Here's the text of what I think is the actual Dynadot injunction in the Wikileaks case.
It orders Dynadot to disable the DNS for wikileaks and to preserve certain records. It doesn't say anything about the order applying to the rest of us.
I found it via this somewhat involved URL which I got off Google.
As regards Wikileaks, at least:
Google+censorship=Google*
*Not applicable in China
Old confused post removed – see the new improved posting at Two Strange Orders in the Wikileaks Case
A fan, presumably cross about this, writes:
Aren't you a little embarrassed to be connected to an organization that is defending CAIR?
You've got to be. You're a smart man.
If you are afraid to speak up about the Islamic influence on our society, then you have submitted and are already a Muslim. Do you really, in your heart, want this country to become Islamic? (Even 1% Islamic?) Would that be a good thing for your children? How on earth do you rationalize defending such a people!!
Michael Savage is a great man, and loved by millions! He is dead on about the Muslims.
Don't think that you can remain an advocate of EFF, and emerge unscathed when the tide finally turns against CAIR. Doesn't your reputation among people who know you, concern you at all?
Please consider withdrawing your support for EFF.
Remember:
In 2007 Islam and Judaism's holiest holidays overlapped for 10 days. Muslims racked up 397 dead bodies in 94 terror attacks across 10 countries during this time… while Jews worked on their 159th Nobel Prize.
Many who love you are dying inside from sadness, because of what you are doing.
signed, a friend
I replied:
You are defending racist and bigot Michael Savage?
The man trying to trash the First Amendment while relying on it (justly) to protect him from charges of hate speech?
And you expect me to be embarrassed?
The first amendment protects everyone. Including you.
And yes, my children are better off in a multi-cultural society — it will help prepare them to deal with the world as it is.
I am on EFF's Advisory Board, and, yes, I'm rather proud of it.
Incidentally, estimates of the number of Muslims in the USA appear to vary enormously, from 1.1 million practicing Muslims on the low end (about 1/3 of 1%), to 2.2 on the more serious of the high end, to estimated numbers as high as 7 or 8 million (well over 2%) that appear to have been calculated with less precision and seek to include the non-practicing as well as those attending Mosque. (CAIR's high number is among those I'm dubious of.)
And finally, for the avoidance of doubt, I know fairly little about CAIR and thus don't have a view of it as an organization. I do think I know something about fair use in copyright law, and I certainly do have strong views about bullies who try to abuse copyright law to silence their critics.
It seems Florida has a law that makes it much more difficult to re-sell a used CD. Among its provisions is a prohibition on stores paying cash for used CDs — they can only give store credit. And stores must hold CDs for 30 days before reselling them. Worst of all, if reports are to be believed (I haven't seen the statute) stores must subject sellers of used CDs to the third degree:
No, you won't spend any time in jail, but you'll certainly feel like a criminal once the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints.
On top of that, stores that want to sell used CDs despite all these discouragements will have to post a $10,000 bond!
CDs, even used ones, are a form of speech covered by the First Amendment. The idea that one must register to traffic in speech strikes me as presumptively unconstitutional. I wonder how this statute could survive strict scrutiny (which I assume would be what applies?) given the assertion at ars technica that in fact there is “no proof that [stolen CDs] is a particularly pressing problem for record shops in general.”
Cites to the text of the bill, or thoughts from First Amendment mavens most welcome.
Buried deep, deep inside the New York Times, right at the bottom of a page, is this little bombshell: the paranoids were right.
Records Show Extra Scrutiny of Detainees in '04 Protests: When more than a thousand people were swept up in mass arrests during the 2004 Republican National Convention, defense lawyers complained in court that the protesters had to wait much longer to see a judge than those accused of far more serious crimes like robbery or assault.
Now, newly released city records not only put precise numbers to those claims, but also show the special scrutiny the New York Police Department gave to people arrested in or near the convention protests.
At the height of the mass arrests, on Aug. 31, 2004, demonstrators — and some people who said they were bystanders just swept up by the police — were held for an average of 32.7 hours before they saw a judge, according to city statistics. For people charged with crimes that the police decided were not related to the convention, the wait to see a judge was just under five hours.
…
The vast majority of those arrested were held on charges of roughly the same weight as a traffic ticket, and the law does not require fingerprinting for those offenses. However, the Police Department determined months before the convention that no one would be given a summons; instead anyone taken into custody would be sent through a full arrest process, including fingerprints and criminal record checks. Police officials said that for public safety, it was important to use fingerprints to confirm identities.
Not to mention that the special detention facility the protesters (but not the murders) were shipped to was so unhealthy that 40 cops have “submitted medical reports, saying they became ill after working there.”
For most jobs — maybe not mine — you can probably be fired for blogging during working hours unless the boss approved it as a work-related activity. But what about off-duty blogging? On controversial topics? This interesting article from today's New York Law Journal looks at the rights of bloggers (especially bloggers in New York) relating to their jobs.
And New York has some interesting relevant law,
In New York, an employer may not discharge, discriminate against, or refuse to hire employees because of their participation in “legal recreational activities” off the employer's premises during nonworking hours unless the activity “creates a material conflict of interest related to the employer's trade secrets, proprietary information or other proprietary or business interest.” N.Y. Lab. Law §201d(2)(a)©, (3)(a). The statute defines “recreational activities” as including “any lawful, leisure activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of television, movies and similar material.” Although very few courts have interpreted this statute (and none have applied it to blogging), courts that have analyzed the statute have declined to give “recreational activities” an expansive interpretation. See, e.g., McCavit v. Swiss Reinsurance America Co., 237 F3d 166 (2d Cir. 2001) (holding that dating is not a “recreational activity” protected by the New York legal recreational activities statute).
Employees can be expected to argue that blogs that may be offensive or embarrassing to the employer are lawful recreational activities under the law. Employers, however, can be expected to press for a narrow interpretation of the law that recognizes the employer's right to manage its business and protect its reputation and confidential information.
There's lots more where that came from.
Update: Ack! It's behind a paywall. I try never to link to stuff like that if I can avoid it, but now that I've posted this, I don't think I can very well take down this item.
Jotwell Blenderlaw