New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case

from the blind-justice dept

Despite two earlier rulings that the US Justice Department needed to provide Kim Dotcom and others involved in Megaupload with the actual evidence being used against them for the extradition trial, an appeals court overturned those rulings and now the New Zealand Supreme Court has agreed in rejecting the request. While the chief judge dissented, the majority found that the extradition treaty does not require the country that has filed the charges against the individuals to provide the information and that the New Zealand courts have no real authority to order the US DOJ to provide the evidence. It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that’s apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.

Either way, the actual extradition trial was recently pushed back until July (it had been scheduled to start in a few weeks). Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down. The judicial process isn’t exactly known for its speed, which is kind of crazy when you realize how quickly (and with such flimsy evidence) DOJ and New Zealand officials acted to arrest Kim Dotcom and his colleagues.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: megaupload

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New Zealand Supreme Court Says DOJ Doesn't Have To Provide Its Evidence In Megaupload Extradition Case”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
102 Comments
DogBreathsays:

Re:

Welcome to the Cardassian Justice System.

“The Cardassian approach to justice is radically different then that favoured by Federation worlds. Cardassians have absolute faith in their investigators, and maintain that only the guilty are ever arrested and brought to trial.

On Cardassia Prime a trial is intended only to demonstrate how the offender?s guilt was determined. Thus the purpose of the trial is not to establish facts ? these are already known, and cannot be disputed ? but to provide an educational experience for the populace, so trials are broadcast throughout Cardassia.”

“The offender is not allowed to introduce any new evidence whatsoever. Under the Cardassian judicial system, no evidence can be submitted once the verdict has been reached, and the always happens before the trial begins.

During the trial, the Archon calls a number of witnesses who provide evidence of the offender?s guilt. The standards of proof required are not high, and unsubstantiated claims and hearsay are admissible forms of evidence.”

Vincent Giannellsays:

“It does seem rather ridiculous that someone can be sent halfway around the world to face criminal charges without first being able to see the evidence against them, but that’s apparently the law in New Zealand. They might want to fix that.”

Except they can’t fix it they think that doing so would be an embarrassment to their country.

Anonymoussays:

Awwww….. poor Masnick. Your hero is going to have to face the music after all. I don’t know why you’re surprised that NZ doesn’t feel obliged to try the case before fulfilling its extradition treaty obligation.

Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down.

This may have something to do with the fat fuck resisting extradition. He could have gotten on a plane to the southern district of VA years ago.

Nice to know he’ll be coming for an extended stay soon.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

So if you find yourself facing criminal charges on the other side of the planet, you’d go? Also, the problem isn’t the length of time (unreasonable, but not horrible), the problem is that penalties were given out BEFORE the trial.

[i]I don’t know why you’re surprised that NZ doesn’t feel obliged to try the case before fulfilling its extradition treaty obligation.[/i]
They have to try it anyway, what they said isn’t he doesn’t get a trial, what happened is they said he can’t see the evidence against him.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

So if you find yourself facing criminal charges on the other side of the planet, you’d go? Also, the problem isn’t the length of time (unreasonable, but not horrible), the problem is that penalties were given out BEFORE the trial.

No I wouldn’t. But neither would I be moaning about it being unresolved for 2.5 years. Every day in NZ is a day not in an American penitentiary. Not a place a soft, rich, chubby white boy will likely be comfortable.

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re:

So it’s ok that you wouldn’t go and face criminal charges in another country, but you think everyone else should??

that’s some hypocritical God complex you have there!

Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a “Fat Fuck” which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc). Could be interesting… you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.

What??? you think the above is unreasonable and I haven’t got enough evidence in context to convict you… Sorry I do, I’m just not prepared to show you and will convict you in absentia instead.. so sad

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So it’s ok that you wouldn’t go and face criminal charges in another country, but you think everyone else should??

Perhaps you should ask someone else to read what I wrote and explain it to you.

Actually maybe I should press criminal charges on Dotcoms behalf of you calling him a “Fat Fuck” which under NZ and Aust law can be classified as a criminal act (harassment, hate crime, etc).

Go ahead, but you are talking out of your ass. It is not a criminal offense nor are you able to “press criminal charges on Doncoms behalf…”

Could be interesting… you would probably win at the extradition attempt (seeing as the US allows no citizen to be extradited whatsoever) but good luck EVER leaving the USA for another country.

Again, you amply make shit up. The US does allow its citizens to be extradite

From Mcnabbassociates.com: “A United States citizen is likely to assume that he cannot be arrested and sent away to stand trial in a foreign court. This is simply not so. United States citizenship does not bar extradition by the United States. Between ten and twenty percent of persons extradited to foreign countries are United States nationals. For them, such treasured birthrights as trial by jury, confrontation of accusers, and compulsory process may evaporate”

So I get that you are desperate to defend your hero, but do you really need to stoop to outright fabrications to do so? Pretty pathetic.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Hey!!!!! It’s the “boy” guy again. Seriously dude, you need to work on your schtick. That’s been tiresome and unoriginal for years now.

