Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Breaking: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details
TechDirt.com ^ | 12/08/2011

Posted on 12/11/2011 5:56:42 AM PST by JerseyHighlander

Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...

from the copyright-as-censorship dept

Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that's a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.

But, in a story that's been in the making for over a year, and which we're exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."

There are so many things about this story that are crazy, it's difficult to know where to start, so let's give the most important point first: The US government has effectively admitted that it totally screwed up and falsely seized & censored a non-infringing domain of a popular blog, having falsely claimed that it was taking part in criminal copyright infringement. Then, after trying to hide behind a totally secretive court process with absolutely no due process whatsoever (in fact, not even serving papers on the lawyer for the site or providing timely notifications -- or providing any documents at all), for over a year, the government has finally realized it couldn't hide any more and has given up, and returned the domain name to its original owner. If you ever wanted to understand why ICE's domain seizures violate the law -- and why SOPA and PROTECT IP are almost certainly unconstitutional -- look no further than what happened in this case.



Okay, now some details. First, remember Dajaz1.com? It was one of the sites seized over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend back in 2010 -- a little over a year ago. Those seizures struck us as particularly interesting, because among the sites seized were a bunch of hip hop blogs, including a few that were highly ranked on Vibe's list of the top hip hop blogs. These weren't the kinds of things anyone would expect, when supporters of these domain seizures and laws like SOPA and PROTECT IP talk of "rogue sites." Blogs would have lots of protected speech, and in the hip hop community these blogs, in particular, were like the new radio. Artists routinely leaked their works directly to these sites in order to promote their albums. We even pointed to a few cases of stars like Kanye West and Diddy tweeting links to some of the seized domains in the past.

In fact, as the details came out, it became clear that ICE and the Justice Department were in way over their heads. ICE's "investigation" was done by a technically inept recent college grad, who didn't even seem to understand the basics of the technology. But it didn't stop him from going to a judge and asking for a site to be completely censored with no due process.



The Dajaz1 case became particularly interesting to us, after we saw evidence showing that the songs that ICE used in its affidavit as "evidence" of criminal copyright infringement were songs sent by representatives of the copyright holder with the request that the site publicize the works -- in one case, even coming from a VP at a major music label. Even worse, about the only evidence that ICE had that these songs were infringing was the word of the "VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA," Carlos Linares, who was simply not in a position to know if the songs were infringing or authorized. In fact, one of the songs involved an artist not even represented by an RIAA label, and Linares clearly had absolutely no right to speak on behalf of that artist.

Despite all of this, the government simply seized the domain, put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals, and then refused to comment at all about the case. Defenders of the seizures insisted that this was all perfectly legal and nothing to be worried about. They promised us that the government had every right to do this and plenty of additional evidence to back up its claims. They promised us that the government would allow for plenty of due process within a reasonable amount of time. They also insisted that, after hearing nothing happening in the case for many months, it meant that no attempt to object to the seizure had occurred. Turns out... none of that was true.

What happened next is a story that should never happen in the US. It's like something out of Kafka or the movie Brazil, but it should never have happened under the US Constitution. First, you have to understand the two separate processes: there's seizure and then there's forfeiture. Under the seizure laws, the government has 60 days from seizure to "notify" those whose property it seized (imagine having the government swoop in and take away your property, and not even being told why for two whole months). Once notified, the property owner has 35 days to file a claim to request the return of the property. If that doesn't happen, the government can effectively just keep the property, so it tends to rely on intimidation and threats towards anyone who indicates plans to ask for their property back (usually in the form of threatening to file charges). However, if such a claim is filed, the government then has 90 days to start the full "forfeiture" process, which would allow the government to keep the seized property and never have to give it back. If the claim to return the property is filed and the government does not file for forfeiture, it is required to return the property. Thus seizures are supposedly used as a temporary part of the investigation, to stop criminal activity or to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, that's not how things always play out in real life.



