However, this is not that particular domain seizure. This is a redirect to government servers ("spoofs", if you will) with no judicial oversight. Furthermore, there was no judicial order for VeriSign to act in such a deceptive manner in support of a government actor.
Your post only goes to prove the GPs issue on due process. If they were able to follow the rules then, why not now? This simply constitutes censorship until evidence and affidavit are submit to a judge in due process of law to obtain a writ. Only then does this become an injunction and not censorship.
the article says and even links to the fact that the US Government busted people selling counterfeit or pirated goods.
Wrong. The article says that the "ICE said" that these sites were "engaged in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit goods and copyrighted works". These are allegations, not "facts". Preponderance of evidence proving a crime has been committed is accomplished only through proper due process. There were no references to a court order, no references to a court trial, nor any reference to admittance of a crime. It is apparent to me that the DNS redirects were accomplished under duress of an executive agency without judicial oversight:
The seizures were accomplished by getting the VeriSign registry, owner of the
I would call this unconstitutional, regardless of any supposed law that may be reference to the contrary. If these actions were done under a court order with judicial oversight accomplished through a supportive affidavit of the specific crime and specific circumstances, it would be different.
At this point in time, it is simply one government agency (or rather a group of related agencies), all this is is the effective removal of someone's publication of information. Until the judiciary orders its removal, it is nothing less than censorship.
We won't even go into the allusion in the article that the government is apparently deceptively redirecting site traffic to its own servers.
True, however, enforcement of said judgment is quite another matter. For instance, if someone tries to sue me in another State over a matter that is not lawful to sue me for in my State, they will have a very hard time attaching anything of value that is not within the adjudicating State's geographic boundaries. If they attempt to attach my wages in my State of citizenry, where their initial proceeding was not lawful to begin with, their petition would be denied.
Even if the other State's court was able to get a petition considered in my State, once it is found to be unlawful to proceed, my State's court would deny the petition.
That may well be the case to the opening story. If this person is a citizen of California, and the contract was initiated in Massachusetts, then his current State of citizenry would have precedence in the matter where Federal Law is silent.
However, if this person is still a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, then Massachusetts would be able to enforce its law upon its own citizen.
Moving to a new State does not automatically transfer citizenry. There are lawful requirements in each State to attain citizen status. Even in criminal matters, any State must obtain permission from the State of citizenry to extradite for prosecution where Federal Law is silent.
It is no different in matters of tort. If a contract is unlawful in the State of citizenry, then it is also unenforceable on that State's citizen, barring any interests the person has in the State of adjudication and Federal Law.
I would have to say that this is the reasoning the State of California is also making with regards to this case. It will be interesting to see how it all ends.
Your reference is in regards to two corporations located in the State of Massachusetts over a citizen of said State. We are citizens of our respective States and bound by the laws of our State of citizenry while within the geographic boundaries of said State. I am not bound by the laws of another State as a citizen of my State for activity I conduct within my own State, unless the laws of my State give such authority to another State or there is Federal Law which affects said activity.
So the question is, is this person a citizen of the State of Massachusetts or not? If not, then the State of Massachusetts may find it hard to enforce their State laws upon another State's citizen for activity within their own State.
From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 : brownout \brown"out\ n. 2. a partial reduction in the amount of electric power available to customers in a region, such as by reduction of voltage or selective cutoff of certain customers;
"The companies" have already been testing selective cutoff of internet access, and some are even making appearances of "backing off". This "study" is simply telling the truth. "The companies" are going to increase their practices of selective cutoff. This is just propaganda to get the general public to believe it's not "the companies" doing it deliberately.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
