A Guilty Verdict In Silk Road Case Could Doom Internet Freedoms

[cryptocurrencylive]

A Guilty Verdict In Silk Road Case Could Doom Internet Freedoms

http://www.mintpressnews.com/a-guilty-verdict-in-silk-road-case-could-doom-internet-freedoms/193886/

[clone4501]

...especially the freedom of online drug traffickers and dealers

[Bitcoin Magazine]

why don't we just arrest Richard Nixon?  He was the one that started this blasted drug mess

[zvs]

haha, please

if that 'dooms internet freedoms', what did UIGEA do?  was it like hiroshima?

[Cicero2.0]

If you break the law you will probably be charged and tried. That has very little to do with internet freedom.

[adoni]

He needs to argue that the WIPO agreement puts cyberspace into its own jurisdiction

No government owns cyberspace so no crime can come under its jurisdiction if you wrap WIPO around yourself

By treaty every nato country makes WIPO paramount to its constitution

So get the best jurisdiction team ever assembled, pay them with bitcoin and say cyberspace is cyberspace it doesn't really exist in theory

If anything he was a FORUM OPERATOR and did not one drug deal, so 100% innocent of drug dealing

The FORUM is protected as FREE SPEECH under US Constitution and it's cyberspace under wipo rules not US rules

The net is not regulated and while banks have bootstrapped themselves into the net, no one gov owns the net and anything done there should be tried in an international court not a US Fed court IMO

So what he was the ebay of drugs on the net, so what, show me one person he physically gave one drug to, they don't exist

Now taking bitcoin for it, so what, who regulates bitcoin, again NO JURISDICTION

So I hope he walks

You arrest the drug dealers in each transaction not the forum operator

JURISDICTION is the ultimate issue in that case and his mistake was residing in the USA where the feds could put silver bracelets on him

Had he been in the Cayman Islands he would still be running Silk Road

So he made one major mistake residence in the USA

Did he launder the money to any US banks?

Not that I heard

So he kept an unregulated fiat currency that is not under the jurisdiction of money laundering laws

He needs to get the guy wearing a dress (the judge) recused and move the case to an international court

[BADecker]

If you break the law you will probably be charged and tried. That has very little to do with internet freedom.

Fortunately for us, close to 100% of the charges that government prosecutors charge us with are code violations, not breaking laws.

Unfortunately for us, most of us don't realize that attorneys can't speak in court - except where they are first-hand witnesses to a fact - if we hold the court to using common law.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699076.msg7901846#msg7901846.

[TheButterZone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Still waiting for Craig Newmark and Alexis Ohanian to go to prison.  

[FunnyHat43]

I don't think it would doom the internet, but rather give mods an incentive to not allow illegal things to happen on their websites

[LostDutchman]

If you break the law you will probably be charged and tried. That has very little to do with internet freedom.

Fortunately for us, close to 100% of the charges that government prosecutors charge us with are code violations, not breaking laws.

Unfortunately for us, most of us don't realize that attorneys can't speak in court - except where they are first-hand witnesses to a fact - if we hold the court to using common law.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699076.msg7901846#msg7901846.

OH, horseshit.

[adoni]

I don't think it would doom the internet, but rather give mods an incentive to not allow illegal things to happen on their websites

Yep our new forums that have bitcoin areas say report to the mod anything illegal which we define as drugs and child porn but also say or other stuff you think shouldn't be in our forum.

Since it has no monetizing aspects to the forum at all, it's just a free speech site, you interested in bitcoin, ok discuss and trade here caveat emptor

If you see anything illegal like drugs or child porn please report to the forum

If you do engage in trade try to use an escrow company for anything of value over X dollars and report any bad traders to get them flagged

We like freedom of speech, operated forums to discuss stuff for years, but you have to put in now report anything illegal to protect yourself as a forum operator

[commandrix]

It probably won't. Basically this is another setback for Bitcoin but not game-ending. I'd be more worried about this whole Net Neutrality thing myself.

[BADecker]

If you break the law you will probably be charged and tried. That has very little to do with internet freedom.

Fortunately for us, close to 100% of the charges that government prosecutors charge us with are code violations, not breaking laws.

Unfortunately for us, most of us don't realize that attorneys can't speak in court - except where they are first-hand witnesses to a fact - if we hold the court to using common law.

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699076.msg7901846#msg7901846.

OH, horseshit.

Of course, if you agree with a court, they can run all over anything that you say, 'cause you let them.

[AliceWonder]

This case is not about Internet freedom and it never was.

That's just something Ross's lawyer is pushing so donations will come in and he will get paid.

DPR (who is allegedly Ross) conspired to commit federal crimes. That is different from criminals using a service (like eBay or craigslist) where the service is not trying to provide a safe harbor for crime.

Whether or not you agree with the drug laws isn't the issue. The issue is DPR conspired to break them.

Separate yourself from the widget being sold.

If it was a child porn ring, you (hopefully) would want him busted even if he never personally bought/sold child porn.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. The laws that are needed to bust those conspiring crimes you don't like are applicable to any crime.

Change the drug laws, don't try and pretend this is a case about Internet Freedom, because I for one don't want anyone to have the "freedom" to create a marketplace for certain things (like child pornography or hitmen or ...) and not be charged.

The drug laws need to be changed, but those conspiring to commit crimes are not immune from prosecution just because the conspiring took place over the Internet.

DPR got caught. He was an opsec fucktard, and if he did try to pay for hits (I believe he did) then he is a danger to society.

