Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? (Score 2) 105

So, let me get this straight:

2. Selling ads == money laundering.
3. He's not violating tax laws, yet the IRS is still involved.
4. Purchasing email services from a US provider somehow makes you subject to all laws of the United States?

You're really grasping at straws, here.

As for 1...I agree that his service enabled users of that service to infringe on the copyrights of US entities, but are those copyrights valid in Poland or Ukraine? Do the laws of those countries spell out the punishment for copyright infringement of foreign copyrights? Why isn't he being punished under the laws of either his country of citizenship or residency, then? Masterminding a bank robbery != running a torrent tracker. In that case, there's an actual law being violated in the country where the law exists. Running a website is hardly bank robbery.

Comment Re:Why exactly is DoHS involved? (Score 1) 105

Give me a fucking break. He had no assets in the United States, was not operating a company in the United States, seems to have had no ties to the United States.

And by your definition, a Mexican citizen who commits murder in Mexico should be extradited and tried under US laws? Explain that to me, please, I'll be waiting there, friendly.

Comment More Globalist US Government Overreach (Score 2, Insightful) 105

Don't think we have a Global Government? Think Again!! You can run a site that's perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which you operate it, make money off it which is perfectly legal in the jurisdiction in which it operates, not even be a US Citizen, or even a citizen of the country you reside in, but the friendly US Government will still come kick your door down and cart you off to the inner empire to a kangaroo court where you'll be railroaded into pleading guilty to charges you have no chance of fighting against.

I mean if the United States INTERNAL Revenue Service can investigate a Ukranian citizen living in Poland for "conspiracy" to launder money, does any nation on this planet, save Iran or North Korea, really have any sovereignty from the United States?

Comment Re:I'd be more impressed if he picked Ivanka (Score 1) 407

Funny, isn't it, how liberals can just find any reason for people they dislike to be wrong?

"She's shown her vagina in a magazine, perfect for you white trash conservatives!"

and if you say she shouldn't show her vagina in a magazine:

"What kind of misogynist bumpkin radical Christian conservatives would judge a woman for showing her beautiful body in a magazine?!"

Comment Re:AT&T needs to watch out... (Score 1) 204

Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.

Comment Re:Why is there so much confusion? (Score 1) 204

The CDA clearly states that the service won't be held liable for actions taken TO RESTRICT access to the things mentioned.

It doesn't say ANYWHERE that they won't be held liable for illegal activities that they fail to restrict. In fact, I believe that if you were to go in front of a judge and point out the fact that a service deletes and restricts extremely mundane content they disagree with while continuing to allow jihadi training videos and unfettered communications between terrorists (that, you know, is illegal to facilitate) it would only embolden the plaintiff's case.

It would be like saying I have the right to delete obscene content on my servers; if I delete photos of age-of-majority girls in bikinis but leave child abuse videos up, the CDA won't exonerate me for facilitiating the transmission of that content. Get it?

It takes a special brand of stupid to try and say that the CDA grants immunity to illegal activities performed over an interactive computer service.

Comment Why is there so much confusion? (Score 5, Interesting) 204

Has no one ever heard the term "common carrier"? You don't get to pick and choose what speech you allow on your little safe space AND be free from liability if someone commits crimes or otherwise does "bad things" on your services. This is why telephone companies have been classified as common carriers for nearly a century. If you allow all speech, unfettered, then you're free from liability for what anyone does on your service.

I'm honestly shocked it took this long for someone to call these hypocritical companies out on their bullshit, and I support it 100%. They want to be able to control speech, but only speech "they" dislike. That's fine, but when you open up that can of worms, you'd better be ready to make sure you're keeping the walled garden free of ALL vermin (and apply your policies equally, which we all know these scumbags don't) or someone's eventually going to call you out on it.

Comment Re:Cell companies (Score 1) 204

Search up "common carrier' in your favorite engine. If internet companies would like to be free from liability for illegal activity conducted on or facilitated by their networks, they should see about becoming one. Of course, then they don't get to control narratives by censoring and disallowing speech they don't like.

Can't have their cake and eat it, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Here comes Mr. Bill's dog." -- Narrator, Saturday Night Live