As we'd heard with a number of domain names that had been seized, the government began stalling like mad when contacted by representatives for domain holders seeking to get their domains back. ICE even flat out lied to the public, stating that no one was challenging the seizures, when it knew full well that some sites were, in fact, challenging. Out of that came the Rojadirecta case, but what of Dajaz1?

After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1's filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1's lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain). Bridges made clear that Dajaz1 would challenge the forfeiture procedure and seek to get the domain name back at that time. Then, the deadline for the government to file for forfeiture came and went and nothing apparently happened. Absolutely nothing. Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. Bridges, quite reasonably, asked how that was possible without him, as counsel for the site, being informed of it or given a chance to make the case for why such an extension was improper.



He also asked for a copy of the the court's order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.

He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.

He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.

And file further extensions the government did. Repeatedly. Or, at least that's what Bridges was told. He sent someone to investigate the docket at the court, but the docket itself was secret, meaning there was no record of any of this available.

The government was required to file for forfeiture by May. The initial (supposed) secret extension was until July. Then it got another one that went until September. And then another one until November... or so the government said. When Bridges asked the government for some proof that it had actually obtained the extensions in question, the government attorney told Bridges that he would just have "trust" him.

Finally, the government decided that it would not file a forfeiture complaint -- because there was no probable cause -- and it let the last (supposed) extension expire. Only after Bridges asked again for the status of the domain did the government indicate that it would return the domain to its owner -- something that finally happened today. Dajaz1.com is finally back in the hands of its rightful owner. This is really quite incredible, considering the "rush" with which it seized these domain names, claiming the urgency in stopping a crime in progress. But, of course, after realizing that it had no evidence to suggest a crime was ever in progress - there was absolutely no urgency to correct the error.



The level of secrecy in this case makes it sound like a terrorist investigation, not the censorship of a popular music blog. Normally, when there's a lawsuit, the docket is available on PACER. Even in cases where things are filed under seal or everything is redacted, there's at least a placeholder for them in PACER. This case does not exist anywhere that anyone can find. The docket was apparently kept hidden in a judge's office in Los Angeles the whole time. No one knew this was going on, other than the US Attorney and the representatives of Dajaz1 (who still never saw the docket or the extension orders).

Let's just take stock here for a second. We have the government clearly censoring free speech in the form of a blog that discussed the music world and was widely recognized for its influence in promoting new acts. The government seized the blog with no adversarial hearing and no initial due process. Then, rather than actually provide some sort of belated due process in the form of an adversarial hearing, it continued to deny any and all due process by secretly (even to Dajaz1's own lawyer) extending the seizure without any way to challenge those extensions. All in all, the government completely censored a popular web site for over a year, when it had no real evidence for probable cause of infringement, as it had falsely claimed in the original rubber stamped affidavit. As we noted in reviewing the affidavit, the case had been put together by folks who clearly did not understand the law, the site or the music space. But to then double down on that and continue to hold the domain for a year in secret? That just compounds the error and takes it to new extremes.

This was flat out censorship for no reason, for an entire year, by the US government... Everyone should be horrified by this. It also shows what a joke the claims of supporters are that since "a judge reviewed the affidavit," there's due process. Without the other party, there is no real due process. Not only that, but the government made sure, at every step of the way, that the other party was not heard. That's horrifying. It wasn't just an act of omission in leaving out the party, but actively preventing the party from being heard.

And yet the feds and private companies continue to say we should just "trust them" to get these kinds of things right? Even more bizarre, they want to expand their ability to do this incontestable censorship through laws like PROTECT IP and SOPA? If anything, this massive screwup on the part of ICE, the Justice Department and the RIAA should lead us to go in the other direction. ICE and the DOJ should be investigated and reprimanded, if not directly penalized, for clear First Amendment violations, while the ICE program for seizing domains should be dismantled. John Morton, who led ICE's domain seizure program, should tender his resignation or be fired. Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who defended these seizures to Congress, should issue a public apology, and begin a process to revamp the government's role in such enforcement actions (and consider tendering her resignation as well). The federal government should issue a huge apology to the operators of Dajaz1 and make it clear that it will no longer take such drastic censorship actions. The RIAA should be investigated for providing claims about the site that were not true, and which it had no right to make.

