3 ms·

They didn't need SOPA because they took the time and effort needed to get a warrant. The argument against SOPA is not that sites could be shut down, but that t

by aqme28 15y ago

They didn't need SOPA because they took the time and effort needed to get a warrant. The argument against SOPA is not that sites could be shut down, but that there needs to be a very demonstrable reason for it--with warrants and evidence and judges signatures. With SOPA, the site can be shut down based on accusation alone, and THAT is the problem.

greenyoda 15y ago
Well, to be precise, this site was indeed shut down based on accusation alone. The operators of the site have been charged with criminal offenses, but until they're actually convicted in a court of law, they're presumed by U.S. law to be innocent. So what's the justification for shutting down the site before the jury renders a verdict? And if the jury acquits them (we don't know how strong the government's case really is, so it's certainly possible), will the government compensate them for their lost earnings?
- aplusbi 15y ago
  It was shutdown based on a warrant that was issued based on an accusation (and probably at least some evidence), which makes all the difference.
  - greenyoda 15y ago
    The fact that a warrant and an indictment were issued doesn't mean that these guys did anything wrong. Lots of people who are indicted are later acquitted. The fact that there is evidence doesn't mean that there's enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for conviction in criminal cases) that a crime has been committed. The defendants have a right to present their own evidence to the contrary. The U.S. Constitution has all these nice phrases like "due process of law" (see 5th Amendment), but they don't really mean anything if the government can take your property away without your having been convicted by a jury in a fair trial where you had adequate legal representation. Nothing terrible would happen if the government were to leave the web site up until a jury convicted these people. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you want to have a chance to defend yourself in court before you had your property taken away?
    - wisty 15y ago
      If you are accused of a crime, you are detained. You can get bail, but only if you can convince the judge that you aren't likely to re-offend (or flee) during the bail period. It's the same basic principle. The point is, there's stuff like formal charges, warrants, and so on which have to be taken care of. The cops can't just impound your car because someone said you were using it to ship stolen property - they need to get a warrant.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Precisely. When the government shuts down a website that is a punishment. Our laws are designed such that for any punishment meted out by authority there must be due process. The accused have a right to a trial, to counsel, to face their accusers, to see and rebut the evidence against them. The authorities have limits on the way they can gather evidence. The accused enjoy the assumption of innocence and the requirement to prove guilt. Even if one trial finds the accused guilty of a crime there are multiple stages of appeals to higher courts available. Fully half of the bill of rights concerns freedom of expression or due process. SOPA was an attempt to rip that away, to stamp the internet as a constitution free zone. Considering that the internet will soon be the primary backbone of industry, personal and business communication, and the dissemination of news, that is a very dangerous development if we wish to preserve individual liberty.

by aqme28 15y ago

greenyoda 15y ago

Well, to be precise, this site was indeed shut down based on accusation alone. The operators of the site have been charged with criminal offenses, but until they're actually convicted in a court of law, they're presumed by U.S. law to be innocent. So what's the justification for shutting down the site before the jury renders a verdict? And if the jury acquits them (we don't know how strong the government's case really is, so it's certainly possible), will the government compensate them for their lost earnings?

aplusbi 15y ago
It was shutdown based on a warrant that was issued based on an accusation (and probably at least some evidence), which makes all the difference.
- greenyoda 15y ago
  The fact that a warrant and an indictment were issued doesn't mean that these guys did anything wrong. Lots of people who are indicted are later acquitted. The fact that there is evidence doesn't mean that there's enough evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for conviction in criminal cases) that a crime has been committed. The defendants have a right to present their own evidence to the contrary. The U.S. Constitution has all these nice phrases like "due process of law" (see 5th Amendment), but they don't really mean anything if the government can take your property away without your having been convicted by a jury in a fair trial where you had adequate legal representation. Nothing terrible would happen if the government were to leave the web site up until a jury convicted these people. If you were accused of a crime, wouldn't you want to have a chance to defend yourself in court before you had your property taken away?
  - wisty 15y ago
    If you are accused of a crime, you are detained. You can get bail, but only if you can convince the judge that you aren't likely to re-offend (or flee) during the bail period. It's the same basic principle. The point is, there's stuff like formal charges, warrants, and so on which have to be taken care of. The cops can't just impound your car because someone said you were using it to ship stolen property - they need to get a warrant.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Precisely. When the government shuts down a website that is a punishment. Our laws are designed such that for any punishment meted out by authority there must be due process. The accused have a right to a trial, to counsel, to face their accusers, to see and rebut the evidence against them. The authorities have limits on the way they can gather evidence. The accused enjoy the assumption of innocence and the requirement to prove guilt. Even if one trial finds the accused guilty of a crime there are multiple stages of appeals to higher courts available. Fully half of the bill of rights concerns freedom of expression or due process. SOPA was an attempt to rip that away, to stamp the internet as a constitution free zone. Considering that the internet will soon be the primary backbone of industry, personal and business communication, and the dissemination of news, that is a very dangerous development if we wish to preserve individual liberty.