greenleaves - 11:49 pm on Mar 8, 2012 (gmt 0)

I'm not sure someone seizing my domain name would impact my freedom whatsoever.

So taking away your only source of income would have no impact on freedom. I admire such detachment to the material world; I doubly admire if your family shared such detachment.

Tossing me in jail, that's another story. This has nothing to do with DUE PROCESS, civil liberties, freedom of expression or wrapping the flag around like a bathrobe while standing on the kitchen chair singing the national anthem with an original tea kettle from the Boston Tea Party whistling in the background. If a crime is in the process of being committed, you STOP THE CRIME and then follow up with DUE PROCESS to convict the criminal.

Do you even know what due process is? Do you even know what they did? Funny how little understanding you have on a topic where you have such a strong opinion. You don't even know what due process is; that is clear. You don't even know how the gov is conducting their seizures; that is clear. Yet you support it. Amazing, although sadly common. I guess that is why we have the patriot act and other such wonderful stuff that keeps us 'safe'.

Maybe this will help you:

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that's a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States. But, in a story that's been in the making for over a year, and which has been exposed to the public this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."

For more on that, look up Dajaz1 case

Using the logic presented above all bank robbers would be allowed to rob the bank, shoot all the people, and spend the money while waiting for DUE PROCESS. You don't allow the criminal to continue committing the crime, you toss him in jail first, or in this case SEIZE THE DOMAIN, and then let a jury of his/her peers sort it all out after the fact.

Your total lack of understand of due process and what happened is very clear. You don't have to make it that painfully obvious.

I actually wouldn't have THAT much of a problem with the whole seizures if they were handled in the same way as a bank robbery. IF IT happened.

See, using the bank robber case. The arresting officers will need to press charges or release the man within 24-48 hours (virtually every civilized country in the world has this). The man will also have a right to an Adversarial preliminary hearing regarding his confiscated property (say he pulled the gun in the bank to scratch his ear, instead of the rob, and the whole thing was a misunderstanding)

In any case, he would then be on trial in a matter of days, weeks, or a few months at the most. If the guy is found not guilty, he would be given his gun back and whatever property that was confiscated. His gun and property would retain value.

But that is NOT what is being done to the people whose domains are seized.

They have their property seized. Sometimes, it can take months for them to even be notified of the charges. Once arrested, the person is held without trial for YEARS. Yes, YEARS. No adversarial hearing for the property confiscation. Then, oddly, the person arrested eventually signs a plea bargain.

This violates your right to a speedy trial. By keeping the proceeding hidden they violate your right to a public trial. By not given you access to the charges being brought up, they are denying your right to notice of accusations. It violates your right to proper representation because by freezing all your assets they leave you without money to pay a lawyer. By forcing a plea bargain they deny your right to a trial of your peers.

Why don't you just admit you have no idea what you are talking about? You are just giving a knee jerk reaction to defending the authorities. You might want to analyze why you have such a knee jerk reaction to defending the authorities. Could it be that they convinced you that they are there 'for you' instead of being a 'necessary evil whose power should be limited'

Last post on the topic, agree to disagree, don't really care, but stopping the crime in progress first has ALWAYS been the standard method of operation for any law enforcement action.

Yes, law enforcement action. Not courts. I know you are smart enough to understand the difference.

I know it has become standard in our society today for people to form an opinion without any understand of the topic they have an opinion about. But why don't you look up the mooo.com case and discover why and adversarial hearing would have avoided over 80,000 INNOCENT VOICES having been shut off by the gov, by accident.



@incrediBILL
There are two ways of handling criminal justice: crime control model and due process model. Each model has pros and cons. You can't have it both ways, can't eat your cake and have it at the same time.

Either you support due process, in which case these domain seizures are an outrage, or you support the crime control model, in which case there are really awesome places you can move to so you can fully enjoy it; china, russia, syria, etc. They are perfect for those who put safety over civil liberty. If only those who wished for such a system would move to it instead of trying to destroy our due process model to gain a little more 'security'