Killing Domain Names May Be Oppressive, But Completely Legal

[whitebark]

Is it true that the US Gov made it illegal for Americans to visit Cuba, or did I hear it wrong?

When I owned my limo business I meet so many Americans traveling to or from Cuba via Vancouver airport. Almost to a tee all would come back loaded with Cuban cigars and expectations of going back again.

The US vendetta against Cuba is the longest running gong show in existence. They are now trading partners with communist Vietnam - a country they were once at war with and a human rights record as shady as Cuba's! But that hasn't stopped Canadians and Canadian companies from moving on in.

[DropWizard.com]

Btw, whenever I called India from the US when I was there, I heard a distinctive "beep" sound two minutes into the call, just once, and each time. Anyone know what that means?

Welcome to the land of the "FREE"

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3705

[Dave Zan]

At the rate this thread's going, maybe it should be in the Politics section?

[jberryhill]

Simply put, Canada does not have a key electoral state populated by a significant number of refugees from the Cuban revolution, who constitute a potent political force. US Cuba policy is essentially designed to satisfy that group.

The travel organization in question has been listed, among other domain-owning entities on the Treasury Department Office of Foreign Asset Control Specially Designated National List.

This is a list of entities with whom US businesses cannot do business, without specific authorization by the Treasury and State Departments.

The OFAC is described here:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/

The list is here:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enfor...dn/sdnlist.txt

Every country has its peculiar laws. Canada is quite well known for imposing sanctions against newspapers and websites which publish information relating to ongoing criminal proceedings. Read this story, and get back to me about "freedom of speech" in Canada:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A965958260


Judge's Order Deters U.S. Newspaper Sales

Published: November 29, 1993

At least three Canadian newspaper distributors refused to sell Sunday's issue of The Detroit News and Free Press in Canada because of that nation's restrictions on coverage of a murder trial.

In Buffalo, the editor of The Buffalo News said he expected that copies of his newspaper's Sunday issue would probably be confiscated by Canadian officials at the border.

That type of oppressive Canadian judicial censorship would not be tolerated in the US.

JUST AS: The ban in several European countries against what is deemed "hate speech", holocaust denial, Nazi sympathizing, and they have even banned trade in German war memorabilia on eBay.

But, back on point, as a US business, Enom cannot register domain names to an entity on the OFAC list.

The argument that the "registry is in the US" is irrelevant, because the registry does not do business with the registrants, and is not subject to the economic embargo which the OFAC list represents. For example, those people flying Canada Air to Cuba are often doing so on planes manufactued by Boeing. That's fine, and Boeing can continue to sell planes to Canada, because Boeing is not flying them to Cuba, nor selling them to Canada for the express purpose of flying them to Cuba.

Even the North Koreans have a domain name - korea-dpr.com, and they were bright enough to figure out that paying a US registrar for the registration fee was not a very bright idea (they were quietly asked to leave some months back).

[katherine]

Memories !

Ogrish.com vs Deutschland
http://www.fitug.de/debate/0302/msg00185.html

[Restecpa]

Thanks for posting this. However, they must've released it since then, because I remember liveleak buying them...

Talking about censorship, I'd also like to add that China was not the only country that Google adjusted their search database for...

It is with this spirit of freedom in mind that I am sorry to report that the German government has requested that google.de remove all links to ogrish.com. This is certainly not the only recent case of censorship by the German government; a topic I’ve discussed (safe to click) in the past. It’s also not the only case of Google censoring results to conform to national law (safe to click), though interestingly the site still appears on China’s google.cn.

[HarveyJ]

Every country has its peculiar laws. Canada is quite well known for imposing sanctions against newspapers and websites which publish information relating to ongoing criminal proceedings. Read this story, and get back to me about "freedom of speech" in Canada:

That's not unique to Canada, but rather to any country that's part of the British Empire. It's got to do with sub-judacy laws and the right to an impartial trial by jury. After all, nothing taints a jury pool better than mass media reporting on things that aren't already publicly known.
To wit, in Australia, we currently have a trial revolving around an organized crime syndicate, and murders that their members have committed. There is a total media blackout on anyone even remotely involved in the trial, with the exception of that day's court proceedings.
There's even a fictionalized TV series (Underbelly, in the same vein as The Sopranos) that was made, based around the events leading up to the trial, but it's been suppressed until the trial's over so that the people in it can get a fair hearing.

[jberryhill]

That's not unique to Canada, but rather to any country that's part of the British Empire.

The point being that every country has its peculiar laws. My concern is that under some sort of international control regime, what we end up with is not greater freedom, but some sort of mix of all of them.

