Before the hysteria reaches epic proportions, the advisory itself can be found here (pdf). It's a pretty quick read, only 10 pages, and sadly enough lacks any mention of enforcing rules outside of school, forced indoctrination, political correctness, or secret Muslim plots. TFA however makes for some nice slanted coverage, if anyone is looking for a chuckle I encourage you to read it.

Oh yeah, kids have limited consitutional rights - especially in education.

So the article detailing unsophisticated intrusion methods itself requires you to allow cookies before it's readable? Firefox, Opera, and IE all open a blank page if you refuse to accept their little offerings. So English majors...it is ironic?

Oh and bonus points for throwing a pdf in there too.

You're asking a really interesting question - and one that the courts haven't really addressed yet, as far as I know. The ADA specifically forbids discrimination in the enjoyment of certain kinds of activity - notably those defiend as "public accomodations."

(a) General Rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

. The list of things defined as public accomodations is extensive and seems to be extremely inclusive extending so as to encompass pretty much all social, commercial, and political venues. It hasn't yet been decided websites or online commercial activities - like XBox live - fall under that definition.

I found mention here of the following

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, has stated that a web site could qualify as a public accommodation. Specifically, the Court declared that "the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, ..., web site, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the non-disabled do." Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3432 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2000) (No. 99-772)).

Weird. My ex always sent me off to increase my "online activities" whenever I made "continued attempts to enter".

Slashdot's been working on breaking it's own records...only 14 days since this was posted originally.

Note that they specifically mention S.3804 which includes some decent legal requirements for site seizure - ironically enough, if those had been in place the actions by ICE would likely have not been allowed. The Summary notes for instance that the bill

Directs any actions against domestic domains to be in the judicial district where the domain name registrar or registry is located or, if such a domain is located or doing business in more than one judicial district, in the judicial district of its principal place of business. Allows any actions against nondomestic domains to be brought in the District of Columbia if: (1) such a domain is used within the United States to access an infringing site; (2) the site directs business to U.S. residents; and (3) the site harms U.S. intellectual property rights holders. Requires a court determining whether a site directs business to U.S. residents to consider factors including: (1) whether goods or services are being provided to U.S. users; (2) intent; (3) prevention measures; and (4) whether any prices for such goods and services are indicated in U.S. currency.

For those interested in reading the letter itself

We run companies large and small that represent diverse aspects of America's intellectual property community. While our employees live in different regions of the country, and work to produce a variety of goods and services, they have several important things in common - they work hard, they are committed to quality and innovation and they welcome competition. However, allowing others to unfairly compete by stealing the ideas, innovations and intellectual property rights created by our employees cannot be tolerated. This theft diminishes our ability to keep and create jobs, and makes it far more difficult to attract the capital needed to invest in new products and services. In order to protect our free enterprise system, and the standard of living it has contributed to our nation, it is critical that we multiply our efforts to identify and punish the criminals who steal what we create and produce.

Thus, we appreciate the effort and energy behind Operation in Our Sites. The actions announced on November 29, 2010 once again demonstrated that, just as in the physical world, prosecutors and courts can judiciously assess evidence and distinguish between legitimate businesses and criminal enterprises that flout the law and profit from the ingenuity of others. We believe that the online marketplace can only work for consumers and creators if there is respect for property rights and the rule of law - and urge you to continue to act against the kinds of domains that you have targeted. Unfortunately, there are far too many sites stealing from our businesses but we believe that your efforts will drive consumers to the many legitimate online ventures and services that we have worked hard to foster and support.

We encourage you to work with your colleagues in the Administration and the Congress toward enactment of the principles central to S. 3804 - the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. The legislation crafted by Senators Leahy and Hatch was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee and will undoubtedly be reintroduced this congress. The proposal expounds upon the law enforcement techniques at the heart of "Operation In Our Sites" and will ensure that rogue sites cannot evade U.S. jurisdiction by escaping offshore to foreign-based registrars, registries and country codes in order to peddle stolen American intellectual property back into the U.S. market. In addition, the Leahy-Hatch proposal provides an entirely new level of protection for U.S. rights holders by establishing the legal framework necessary to disrupt the business models of the illicit, offshore sites by starving them of the financing, advertising and access to consumers upon which they depend. The carefully balanced measure would allow American law enforcement officials and U.S. courts to deny thieves the ability to use the Internet to enter the U.S. market and undermine our businesses while reaping financial gain for themselves.

We hope that you will continue dedicating resources to Operation in Our Sites and work toward the Obama Administration's endorsement of the Leahy-Hatch legislation.

Leisure Suit Larry 7 (1996) did it with Scratch n Sniff cards, so did Leather Goddesses of Phobos back in the mid 80's and as far as LSL7 goes...it added about as much to the experience as you'd imagine. Decent gag, nothing much more.

In fine Slashdot tradition...they don't dismiss fair use at all. Looks good and makes for a bit of internet rage though.

Depends. Whilst Copyright typically doesn't protect the expression of an idea, it can do so within a limited set of circumstances, specifically those that meet the standard of Substantial Similarity. There's a bunch of competing tests to establish if substantial similarity exists, they can all be found in the linked article, but in general if the work in question is so similar as to raise judicial eyebrows then there's a pathway for legal intervention.

You're free to write a story about a wizarding school somewhere in the remote parts of the UK, you're fine writing a story involving said wizarding students fighting against some great evil, you're on shakey ground when the heroic lightning-bolt scarred Harry Motter and his two friends (one poor, the other both a girl and smart) battle the forces of wizardy prejudice, and you're probably going bankrupt if you go ahead and skip the pretense. It's all a matter of degree really.

So wait...now I'm supposed to play with myself in public bathrooms? Sheesh it'd hard to keep up with the rules...