The Background Dope on DHS' Recent Seizure of Domains

Libérale et libertaire has written an excellent analysis of the recent seizure of a number of Internet domains by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Does Alleged Infringement Now Equal Actual Infringement

With respect to the US Department of Homeland Security's recent seizure of domains allegedly involved in copyright infringement, you'd think a just legal system would first require the state prove its claim that a particular website is indeed infringing, but that kind of thing is apparently not important to the Obama Administration. Napster at least got the benefit of a trial: In court you can argue your practices don't constitute contributory infringement even if you end up losing like Napster did. In the future, it seems, you won't even have the benefit of a trial.

The entertainment industry is finally getting a return on its cash investment in the Obama administration.

Oil Spill

A seriously fucked up new policy from the Obama administration:



Want to know what's at stake here? See for yourself.

Regulation Through Intimidation

Attorney General Henry McMaster doesn't like Craigslist's "Erotic Services" section, so:

1. He threatens Craigslist with criminal charges.
2. Craigslist bows under the pressure and removes Erotic Services section.
   

Threats can carry a great deal of power, allowing attorneys general to often engage in this sort of regulation through intimidation. Given that Craigslist itself wasn't breaking any laws, threatening to prosecute Craigslist officials as a kind of non-legislative regulatory device is dishonest, abusive, and just plain wrong.

Obama on Bush-Era Interrogations of Terror Suspects

The Obama Administration has released a set of memos from the George W. Bush era detailing and authorizing the use of torture in interrogations of terror suspects, even as it dismisses the public's call for prosecution:

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future." [emphasis added]

The idea that nothing will be gained by "laying blame for the past" is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Criminal prosecution always concerns the past: you do not prosecute people for the things they will do -- you prosecute them for the things they did do. If nothing shall be gained by focusing on the path, then nothing is to be gained from any sort of prosecution of any sort of criminal, whether said criminal is accused of murder, rape, theft, or illegal interrogation practices.

The Obama Administration says it has "taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again", but how can he possibly guarantee that? Any steps to prevent torture in the future are incomplete without the power and willingness to prosecute those who do evade whatever measures are put in place. Torture will always be possible, and if every Administration were to adopt Obama's stance on "laying blame for the past", every Administration would be held blameless for the very kinds of practices the Obama Administration claims to oppose.

Obama's Stance on Warantless Wiretaps is Even Worse than Bush's

The EFF reports the Obama Administration, "in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, [has] made two deeply troubling arguments."

1. "They argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue 'would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.' As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence."

2. "... the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses 'sovereign immunity' from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes."

Stupid Political Correctness

Political correctness can hardly get more stupid than this:

"The uproar over the Miley Cyrus photo that some Asian groups have deemed offensive has spilled over to the courtroom.

According to court documents obtained by Access Hollywood, a Los Angeles woman is suing Miley over the photograph — for an amount that could add up to over $4 billion.

According to court documents, Lucie J. Kim, who brought the suit against the pop star, claims to represent over 1 million people of Asian Pacific Islander descent in the Los Angeles area. Kim claims that she and others are victims 'of [Cyrus’] discriminatory acts.'"

Filing such a meritless lawsuit should not be without consequences. At the very least, she should be required to pay Cyrus' legal fees, and punitive damages should be awarded as well, similar to how it is done in SLAPP cases.

The photo in question may be found here.

Supreme Court 2, First Amendment 0

ReligiousFreaks has some interesting things to say about a couple of disappointing decisions by the US Supreme Court, the first concerning a student's right to free speech ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus") and the second concerning the separation of state and church (spending your tax dollars on faith-based initiatives).

The sad part is that we're stuck with these judges until they either retire or die.