[At-Large] 9th Circuit Court ruling on ICANN Contract.
karl at cavebear.com
Sun Jan 9 20:40:46 UTC 2011
On 01/09/2011 11:04 AM, Derek Smythe wrote:
> How can you put all the responsibility and risk on one party, yet have
> no risk on the other side for those pill spammers/money mules/....
The argument you are making is one that essentially says "because there
is a danger that some actors might use their free speech rights to do
things that I do not like that, therefore, we must remove the 'free'
from 'free speech'."
I do not accept accusations as proof that a person is "spammers/money
mules/". I kind of prefer accusation to be merely a first step in a
Given events of the last few days in which people have been killed or
shot for expressing opinions I see a greater need than ever to assure
that those who use the internet to be able, if they chose, to have
privacy protections that may be broken only upon fair procedures -
certainly not on mere accusation (or, as today, mere curiosity.)
Personally I'd have wished that I could have added to my list of steps
that the accuser's statements and evidence be weighed by a human
magistrate. But I left that out in a bow to speed over fairness.
Was it you who mentioned law enforcement?
I always forget to mention that parallel to the process I outline that
there are other procedures available to law enforcement and governmental
authorities; I generally assume that those exist and transcend the kind
of private mechanisms that exist under ICANN. And I generally assume
(increasing, it seems, incorrectly) that these law enforcement and
governmental procedures honor some sort of due process.
More information about the At-Large