FYI, the extraditing country needs to show probable cause, not proof. You and the rest of the Kim Dotcom Fan Club seem to think the infringement trial needs to take place in NZ before he can be extradited. As is with most of what you think- you’re wrong. Thanks for playing though!!

Davidsays:

Re: Re:

“Sorry Mister Kornblum, that Hitler guy has a charge against you so we are shipping you off to Germany. We don’t know what the charge is, and neither should you. But there must be something to it or he would not have seized all your assets already.”

It’s sort of globalizing justice to the lowest common denominator. Let’s see whether Nigeria can ask the U.S.A. for the extradition of Rush Limbaugh with a similar rationale.

JMTsays:

Re:

“Nice to know he’ll be coming for an extended stay soon.”

So what you’re saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken…

Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I’d be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

So what you’re saying is that you think this decision will increase the likelihood of extradition, which is the same as admitting you think the evidence the defence wanted to see will show extradition should be refused. And you wonder why people think the justice system is broken…

Yes I think the decision increases the likelihood of extradition. I don’t think NZ courts have an obligation to try his US infringement case in order to decide whether to extradite him.

No, I don’t wonder why people think that about the justice system. I do wonder why people think it is OK to take the creative output of others and refit from it without paying the right holders for his work.

Besides, if I had your ability to predict the future with such accuracy, I’d be buying lottery tickets instead of trolling.

Stevie Wonder can see what’s going to happen. It seems just you and the other Dotcom fanboys trying to wish away his accountability for his crimes.

MadAsASnakesays:

Re: Re: Re:

US still has to show sufficient evidence as just cause – just not all of it. And they are going to have to show that for an extraditable offense. Since all of those on the indictment depend entirely in a quite laughable way on a non-extraditable offense [or maybe even non-offense], it is quite likely the extradition will be refused. That you admit it is more likely to be refused if the US releases the evidence shows that you admit just how weak the US case actually is.

Bergmansays:

Re:

It says something about the quality of your character that you cheer when the rights of those you dislike are violated.

I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won’t get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don’t exist.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

It says something about the quality of your character that you cheer when the rights of those you dislike are violated.

I can only hope, for your sake, that you are never accused of any crime. You won’t get any sympathy, and your heroes will have already established precedents that unpopular or inconvenient rights don’t exist.

What rights have been violated? Because you like and support the guy doesn’t mean his rights are violated just because he gets an adverse ruling. Being a smarmy piracy apologists says volumes about your character as well.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

And not forgetting Rapdishare were doing exactly the same thing with paying people to upload and having people to pay to use the storage and share their files but they were never shutdown and had their business destroyed and had money/assets seized and frozen. And not forgetting there is no extradition for the people of Rapidshare either to face crimes in the US. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy there.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Joe’s comment no. 68 “Keep studying. At your current level, it seems you’re unable to detect the difference between being debated and being mocked.” is in response to someone and yet Joe doesn’t know the difference themselves with being debated and mocked when people respond to them judging by the responses that Joe continues to give to people. Oh the hypocrisy oozes from there every pore.

Rekrulsays:

Re: Re: Re:

What rights have been violated?

Umm, how about the fact that he is a foreign national who ran a foreign company from a foreign country, but yet he was arrested and had his property seized for allegedly violating United States law.

Did I miss when it was declared that every country’s laws now also apply to every other country? I guess that means all the gay men in the US will have to be sent to the middle east to be executed, right? And the entire staff of Playboy as well as all the models are probably in line for public floggings in counties like Malaysia.

Or is it only US law that applies around the world? How can Britain get away with having 18 as the legal drinking age when the US drinking age is 21? They’re breaking US law! All those people need to be extradited to the US to face criminal charges! Right?

Anonymoussays:

Re:

I’m still waiting to know what NZ laws Dotcom broke.

Oh look, the slow kid is at it again. What does this^ have to do with this>

He never set foot in the U.S. after all.

Perhaps not, but the dumb bastard leased servers in the southern district of VA. That means the US can exercise jurisdiction.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

You know what? I’m pretty sure calling people names is a hate crime in New York, should I call a lawyer up and have you extradited to New York to face crimes?

Since you don’t seem to understand our legal system- let me inform you that you will need to contact a prosecutor regarding the prosecution of a criminal matter. But first better check and see if stupidity is a crime in NY. I’d hate to see you walk into a trap.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:

Then you’d better hope you never have business dealings with any country that feels it can exercise some jurisdiction on you for something that’s a crime there but not where you are. Or any dealings whatsoever.