Aaron Schwartz - he's a hero I can get behind.
Ross Ulbricht - he appears to be nothing more than a common thug, possibly a sociopath given his ability to hide among normal society while living a double life (which is documented - it's documented he experimented with drugs a lot in high school. yet he was an Eagle Scout - double life was nothing new to him)

[AliceWonder]

Had he been in the Cayman Islands he would still be running Silk Road

So he made one major mistake residence in the USA

I hear that a lot.

Truth is had been anywhere but the United States, he would have stuck out as an American. Unless he had a really good reason to be there, that would have made him an instant target to watch.

It's best to operate these things from the country where you can blend in the easiest. Generally that's the country in which you were raised.

[Ron~Popeil]

This case is not about Internet freedom and it never was.

That's just something Ross's lawyer is pushing so donations will come in and he will get paid.

DPR (who is allegedly Ross) conspired to commit federal crimes. That is different from criminals using a service (like eBay or craigslist) where the service is not trying to provide a safe harbor for crime.

Whether or not you agree with the drug laws isn't the issue. The issue is DPR conspired to break them.

Separate yourself from the widget being sold.

If it was a child porn ring, you (hopefully) would want him busted even if he never personally bought/sold child porn.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. The laws that are needed to bust those conspiring crimes you don't like are applicable to any crime.

Change the drug laws, don't try and pretend this is a case about Internet Freedom, because I for one don't want anyone to have the "freedom" to create a marketplace for certain things (like child pornography or hitmen or ...) and not be charged.

The drug laws need to be changed, but those conspiring to commit crimes are not immune from prosecution just because the conspiring took place over the Internet.

DPR got caught. He was an opsec fucktard, and if he did try to pay for hits (I believe he did) then he is a danger to society.

Aaron Schwartz - he's a hero I can get behind.
Ross Ulbricht - he appears to be nothing more than a common thug, possibly a sociopath given his ability to hide among normal society while living a double life (which is documented - it's documented he experimented with drugs a lot in high school. yet he was an Eagle Scout - double life was nothing new to him)

Agreed. The laws he is alleged to have violated are what they are. I disagree with prohibition but that doe snot make me immune to prosecution under those laws.

[bigasic]

This case is not about Internet freedom and it never was.

That's just something Ross's lawyer is pushing so donations will come in and he will get paid.

DPR (who is allegedly Ross) conspired to commit federal crimes. That is different from criminals using a service (like eBay or craigslist) where the service is not trying to provide a safe harbor for crime.

Whether or not you agree with the drug laws isn't the issue. The issue is DPR conspired to break them.

Separate yourself from the widget being sold.

If it was a child porn ring, you (hopefully) would want him busted even if he never personally bought/sold child porn.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. The laws that are needed to bust those conspiring crimes you don't like are applicable to any crime.

Change the drug laws, don't try and pretend this is a case about Internet Freedom, because I for one don't want anyone to have the "freedom" to create a marketplace for certain things (like child pornography or hitmen or ...) and not be charged.

The drug laws need to be changed, but those conspiring to commit crimes are not immune from prosecution just because the conspiring took place over the Internet.

DPR got caught. He was an opsec fucktard, and if he did try to pay for hits (I believe he did) then he is a danger to society.

Aaron Schwartz - he's a hero I can get behind.
Ross Ulbricht - he appears to be nothing more than a common thug, possibly a sociopath given his ability to hide among normal society while living a double life (which is documented - it's documented he experimented with drugs a lot in high school. yet he was an Eagle Scout - double life was nothing new to him)

Alice, you are pretty much spot on. I have to agree with almost everything you said.

[bryant.coleman]

Basically this is another setback for Bitcoin but not game-ending.

IMO, I don't believe that it is a setback for Bitcoin. On the other hand, closing down of sites such as BMR and SR can be positive for Bitcoin. Already Bitcoin is suffering from a great deal of negative PR, due to its link with various dark markets.

[commandrix]

Basically this is another setback for Bitcoin but not game-ending.

IMO, I don't believe that it is a setback for Bitcoin. On the other hand, closing down of sites such as BMR and SR can be positive for Bitcoin. Already Bitcoin is suffering from a great deal of negative PR, due to its link with various dark markets.

Yeah I know -- I meant setback in terms of bad publicity because of a few high-profile bad actors. That's the problem with anything that's new. You usually get the people who look edgewise at it and wonder if it's going to stick around, and then they find out that there's a lot of black-market stuff going on with cryptocurrencies.

[BADecker]

Agreed. The laws he is alleged to have violated are what they are. I disagree with prohibition but that doe snot make me immune to prosecution under those laws.

It does if your written notice prior to trial, converts the complaints into claims against the individuals, personally, who are claiming you did something wrong.

Your claim in your notice converts the court into a common law court, your court, under your rules, if you STAND AS A MAN (or WOMAN). Then it is man against man, human being against human being. Your notice must require that they show you the damages done to any human from your involvement. And, they are required to have first hand knowledge of it. This is basic. If they can't show harm or damages (REAL HARM OR DAMAGE TO SOME HUMAN BEING THAT CAN BE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO YOU - CORPUS DELICTI) by their verbal testimony under oath, THEY are the ones who will have to pay via their bond or insurance (PROVIDED THAT YOU HAVE STATED SUCH IN YOUR ORIGINAL NOTICE TO THE COURT). At this point they will not be able to become bonded again, and may lose their government job.

This is standard common law operation. And it is what the whole United States is based on. But you need to claim it, and use it, and NOT deviate from it. NOT your attorneys. You need to stand up as a man in court! But if they don't let you, their judgments are void judgments that you can attack and destroy any time thereafter. Standard law.