If Congress needs to do anything, it should be to investigate the lawless, unconstitutional, cowboy censorship and blocking of due process by both Homeland Security and the Justice Department. The last thing it should be doing is allowing more such actions. This whole thing has been a disgrace by the US government, starting with a bogus seizure, improper and illegal censorship, followed by denial of due process and unnecessary secrecy. Dajaz1 is currently reviewing its options in terms of whether it can or should take further action as a result of this, but at least it has its domain back. And people wonder why we're so concerned about these seizures and new proposals to further such censorship. Brazil


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: censorship; coica; dueprocess; gestapo; ice; protectip; sopa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: Louis Foxwell

Thank you for the reply.


61 posted on 12/11/2011 9:59:23 AM PST by dmartin (Not the 'Change' you were 'Hoping' for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dmartin

One thing that should happen: Someone needs to file a bar complaint against the attorney(s) who falsely represented that secret extensions had been granted.


62 posted on 12/11/2011 10:09:51 AM PST by TheConservator ("I spent my life trying not to be careless. Women and children can be careless, but not men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dmartin

One thing that should happen: Someone needs to file a bar complaint against the attorney(s) who falsely represented that secret extensions had been granted.


63 posted on 12/11/2011 10:09:59 AM PST by TheConservator ("I spent my life trying not to be careless. Women and children can be careless, but not men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander; Jim Robinson; Travis McGee; SunkenCiv; bgill; aruanan
Here's something that will help.

I'm sure that a lot of you will piss and moan that "But they're affiliated with those benighted commies | socialisats | Soros | et al - and dismiss it out-of-hand. I ask you to reconsider, as it seems to be the only chance to prevent unlawful government actions like this, or the wrongful decisions made by the courts in many of the cases brought by 'fake people'.

 

Amendment

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

[Click the banner to go to the site]

As MoveToAmend states on their site, this not only will shut down corporations acting as a Man before the Bar but also any group that is incorporated for their own reasons - unions, non-profits, not-for-profits, charities, those favored by lawyers LLPs, etc.

It doesn't prevent any real person from anything, but it does shut down the incestuous marriage of corporate privilege and human rights in our society -- as I believe our Founders envisioned.

(ping to some folks I know care more for the rights of the messenger than for the message ;^) )

64 posted on 12/11/2011 10:11:39 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

65 posted on 12/11/2011 10:39:08 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Holding our flawed politicians to higher standards than the enemyÂ’s politicians guarantees they win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi
I make it easy for them and use my real name.

Murrieta Madman was a huge clue. I like agencies and others to earn their money, no matter how easy it is for them.

66 posted on 12/11/2011 11:36:00 AM PST by MurrietaMadman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Haddit
Among the comments to the article is one that identifies the forum, whether or not accurately, as the United States District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. Another poster states that the blog's lawyer should have applied to the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus. Also, only the ICE staff lawyer, not a court official, made reference to the extensions, so there may never have been any. Meanwhile, the relevant statute of limitations may have conveniently run.

On the other topic, FR should long ago have tunneled to an offshore VPN for hosting.

67 posted on 12/11/2011 11:43:06 AM PST by Praxeologue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Some of the electrons were rumored to have entered the country illegally...

Ha ha made me laugh. And what of the free electrons that allegedly have their own constitution? Surely ICE wouldn't couldn't...

68 posted on 12/11/2011 11:55:59 AM PST by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, "...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Karliner

Oops maybe “Free Radicals” have no authority, okay time to crack open the physics books and see wherein this lies in the constitution.


