None of that has stopped them in the past. Apparently, they know a judge who doesn't mind sealing the docket in such a way as to deny the defendant even the opportunity to see them in court.
An example Internet Domain Freedom bill (opposite of SOPA) should counter this in making it illegal to take down the domain without judgement, so it would be excepted from seizures until after due process.
At the moment, they can initially seize pseudo-legally. Then it's a question of being illegal since they can't hold it without cause.
I'm for Internet Freedom laws, too, but I just worry that once we give the Government the power to control the Internet, we're only 2 or 3 Congress cycles away before someone starts tweaking that law in their favor, and start ripping the "Internet liberties" away from the law.
I would be much more confident if it was a Constitution amendment, but not done right away, because I don't trust the current generation of politicians with it, but maybe sometime by the end of the decade.
The government has seen SOPA, DMCA, PROTECT-IP, COICA, CEST, OPENA, ACTA and more. The anti-Internet groups are already giving government and corporations the power to control the Internet since 00s. I guess you could say that they are beyond tweaking the law in their favour, they're introducing laws in their favour.
If they won't stop demanding control of Internet, then we have to demand Internet Freedom bills. Those Internet Freedom bills are to replace SOPA in outlawing the opposite; outlawing attempts to seize domain names without judgement being passed.
Edit: The general aim of the bill is to make initial seizures illegal. It can be argued that it's hard to run off with the domain name during court case for example.
I just worry that once we give the Government the power to control the Internet...
This puts me in mind of the debates over the US Bill of Rights. Some people thought that the BoR was a mistake, as making an enumerated list would create the impression that it was an exhaustive list. Of course, that is just what happened, and despite protections built in by the 9th and 10th Amendments, those who continue to point out this fact are derided as "Tenthers". The result is absurd claims that censoring speech gives us freedom by respecting other peoples' religions, etc. (doublethink though that obviously is).
So in the long term, it may be a better move strategically not to have any legislation, for or against Internet freedoms. It should be entirely outside the purview of the government either way.
> So in the long term, it may be a better move strategically not to have any legislation, for or against Internet freedoms. It should be entirely outside the purview of the government either way.
Really? My takeaway from that was that non-enumerated freedoms get completely ignored...