Thank you for your well-wishes. I’ll bet Dotcom would have appreciated hearing this from you several years back.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re:

So when someone says the DOJ takes bribes from the MPAA, you shout “slander!” and demand evidence

but when it comes to Dotcom, you’ve already convicted him, you don’t care he doesn’t get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he’s not a citizen of, you don’t care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.

Double standards, much?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So when someone says the DOJ takes bribes from the MPAA, you shout “slander!” and demand evidence

but when it comes to Dotcom, you’ve already convicted him, you don’t care he doesn’t get to see the evidence against him or of him having to defend himself in a country he’s not a citizen of, you don’t care that the DOJ willingly let evidence that could have helped him be destroyed.

Double standards, much?

At least there are news accounts and his own statements. Plus I actually visited his website. There is ZERO evidence of bribery of DOJ officials by anyone whatsoever. Just the fantasies of freeloaders and piracy apologists.

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Curious. If A says something bad about B, C can’t say “Slander!” It has to be B who cries foul, in much the same way I, a non-employee or non-agent of Warner Bros. can’t send a legit DMCA to a website to take down a copy of a Batman movie.
Is this tacit admission from you that you are in some way affiliated with the MPAA?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Let me ask you something Rikuo. By your own admission you:

1. Are in your twenties.
2. Have no education past high school.
3. Are a grocery store clerk who fears being displaced by self-checkout.
4. Have never been laid.
5. Spending an inordinate amount of time playing games on the internet.

Is this a tacit admission that you’re a loser?

Rikuosays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So instead of trying to counter my arguments, you go for a personal attack.
Well done. The personal attack is the last gasp effort of those who have lost in the game of debate.
As for the points themselves…they’re true (except for 3, I’m currently studying and 5, I actually rarely play games nowadays, but hey) and so what? What does that change about my arguments to you?
Does the fact that I currently don’t have a magic piece of paper from a school somehow mean I am unable to debate?

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

ZERO evidence of bribery? Define “bribery.”

And while you’re at it, try this on for size.

“Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake,” Dodd told Fox News. “Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake.”

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think you need to figure out that truth is one thing, whereas what you wrote was until proven by a court absolutely untrue ie: grifter, “willful blindness”

And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this. Just because a court might come to that conclusion (or not) in a future date does not make them truth just because you think so and would not be a retrospective truth either.

Anonymoussays:

Re:

They look terrible for this and other reasons already, actually. The current government is Not popular right now. Which does’t mean it won’t win the next election Anyway due to dodgy media shinanigans and the like, but still, when it’s own party members are bailing on it over some of the stupid shit that’s been pulled, it says something.

my name heresays:

Really?

” Seems quite bizarre that they’re only just getting to the trial over extradition nearly two and a half years after Megaupload was seized and shut down.”

There is only one person to blame for that, and it’s Kim Dotcom (and the legal underlings working for him). He has been fighting extradition tooth and nail and trying his best to tie the NZ legal system in knots to look for a sneaky way out of facing justice.

What is key here is that the highest court in the land has pretty much dealt a death blow to his whole attempt to get the whole of the case tried in NZ, where justice might be ever so much more kind to him. The intent of his legal actions against extradition were clear from the get go, and the NZ supreme court has told him it’s a no go.

The case drags only because of Kim, plain and simple. If he wants to see the evidence against him, he only has to present himself in the court of law where he is charged, not in a safe haven half a world away. He could have turned himself over for extradition up front and saved himself 2 and a half years, instead he’s been dragging his feet and fighting all the way.

Good on the NZ Supreme Court for shutting down his nonsense, now it’s time for the extradition court to send him packing to the US to face up for his (alleged) crimes.

That One Guysays:

Yes, really

Indeed, why, the kangaroo court in the US put together especially for him has been put on hold for several years now, how incredibly rude of him to demand that things be done legally and by the book(and the absolute gall of the man to suggest that an armed, illegal raid ordered and orchestrated by the US might indicate a similarly rigged case against him in the US) before allowing himself to be shipped over to face the best ‘justice’ money can buy.

/s

Anonymoussays:

Re: Really?

“trying his best to tie the NZ legal system in knots to look for a sneaky way out of facing INjustice.”

Fixed that for you.

The US conducted illegal raids on his property and servers in NZ, based on false claims from a corrupt business group, and Dotcom is the one trying to avoid justice?

I sincerely hope you’re joking, as I’d hate to think anyone would support the wrongdoings that have been made to pull Dotcom in front of a court.

my name heresays:

Re: Re: Really?

I can’t say that I agree with any of what you are saying.

