beneficial for these people.
But you'll ignore everything that doesn't fit your view of the world.
Actually, increasing the severity of the punishment may have the exact opposite effect and have people question the law itself. Just apply to a common crime and ask people. What do you think of life imprisonment for jaywalking? Most people will either be outraged or laugh it off as a joke. And then there's the fact that most people actually don't see a problem with file sharing (the infringement form behind these anti-piracy idiocies) meaning it is socially accepted. Same with marijuana. And the alcohol prohibition.
My view is, let them make it a capital punishment and we'll see how fast copyright will crumble.
It seems to me that while there may be enough violations to throw him for a short while in prison or at least impose some decent fine there are really sound arguments there.
I actually agree with that morally horrible argument on the extortion front. It is not extortion. The question here is that he created a platform that was focused on letting frustrated males with severe self-esteem and social issues to post nudes and heavier pictures of their ex without consent as a revenge for breaking up.
So there are two issues here: the platform is promoting the violation of the rights of other people and the idiots that feed the platform. The guy must not be blamed for what was posted, this justice hammer has to go down those who posted unless, of course, he doesn't give the details of the jerks to the authorities. But it seems to me that he should be punished for actually setting up the platform with the explicit intention of hosting such activity.
It's not like Instagram where its general purpose is to share pictures but some users may use it for nefarious purposes. Such cases are the exception, not the norm. And the company certainly tries to weed out illegal activity to the best it can, within the law. So maybe he should not be exempted from any liability under 230 but he did set up a platform to conduct violating activities. So what's the law that would work here without setting a horrible 230 ruling?
And clearly not for a whole lot of other people. But it's Techdirt that owns the platform and if they think an eventual subpoena is wrong then they should challenge it yes. And they should be able to do without excessive gag orders.
Thus, Techdirt gets to decide who gets a free pass.
Where is that written? There's no such thing. The concerns expressed are pretty clear. One: the comment is clearly hyperbolic and fits the subject of the article. Second: they are worried that such thing comes with needless gag orders that currently plague the justice system and against which many companies are pushing back. What seems somewhat clear to me is that TD will not comply blindly and will stand up to the user (appeal any decision to get the data about him to law enforcement) because they believe the comments are clearly not threats thus invalidating any order but that's how due process work.
Alas, in the online world, the tone and attitude generally are not transmitted
But where there are real threats there are 'offline world' evidence that such 'threats' will come true. Nobody doubts that a threat from ISIS or whatever u call it may be carried out. But a random dude on a tech blog foaming in rage over politicians being assholes or something? Hardly. That's the issue here.