No. Anyone making a car that people would only want to buy in order to drive it faster than the speed limit is guilty. You need to work on your analogies.

There's a good chance you actually have (an undiagnosed case of) one or the other.

Yeah, pretty soon 90% of slashdotters will claim to be male and Seumas will be just as incredulous.

Maybe not, but you probably do.

Why does ANYONE think that ANYONE and EVERYONE need to be in ALL caps?

They probably actually do.

I'm guessing the only people who sign up will be singles and swingers.

That's why my example wasn't drugs getting seized. It was a car getting seized. Are cars illegal?

One doesn't have to prove anything. One has to show probable cause. In the example I actually gave, the one of a car that was supposedly used to traffic drugs, the police don't need to prove the car was a tool used for crime to get a warrant for seizure. All they need is for a judge to believe they have probable cause, and to issue a warrant to seize that car.

Again, the intent doesn't have to be proved to conduct a seizure. It just has to be probable.

Sure, it's been made. Doesn't mean it's a good argument, or that courts will buy it.

Funny, just yesterday I read four US supreme court cases rejecting the argument that drugs present exigent circumstances for purposes of search and seizure.

So the Constitution now includes a list of types of harm that the police are supposed to promptly prevent? Snarkiness aside, none of this addresses my legal point at all, which was that crimes don't need to be proven before seizures take place, all that's needed is a warrant supported by probable cause (or in exigent circumstances, probable cause alone). That's the law. It's the same for drugs, guns, child pornography, and counterfeit designer handbags. The ICE agents got warrants in this case prior to conducting seizures. That's called following procedure.

Google has not fought this battle. Google doesn't knowingly link to infringing content, and when it becomes aware (through takedown notices that are necessary when there's no evidence of actual knowledge on the part of the OSP) it promptly unlinks (I know this from personal experience, having asked Google to unlink my employer's IP in the past).

I don't admit any such thing. I showed you case law that contains some courts deeming it illegal and some deeming it legal.

No I'm not. None of the things I've said rely on "service provider" being defined to mean either "internet service provider" or "online service provider". All the things I've said could apply equally well to either type of service provider.

I'm not assuming anyone's guilt. When there's probable cause to believe the offense has been committed, and a warrant has been issued, a seizure can take place. It's just like when several witnesses see you dealing drugs out of a car, and the police go tell that fact to a judge, the judge issues a warrant, and then they seize your car. Guilt is not assumed; probable cause is established, which is a different standard.

A COURT granted DHS the warrant to arrest the guy. ANOTHER COURT granted DHS the previous warrant to seize the domain.

Um...I don't know if you didn't read the part of my post that quoted the DMCA, or just don't understand legalese well enough to understand. If the former, please go back and read it. If the latter, why are you even participating in this discussion?

Seizing contraband is not a sanction. Seizing tools used to traffic in contraband is not a sanction. These are parts of the criminal procedure that go on long before guilt is determined. The Fourth Amendment covers them, but the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant (or exigent circumstances) based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment doesn't require conviction (a determination of guilt) prior to seizure.

Please indicate what evidence you have that DHS has ignored procedure.

Hey, man, I'm with you there. But just because it's catering to big business, doesn't mean the law isn't on their side.

Name the violations of the Constitution in this case, including what unconstitutional thing DHS did, what clause of the Constitution it violated, and at least one case supporting the interpretation that that's a violation. Name one.

I don't see why you need to yell. It's not my fault you have no grasp of criminal procedure yet insist on lecturing others about the law. It's especially not my fault you continued after this fact became painfully obvious three posts ago.

Obligatory Disclaimer: IANAL, but I read a lot of law, both case law and statutes.

Are you talking about the government we put in place after we got there? The government in control at the time we invaded was the Taliban, as recognized by, oh, basically the entire world. (including our own government)

Yeah, Google News supposedly requires news too, yet it frequently links to Fox.

You think local news outlets read Slashdot? Really??

No.

"Last I heard" is no substitute for looking up case law. The case law on this issue is unsettled. However, generally if the intention of the link was that those following the link would participate in copyright infringement, then that act of linking is illegal.

Those "steps that must be followed" only apply to service providers who are not actively aware of infringing material. If you purposely link to material you know is breaking copyright, you have no right to receive a takedown notice first.

—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection ( j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;...(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity...

DMCA section 512(d). You have to both lack actual knowledge of infringement and respond expeditiously to a takedown notice to fall under this exception. If you fail (1)(A) (did you lack actual knowledge?), you fail the whole test and your link can be deemed infringing without even getting to (3) (did you respond to a takedown notice?).