[DNGeeks]

Canada is quite well known for imposing sanctions against newspapers and websites which publish information relating to ongoing criminal proceedings. Read this story, and get back to me about "freedom of speech" in Canada:

Please post complete facts. This was due to a publication ban which is quite common in a lot of cases when letting information out can harm the case. Specifically the case against her husband which had yet to go to trial.

The information was made available in the news afterwards and I believe was also included in the book A Pact With The Devil.

[jberryhill]

This was due to a publication ban which is quite common in a lot of cases

What's relevant is that there was a publication ban during the trial. While I understand it is for good reason, every country has its "good reasons" for banning various kinds of speech. I also understand that it seems quite natural to Canadians. Whether it was published later on is entirely irrelevant to the point that the Canadian government was seizing US newspapers at the border.

If this were happening today, it is a certainty that the Canadian government would be shutting down domain names registered through Tucows or Rebel, and being used to publish information that is illegal to publish in Canada. Upthread, there were a lot of comments to the effect that there is some sort of restriction on speech which is unique to the US. It happens in a lot of countries, for a lot of reasons that have various justifications in the respective countries.

[Dave Zan]

Interesting bit, John. I searched for that and found this:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/voc/p...ty/appen1.html

Publication Bans, Exclusion Orders and Facilitating Testimony

In criminal proceedings, while the general rule is that all proceedings against an accused shall be held in open court, the Criminal Code sets out exceptions, including those which are intended to protect the privacy of victims. For example:

• subsection 486(1) which permits the exclusion of the public in certain circumstances.
• subsections 486(3) and 486(4) which provide for an order prohibiting publication of the identity of sexual offence victims and certain witnesses.
• subsection 486(4.1) which provides that a judge may make an order prohibiting the publication of the identity of a victim or witness of any offence, on application, where it is established that the order is necessary for the proper administration of justice.
• subsections 276.2 and 276.3 which provide for the exclusion of the public and which restrict publication of proceedings to determine the admissibility of evidence regarding a sexual assault complainant's sexual history.

[afloat.com]

how does U.S. gov. call the Chinese regime?

I would say because of the amount of money US owes to china i would say "BOSS"

[HarveyJ]

jberryhill: Ok, I know we're getting REALLY off topic here, but are you telling me that the USA, the most litigious society in the world, does NOT have subjudicy laws governing what can be published before and during a trial without some sort of sanction against the publisher?
If so, how do media groups get away without constantly being sued for Libel when they jump the gun and print something that turns out to be false?
More to the point, how do people manage to get a trial without a tainted jury pool?

[jberryhill]

the USA, the most litigious society in the world, does NOT have subjudicy laws governing what can be published before and during a trial without some sort of sanction against the publisher?

That is correct, we have no such laws. The prosecutor in a criminal trial can be disciplined for making certain out-of-court statements, but I gather the absence of such laws in the US comes as a surprise. Yes, we have a cable TV channel called Court TV, which does nothing other than to report on court proceedings, and some of our courtrooms allow live television broadcasts of the proceedings.

If so, how do media groups get away without constantly being sued for Libel when they jump the gun and print something that turns out to be false?

Because if I report, "Mr. X was arrested last night for crime Y. He has been released on probation and is scheduled for trial next month. Witnesses claim they saw him do A, B, and C." then I am reporting facts. There is a difference between saying he did Y and saying, "Joe Blow, who lives across the street, claims that Mr. X did Y all of the time."

"In other news, Mr. Z, the alleged bank robber, went on trial today. Prosecutors introduced evidence which they say shows that Mr. Z's fingerprints were found on the bank vault." That's all strictly factual, and does not take a position on the truth of anyone's allegations.

how do people manage to get a trial without a tainted jury pool?

It depends on the circumstances. You know, the idea of a "tainted" jury is a relatively new one. There was a time when it was believed that having jury members familiar with the witnesses and the parties was a good thing, since they already knew some of the facts. However, jurors are initially interviewed on what, if anything, they know. I was pulled for jury duty last year in a case involving medical testimony. One of the witnesses was a doctor who had treated me in the past, and I still wasn't able to get off of the dang jury.

I should mention that the US Constitution guarantees "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". A judge can bind the parties and participants to certain disclosure orders, but the "public trial" provision of the Sixth Amendment is taken to mean that the press does have the right to report on trials.

Interesting bit, John.

As you can see, there is usually a sense of mutual shock when citizens of British Commonwealth countries and citizens of the US find out that there are distinct differences in what their respective countries consider to be the boundaries of free speech.

What folks in the US do have hammered into their heads from an early age is that a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent at law until proven otherwise, so the mere reportage of crimes and trials doesn't work as much prejudice as one might think. Of course, anyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter as the presumption is binding only on the court and the jury.