One civilized reader is worth a thousand boneheads - Smart Set magazine, 1914
|
|
|
Seizing web sites does not violate the First Amendment
US FEDERAL JUDGE Paul Crotty has handed down a cursory opinion refusing to return seized domain names.
The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) seizes the domain names of web sites that it believes are in some way breaking the law, and while there are cases when ICE has taken down domains that host highly objectionable content, there are also times when its actions leave much to be desired. One such case was against Puerto 80, a Spanish company that runs sports video streaming web sites.
ICE seized the domain names of two web sites run by Puerto 80 even though a Spanish court had ruled that the sites did not violate copyright law. Not only did Judge Crotty refuse to hand the domains back to Puerto 80 but he said that the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, is not violated by shutting down web sites through seizing their domain names. His argument rests on the fact that there are other web sites where internet users can discuss matters.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) claims that the US Supreme Court contradicts Judge Crotty's argument regarding the First Amendment, quoting a 1939 case saying that a secondary source of information does not mean that shutting down the first source of information does not violate free speech rights. That decision reads, "One is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised elsewhere".
The EFF said it found the ruling "profoundly disappointing" and that "certainly doesn't bode well for the rights of folks whose websites might be targeted under the PROTECT-IP Act now pending in Congress". The Protect IP act is intended to block access to websites registered outside of the US that might be conducting 'infringing activities'.
Aside from the deeply worrying free speech issues, at stake the fact is that Puerto 80, a Spanish company that had been judged by a Spanish court as not violating copyrights, is being refused the use of its legitimate property. This sort of thing is likely to further motivate companies to shy away from using top level domains that are controlled by US based organisations. µ
Tags: Software
Share this:
Share
In principle, a web site can be and is served with the same content using different domain names, and internal hyperlinks can be encoded as local page references, so the whole lot can be offered equally well at a different address with possibly a trivial configuration change.
However, a forced change of address like this, means that existing readers' links won't work, you lose recognition in Google results, things like that. Things that hurt.
On the other hand, something being legal in Spain doesn't mean that no one's rights anywhere are being infringed.
When will everyone realize the new law in USA in now GUILTY until proven innocent.
And even if your proven innocent, it still stays on the public record that you were suspected/accused of being guilty !
USA courts following the constitution is a joke and brainwashing lie they WANT you to believe. Just like the other big lies the make kids pledge daily in USA public school " Liberty and Justice for All" what a lie !
With all the piracy and spying law that have been passed. I expect things to get much worse here. Congress and the courts out right ignore the constitution and treaties and laws of other country. The first amendment states "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" the would be a web site. They are blatantly braking the law, however they don't care. Just can't wait till they extend there "seizing" to .uk domains. I am sure they will have a great excuse then.
"His argument rests on the fact that there are other web sites where internet users can discuss matters."
Yeah. And banning books doesn't violate the first amendment because you can still, like, talk to people about things.
Free speech only applies to speech, really. Except if that speech is also something the government doesn't like... so really it's more of free thought. Keep it to yourself. What more could you need? Greedy bastards.
"This sort of thing is likely to further motivate companies to shy away from using top level domains that are controlled by US based organisations. ยต"
Indeed. And we non-USassians should block access to our web sites from those domains, too. BTW, .net is also being controlled by the "uber"-race.
piracy aside, now they can take down any site, just find an excuse (our top court may as well be disbanded, it renders itself pointless every other day, soon it'll have nothing to defend but it's own pay)
This is bad news for facilitators of piracy no doubt.