69 posted on 12/11/2011 12:01:46 PM PST by Karliner ( Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 8:28, "...this is the end of the beginning."WC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: bgill
I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

"The scariest words in the English language" - Ronald Reagan.

70 posted on 12/11/2011 12:02:04 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: brityank; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

The only chance to prevent unlawful government actions like this is to remove all protection from companies owned by more than one person? Yeah, that makes sense.


71 posted on 12/11/2011 12:09:36 PM PST by SunkenCiv (It's never a bad time to FReep this link -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
The only chance to prevent unlawful government actions like this is to remove all protection from companies owned by more than one person? Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes it does - as the "protections" of which you allude are not privileges granted by governments but rather rights of Man usurped by unconstitutional machinations of our judicial and legislative and executive branches. Capich?

72 posted on 12/11/2011 12:20:55 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Thanks! That is great info. Back in the mid-80s, as C-SPAN was taking root, someone proposed that as Members spoke, their relationships to the bill being discussed should be on a banner on the screen. Obviously, that came to naught, but I thought it was a good idea then and still think it’s a good idea today.

I can see why so many CA Members especially are involved with this. Remember, when Sonny Bono came to Congress, no one could figure out why he (of all people) wanted to be on the Judiciary Committee. Well, duh. Copyrights meant something to him personally.

This ‘secret court’ business, tho is VERY disturbing. It has its place for real terrorism, but I don’t see its necessity for copyrights. It would help if the courts were more efficient, tho they don’t have power over pirates from India, Thailand, etc. who have their products on the street the very day of a new release.


73 posted on 12/11/2011 12:29:29 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Great post, and we really SHOULD be concerned.

But somehow I couldn’t feel a certain satisfaction, with hip-hop fans decrying over-reach by Holder’s DOJ, you know?

They’re screaming so loudly that they almost seem....white...?

Can I look for you at the next Nascar event?

And what, Mr. HipHop, do you think when men slap billy-clubs into gloved fists on Election Day..?


74 posted on 12/11/2011 12:36:09 PM PST by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Understand the court may be legal, but how are alleged copyright violations a matter for a Foreign Intelligence court?


75 posted on 12/11/2011 1:08:36 PM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bgill

FR will be one of the first to go when the time comes. It will the sign we need to take up arms to defend ourselves.


76 posted on 12/11/2011 1:18:52 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
Now, put this in the context of recent legislation to make the CONUS a designated military theater of operations so that the govt can take into custody or assassinate people living inside our borders. It will all be done in secret. They won’t even tell you they have them, and they will hold them as long as they want without trial. It will be illegal and they won’t care. Secret police type of govt is coming down on us real soon. =========================

When was this passed, and what is the name of the legislation, where can we read more about this?

77 posted on 12/11/2011 1:48:22 PM PST by boxlunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

That is what this is all about, Free Speech. Free Republic does not have to register in an off-shore country, we will fight to keep it that way.


78 posted on 12/11/2011 2:37:11 PM PST by Haddit (Heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: boxlunch

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2814517/posts
U.S. Congress enacts laws to hold civilians under indefinite military detention without trial
Asian Tribune ^ | December 1st 2011 | Daya Gamage
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:42:41 PM by Cardhu
Under Sections 1031and 1032 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2012, the United States Congress has proposed to give the Department of Defense the explicit power to take civilians into military custody, detain them indefinitely with no charges or trial.


79 posted on 12/11/2011 2:49:34 PM PST by Haddit (Heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JerseyHighlander

Every time we give the Federal government more unconstitutional power in the name of keeping us safe in a war on terror, they use that power in any way they want against American citizens. It has nothing to do with preventing terror nor with capturing terrorists.

If our government and politicans were REALLY concerned about blocking terrorists, they would at least secure the border so they can not freely travel into the country and attack us.

We lost our freedom in this war on terror and we have been divided and conquered; socially and economically by our politicans and government. The terrorists won. Our political elite and their business pals are totally dishonorable; treasonous.


80 posted on 12/11/2011 3:15:44 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson