Date: 2011-12-16 10:17 pm (UTC)
dot_fennel: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dot_fennel
Three questions come to mind, reading section 102, that I do not know enough to answer:

First, is taking action under this law less work than seizing a U.S. domain? If so, the "well, they can already do this to domestic sites, and the internet isn't gone" argument doesn't hold; maybe the limiting factors are time and money, rather than the perceived odds of winning in court.

Second, along similar lines, does the victim of a spurious government action under section 102 have less recourse than the owner of a wrongfully seized domestic domain does? (I'm guessing the answer is "no, because there's nothing either one can do".)

Third, who determines whether a foreign site "would be" subject to seizure? Is it the same as who determines whether a domestic site actually IS? I mean, I can say that I only kick people in the shins if they would, theoretically, be found duly deserving of shin-kicking by a jury of their peers, and I could be totally sincere. But unless I actually start convening juries, I'm still just a guy walking around kicking people who I don't like.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

usernamenumber

October 2016

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425 26272829
3031     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 17th, 2025 04:25 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios