But doesn't ICANN/IANA control domain name registration? and IP address allocation?

Though lets keep in mind the near unanimous support that enjoyed.



F*** that sh|t.


Speaking as someone who serves on the board of directors of a 501(c)3 incorporated non-profit (and ICANN is also one of these), I can tell you that statement is patently false. By virtue of being tax-exempt, the government has a great deal to say about what you can and can't do if you'd like to maintain that status.

Also, IANA exists under the authority of ICANN by agreement with the US Department of Commerce (and before that it was USC/ISI administrated under agreement with the DoD).

But more importantly, a lot of large registrars are here, and they are subject to seizure of domain names under DHS/ICE's new Constitution-ignoring procedure.

Yes and no. They control names, but only because we let them. We could all switch to using "kllrnohj's awesome DNS" that is run entirely by me, for example. There is nothing special about ICANN.

As for IP address allocation, IANA deals with blocks, not individual IPs. ISPs are the ones who actually dish out IP addresses to users and servers. Pretty much all the blocks have already been dished out, anyway.

So if the US govt really went hardcore censorship and tried to block 4chan, for example, all they could really do is get ICANN/IANA to remove 4chan.org from the root DNS. Your ISP could totally ignore that, though, and continue to resolve 4chan.org. You could also switch to a different DNS that continued to resolve 4chan.org. There is nothing ICANN or IANA can do about that.

The US did do something like that with some piracy websites a while back.

Not that I can recall. Do you have a link? I'm pretty sure they've never done anything over ICANN/IANA.

http://www.swedishwire.com/global-news/7380-us-shuts-down-pirate-sites-full-list

It seems they just got control over the domain.

Those servers were also all almost certainly hosted in the US, making it just a regular ol' crime - internet not really being a factor.

That'd be the case for the webserver, but they confiscated the domain name and put there own website up.

He's referring to the DHS/ICE debacle, which is ongoing (but hasn't touched ICANN/IANA, afaik).

...yes, because it is in the US. The domain goes to the servers and the owners, which if they are located in the US is fair game for seizure, same as any other property. No special ICANN/IANA pressure/authority needed.

If you think this is a purely left-wing idea, you're mistaken. I am considered by many, and on a lot of things consider myself on the left, and I think this is a terrible idea, and a huge overreaction to an otherwise serious problem. There is sort of a grey area, if speech can cause real psychological damage to a person, even going as far as to make them commit suicide, then it's crossing the line from one person's freedom to another person's well-being. That said, having a law that you can't offend people on the internet would be super easy to abuse, and only make things worse. I'm not entirely certain how to fix the problem, but punishing those who cause bullycide would be a start. It wouldn't help the kid who's already dead, but would make future bullies think more about what they're saying, and prevent deaths in the future.

Also, ironic that you blame leftists for attacking free speech in abstract, when in fact it's left-wing protestors in New York who are actually having their speech muffled. The Wall Street occupiers are being arrested and beaten for what they're saying, and aren't allowed to even use a goddam megaphone to say it.

Not even a megaphone?! Now that is censorship... In Australia, protesters brought their trucks to parliament house and were honking their horns all day and "blockading" the place, and this was just for the Carbon Tax.

There's also numerous new voting restriction laws I could point my finger at, but why don't we put the right vs. left crap aside and look at this law for what it is, a bad idea no matter what your politics.

I'm not blaming leftists, I'm blaming corporatists. I just think it's hilarious that people who vote democrat think they are in some way supporting liberty by doing so. Our Democratic president has a done a complete 180 from his campaign promising "change you can believe in", and is now copycatting everything we hated about his predecessor (only instead of torturing foreign nationals in Guantanamo without a trial, we're assassinating American nationals in foreign countries without a trial).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/?GT1=43001#.To3qrv6d5X8



That's somewhat worrisome.

Are you f*cking kidding me? Al-Awlaki was an ENEMY COMBATANT. He RENOUNCED HIS CITIZENSHIP AND JOINED AN ENEMY STATE THAT DECLARED WAR ON THE USA. How the hell can any world leader defend their country and their people if they can't f*cking kill those who are actively fighting wars against them?

He had dual Yemeni and American citizenship, and Yemen is not at war with the US, last I heard. Telingly, a Yemeni court actually did try him, in absentia, whereas the US had a secret panel, outside the court system, order his assassination.

What the hell? I was indeed under the impression that Free Speech was a universal right, except of course for things like yelling "Fire" in a theater. Also, from the Wikipedia page: "The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves.""

Isn't that right-politics because it's extremely authoritarian?

No, left-right has more to do with economics and social issues (though traditionally, the left has wanted a larger role for government). The Authoritarianism/Anarchy spectrum represents a different axis in the political debate.


I am increasingly realizing how little I actually want to live here (or anywhere in Europe) anymore.