Comments on: Hundreds of Web Sites Seized on Court Order; No SOPA Bill Required

By: Veronique Greenwood

Veronique Greenwood — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:17:02 +0000

@Fred, I’ve now spelled it out. You can click through to our previous coverage for more.

By: Iain

Iain — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 22:33:16 +0000

@ David
Without looking it up I will hazard a guess and say Madison. Anyway you are correct, your country is being overrun, your constitutional rights abrogated all in the name of security. Say goodbye to freedom folks, it’s already happening. Habeas corpus is already suspended.

By: alien

alien — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:56:19 +0000

constitution is not being upheld. violations should not be tolerated.

By: Fred Ghirardini

Fred Ghirardini — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:55:59 +0000

What the heck is a “SOPA”? How can you use an acronym in both the headline and the lede without explaining what the letters stand for?

By: John Kwok

John Kwok — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 18:16:19 +0000

David C. R. -

I did allude to that tangentially in my comment, but thanks for bringing it. IMHO this is a substantially extreme violation of the First Amendment, unlike for example, the shrill cries of Occupy Wall Street Movement protesters being evicted from their illegal encampments around the country (Anyone who is involved in the Occupy Writers Movement should regard this – not the Occupy Movement – as something that is in dire need of yours and your fellow authors’ attention IMHO.).

By: David C. R.

David C. R. — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:45:40 +0000

It’s funny how not one person has yet pointed to the fact that this is an EXTREME violation of law on behalf of Congress. An act which, by the way, they are growing increasingly bold in committing. Everybody wants to run around protesting these days but not one of them are protesting the right things. Quit asking the government which has created, or allowed to be created, the vast majortiy of the problems they are being asked to fix. If you want to protest, protest the fact that the government is slowly taking away every right provided to us by the Constitution. As one of our founding fathers so eloquently put it,’Any people that would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security would deserve neither and would lose both.’ I’ll leave it to those who would care to argue with me to find out which one said that since it would require them to actually educate themselves about this country and what it was originally created to be before they argue. And of course I don’t expect that this will actually change anything; I’m not delusional enough to believe that the masses care enough to fight the battles they should be fighting, or are even smart enough to see them when led by the nose to them.

By: Al Cibiades

Al Cibiades — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 17:53:59 +0000

@Matt – Surely you jest? State Irony? Don’t understand the translation?
Your vision of ‘natural justice’ is a swift sword or gun; shoot first, then do not bother with any questions.

By: Anne

Anne — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 14:19:09 +0000

So, the class war is getting dirtier and dirtier every week…

By: Matt H.

Matt H. — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:06:35 +0000

Due process schmoo process, destroy them all and let god sort it out! The principal of audi alteram partem is just opinion, anyway, and not a foundation of natural justice.

By: John Kwok

John Kwok — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:22:43 +0000

This is a most disturbing development. Those who owed the domains in question deserved to be entitled to the full due process of law – which these “legal” acts orchestrated by Chanel – not treatment reminiscient of press censorship in totalitarian dictatorships. As someone who espouses a predominantly Libertarian political philosophy, I would even err on the side of so-called “hate speech”, allowing websites containing such speech to persist unmolested, no matter how hateful that speech might be.