sourmìlk wrote:yoni45 wrote:sourmìlk wrote:The problem is that this isn't just confiscating property, it's removing their primary avenue for speech. Blocking a website is far more akin to censorship than a seizure of property.yurell wrote:Not to mention firing them from their job, since it cuts off their revenue stream.
Two things that aren't particularly relevant to whether an injunction is justified.
It's not justified if it involves censorship without a trial, then it is most certainly not justified. If it's really okay to do this, I don't see that there's any legal barrier to arbitrarily taking down any website.
I think his point is that you can't hide illegal activity behind free speech. It's not valid to say, "ok, they're pirating, but since there's also legal content up, free speech protects them." One might argue that they could have taken down only part of the website, but I'm not sure how feasible it is to trawl through the entire site's worth of content and check every single file.
Metaphysician wrote:Anonymous got press pretty much as soon as they started with their tactics so I'd say on a purely attention getting level, they're winning.
Yeah, but unless this is the only tactic that works (and I really don't think it is), then I'm still going to call out anonymous on being totally counterproductive and wrong.