The US didn’t conduct any raid in NZ. NZ police did so. The only thing that qualifies as being illegal in those raids was basically some paperwork errors, mostly it seems because they don’t do many of these in NZ.

The false claims is pretty much crap, anyone and everyone on the internet knew that Mega was full of pirated material, and it’s clear from the information out there already that not only did Kim appear to know about it, he also appears to have structured his companies and sold memberships to his file hosting service based on those facts.

His attempt to avoid justice is simple: drag the case out of the US, try to fight it in NZ on a point by point word by work basis, dissecting the full evidence of the case in NZ and dragging it out as long as possible, repeatedly asking for constitutional rulings and attempting to get stuff thrown out in NZ to make the case in the US go away or be diminished. His strategy has come to an end, he faces pretty much a summary extraction hearing this summer, and he will be on his way to the US to face trial, if he doesn’t end up holed up in the Peruvian embassy claiming to be a political prisoner.

He tried to delay, he got his way for a while, and now his strategy has failed.

John Fendersonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Really?

“it’s clear from the information out there already that not only did Kim appear to know about it, he also appears to have structured his companies and sold memberships to his file hosting service based on those facts.”

This isn’t clear at all. Can you elaborate and provide evidence?

“he will be on his way to the US to face trial”

No, he won’t get a real trial. He’ll get a kangaroo court.

MadAsASnakesays:

Re: Really?

No, Not really. Remember, the US strategy was to incarcerate him and deny funds to mount any sort of defense, presumably because the case was underrepresented in legal wrongdoing to the same extent that the raid was over-muscled. Well, NZ courts, DotCom, and a bunch of lawyers weren’t having that – which means the the US actually finds itself actually having to justify itself. So, no the US won’t get a corrupt and cosy little plea deal and dotcom will fight every inch of the way. Quite right.

That One Guysays:

Re:

Indeed, any article discussing him or MU always seems to bring them out in droves, and inevitably leads to more childish name-calling than you’d usually find outside of a grade-school classroom.

And really, you’d think that after this long they’d have come up with better insults than just constantly referring to his weight…

MadAsASnakesays:

Re:

This is an unfortunate side effect of some rather lopsided extradition agreements rushed through after 9-11 – you know, they might have needed them for an actual terrorist (but stuck to extraordinary rendition [ie kidnapping] anyway). I believe the NZ supremes are following the law correctly – it’s just that it’s an appalling law. The US still has to show sufficient cause – which it is finding difficult… the NZ courts have already observed that several of the charges are ringers – oh – that is all the ones you could be extradited for…

Anonymoussays:

And not forgetting Rapdishare were doing exactly the same thing with paying people to upload and having people to pay to use the storage and share their files but they were never shutdown and had their business destroyed and had money/assets seized and frozen. And not forgetting there is no extradition for the people of Rapidshare either to face crimes in the US. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy there.

So would you feel better if the principals of Rapidshare got the same treatment? I’m guessing you’d be here moaning about them too.

Anonymoussays:

And since they have not been proven they are NOT true and fall instead under allegations and/or imputations of criminal activity (moral turpitude if you will) and are therefore defamation per se and absolutely defamatory due to this.

So you’re saying that if I said G Thompson is a heroin dealer, that constitutes defamation per seabsent a conviction for heroin trafficking? What if there had been a prior conviction but at the time it was said, G Thompson wasn’t engaged in trafficking. What if there was a trafficking conviction after the statement was made.

Does there not need to be a court ruling on the question of whether someone actually has been defamed?

Methinks you are talking out of your uninformed ass….. again. It is truly painful watching how fucking stupid you are. Oops…… have you just been defamed per se in that strange world you live in?

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You wrote: “No I wouldn’t.” in regards to you traveling to another country voluntarily to face criminal charges.. What part of your own response don’t YOU understand?

Harassment and ‘hate crime’ IS an indictable offense under AU/NZ laws, it’s also able to be actioned by anyone who complains to appropriate authority who charge on behalf of that victim (whether the victim allows them or not). AS for myself personally able to push for and/or actually write out charge sheets in regards to specific offenses that I have upon balance knowledge of you performing might surprise you. Then again you don’t know me either (and I don’t explain everything I do in open forums either).

As for the extradition of US citizens your laws require for that to happen that the laws are the same within both the USA and the jurisdiction wanting extradition, that the evidence (which must be presented in full to a US court) would allow committal/indictment proceedings to commence within the USA, that the USA constitution has overriding effect on all judgements, procedures, etc used in the other jurisdiction. So basically exactly the OPPOSITE of what the DoJ requires other countries to do.

There is NO reciprocity nor comity in regards to USA citizens being extradite compared to other jurisdictions citizens being extradited to the USA.

The ONLY fabrication here is you both confabulating and obfuscating the actual reality that is occurring in this matter.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it