U.S. Government Shuts Down 84,000 Websites, ‘By Mistake’

Post by pzxc » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:25 PM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #6

snsr wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is clearly an example unreasonable seizure, and it seems the DHS exists solely to perform unreasonable searches. This trend towards outright censorship is a worrying one. While I can't speak to the content of any of the sites in this round of censorship/seizure, the DHS certainly seems to be acting outside their mandate.

As a supporter (and someone who voted for) Obama, I'm frustrated by his lack of comment/participation on this subject. There's no way he can think this is constitutional.

Post by aw3c2 » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:30 PM UTC

tomjen3 wrote: post #16

I have said this before I will have to say this again until we can get a good answer: What the fuck is the government waisting time doing this crap when they have a war on terror to fight? Concentrate on what is necessary for the war effort, dammit.

Post by mryall » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #20

joeybaker wrote: post #14

I can think of two questions I'd love to see a journalist track down: 1. What's the legal process for banning a book? 2. If it's not equally as hard (or harder) for the government to take down a website, why?

From my understanding, there are no 'banned books' in the US, but rather ones that are blacklisted by library, teaching and bookstore groups making them difficult to come by. I'm personally unaware of any book that the US Government has banned, although I'm always willing to be wrong :)

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:33 PM UTC

tibbon wrote: post #17

w1ntermute wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an example, let's look at the warrantless wiretapping that AT&T did on the behest of the NSA[0]. The EFF filed two cases in response that claimed it was a blatant violation of the 4th amendment: Jewel v. NSA[1] & Hepting v. AT&T[2], against the government & AT&T, respectively. Here's the latest news on Jewel v. NSA: > In April, the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel, claiming that litigation over the wire…

I see how they could evoke state secrets for wiretapping and such, but there's no secret here except that they screwed up and seized something they shouldn't have. I don't know how this specifically would be as easy to dismiss, but lawyers and the government always can find new tricks I'm sure.

Post by CWuestefeld » Wed, Feb 16, 2011, 2:36 PM UTC

jimmyk wrote: post #15

tibbon wrote: post #2

While there are more important things in life (like being accused wrongly of child pornography), I wonder how that effects their Google rankings to suddenly have your entire domain ripped out from underneath you and pointing to a duplicate content site. Is there any recourse for this action? Seems that this would trigger unreasonable search and seizure.

Yes, there is recourse. IANAL, but as far as my understanding goes, the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances includes the right to sue the government, or at least to file a suit against the government in court.