Given that the court has essentially ruled that translating dialog into another language violates copyright, the fact that political speeches and corporate press releases are both copyrighted would seem to mean that the language translator profession has now been outlawed in the Netherlands.
So they'd have the rights of a state legislator when inside the state capitol and in their home district, but outside those places they'd be private citizens with no special privileges? Sounds good to me.
I'm envisioning two convicts riding a prison bus, both shackled to the seat they're in, sometime in the 2020s...
Prisoner A: So, I got convicted of 143 counts of first degree murder, 293 counts of rape, and 47 counts of cannibalism. I'll be in prison for the next 800 years. I notice your shackles are twice as heavy as mine. What did you DO?!?
Prisoner B: I illegally streamed two movies and the Oscars.
If you don't go to school, you go to jail -- and possibly your parents with you. So there's nothing voluntary about mandatory school attendance.
Compared to that voting, having a job and owning a house are much more voluntary acts. By the standard the school districts like to argue, any sort of voluntary participation in society could be made into a voluntary waiver of your rights without violating the Constitution. Even if it's only 'voluntary' in the sense you get forced to volunteer at gunpoint if you decide not to volunteer.
Um...that would make you at least 245 years old -- 1789 being the year the Constitution was written.
The 14th amendment went into effect in 1868, which declared that citizenship begins at birth and did not exempt kids from being citizens. If that's the law you're referring to from when you were a kid, that would make you a minimum of 166 years old.
Even if you're referring to the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case, that would make you a minimum of 65 years old -- that case was in 1969 and ruled that kids DO have rights, always have had rights, and a school needed a damned good reason to try to infringe upon those rights (which the school district in question in that case did not have).
If you are younger than 245, then you are mistaken about kids not having constitutional rights when you were a kid. People younger than 65 don't even have the excuse of kids having rights being an unknown thing when they were kids.
There is no age requirement on citizenship, it begins at birth. Citizens have rights, period. Government officials have always gotten drunk on their petty amounts of power and used it to violate the rights of others. That's nothing new.
One thing the general public seems to have forgotten, is there are all kinda of laws on the books about racketeering, accomplices, conspiracies and so forth. None of those laws contain an exemption for law enforcement personnel.
If you rob a liquor store at gunpoint, get away, then the next day you go over to a friend's house to watch a football game and he provides snacks, that friend is now your accomplice to the robbery. Because he gave material aid and comfort (snacks) to a wanted felon, he's now equally guilty under the law and equally subject to the 5-10 year prison sentence you are facing.
The fact that your friend didn't know you robbed a liquor store is irrelevant. The fact your friend didn't know he was giving material comfort to a criminal? Irrelevant. He was never within ten miles of the crime scene at any time during his entire life? Irrelevant. He's an accomplice after the fact and that's that.
Police officers routinely stand around and watch, providing silent support, as their fellow officers commit crimes. They provide armed on-call backup without asking a single question about whether the use of force is justified. If one cop shoots, they all shoot. Cops brag in the locker room just as much as anyone does in any other job, and cops overhear all kinds stories of illegal actions -- and remain silent.
If a few handfuls of Cheetos and a glass of beer is enough to turn an innocent person into a wanted felon, then any of those things in the previous paragraph absolutely would do the same -- after all, police are not exempted from those laws.
The general public has the bizarre notion that as long as a cop is not the primary actor in a crime, they remain a good cop -- but neither the spirit nor the letter of the law supports that view.
The US Constitution does not grant anyone any rights whatsoever, whether they are a US citizen or not.
Instead, it protects rights that EVERYONE has from birth, regardless of where they were born, by prohibiting certain actions by the US government. If the government cannot lawfully do certain things, then it doesn't matter who they might do them to, since doing them at all is illegal.
There's even a federal law on the books (Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 242) that makes it a federal crime for anyone to violate a constitutionally-protected right under color of law. Section 242 has no territorial limit, it applies to anyone who is subject to US federal laws -- which is all US citizens, due to other US federal laws, even if those citizens are in foreign countries and the illegal act isn't illegal in those foreign countries!
It simply does not matter whether Assange is a US citizen, since you don't need to be a US citizen to have rights.
There are some people who feel profoundly uncomfortable when they don't have permission from authority to do any particular thing. They feel equally uncomfortable when they see other people doing things without permission from authority -- and they often seek to do something about the 'problem'.
The thing is, those aren't the values this country was founded upon. At the time our country was founded, anything not explicitly forbidden was completely legal. And there were laws about what could not be forbidden.
But that makes people who need permission extremely uncomfortable, so they've been working diligently to 'fix' the problem for the past 200-odd years. Because freedom really IS chaos to them.
One thing a lot of people seem to forget, is that anything you could sue a public official for in federal court under 42 USC 1983 and win is also a criminal act under 18 USC 241 & 242.
While judges have absolute immunity to civil lawsuits for their actions on the bench as judges, they are NOT immunized in any way to the consequences of violating criminal laws, particularly federal criminal laws.
His Dishonor Judge Galasso has issued an illegal order that violates constitutional rights under color of law. That right there is a Section 242 violation punishable by a year in federal prison or a $1,000 fine or both. If anyone actually attempts to enforce the illegal order, it violates Section 241, which is a conspiracy against rights under color of law, punishable by ten years in federal prison or a $10,000 fine or both -- a felony by any measure, and one that applies equally to everyone from the judge on down the chain of those attempting to enforce the order!
Google IS immune to court orders arising from court cases they were not invited to participate in.
But that's not the issue at hand.
Suppose your legal name was Anonymous Coward and you posted something that someone, somewhere, considered to be libelous. But instead of suing you, they sued someone else with the same name as you, someone who they hired specifically because that person had the same name as you. And that person's job is to plead no contest and agree to every demand made of them the instant they are served with the lawsuit.
So now, having 'won' a judgment against someone with your name, they go around demanding that your content be deleted by every site you posted it on, even though they never actually sued you.
Even if you were named specifically in a court order or injunction resulting from their lawsuit, you would not be bound by them in any way, because you are not the person that they sued. Civil court decisions are only binding on parties to the case under US law.