Okay, so you think Arcara is controlling. I still don't see how Arcara would find these legal. It held that sanctions on nonexpressive activity do not activate First Amendment protections. However, copyright is is not a sanction on nonexpressive activity, but rather a right to restrict otherwise expressive activity. Here the protected activity is intrinsically tied to the reasons for seizing the domains, and hence Arcara does not affirm the seizures.
Additionally, you state that wholesale copying is not protected speech, but I do not believe that simply claiming a site contains wholesale copying removes its First Amendment protections. Speech is always assumed to be protected and must be proven otherwise. This can not be done without an oppositional hearing.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by i_am_not_a_lawyer.
Re: Arcana is Controlling
Okay, so you think Arcara is controlling. I still don't see how Arcara would find these legal. It held that sanctions on nonexpressive activity do not activate First Amendment protections. However, copyright is is not a sanction on nonexpressive activity, but rather a right to restrict otherwise expressive activity. Here the protected activity is intrinsically tied to the reasons for seizing the domains, and hence Arcara does not affirm the seizures.
Additionally, you state that wholesale copying is not protected speech, but I do not believe that simply claiming a site contains wholesale copying removes its First Amendment protections. Speech is always assumed to be protected and must be proven otherwise. This can not be done without an oppositional hearing.