[dpatru]

What do you mean when you say that "what Megaupload was doing was illegal"? In a civilized world, before there can be punishment for a crime, the crime must be proven. A hunch of illegal activity is not enough. That's the difference between the rule of law and a lynch mob. The government must actually prove that the law was violated. And even before the government is allowed to inconvenience a defendant by search or seizure, the government must have evidence that gives a neutral judge probable cause that a crime has been been committed by the suspect. When government doesn't follow the rules and just uses its enormous power to persecute, then it's the government that is the criminal actor, a much more dangerous criminal actor than any private one. People should be outraged when government actors abuse their power and the abusers should be severely punished. Liberty is too important to tolerate people in government who act lawlessly.

[rprospero]

I absolutely see where you're coming from, but let me ask you this:

I go out today and forge a $400 million dollar check from Paul Graham. I put it in at the bank and the teller, who's totally asleep at the wheel, cashes it for me. Now, the government wants to charge me with check fraud, since I signed the check and I'm obviously not Paul Graham. I want to use those $400 million dollars of Paul Graham's money to pay for my own legal defense. Would you say that, since the government hasn't proven that I've done something illegal until the end of the trial, that I should have the right to use all of the money I've stolen to pay for that defense? Or should that account be frozen for the duration of the trial so that, in the event that I am found guilty, the money could be returned to his account?

[nrinaudo]

The first issue I have with your example is that, according to you, "guilty until proven innocent" is acceptable at least in some circumstances - say, when you're really really sure he's done it, you just can't prove it yet.

The second issue is that your example has absolutely nothing to do with the MegaUpload case. If you want to live in a country where the government has the right to seize all your assets and destroy your business without having to justify itself, I won't pretend to understand you, but I'll accept that it's your right. But I refuse to live in a world where that same government has the right to do so to everyone, including people it doesn't actually govern in countries where its laws do not apply.

[rprospero]

As I said, I see where you're coming from. The US government is completely in the wrong. It had no jurisdiction over MegaUpload and this case should never even have started.

Additionally, I never argued that the government has the right to seize all assets without justification. First, the government should only have the ability to freeze assets related to the case at hand. I should only lose access to the $400 million in question, not any of my other property. That $400 million should be kept safe, so that it may be returned to me at the end of the trial if I'm found not guilty (another place where the government is failing).

Additionally, I don't believe that the government should be able to do this without needing to explain itself. This should only occur if the government has been able to justify before a grand jury that there is reason to believe that I have committed a crime and that the loss of this money would aggravate the nature of the crime. For instance, in my check fraud hypothetical, the $400 million should be frozen, since my spending it would aggravate the crime. On the other hand, there's no reason for me to be held in prison, since the act is completed. Now, if I'm accused of attempted murder, it is logical that I should be prevented from going near the person I'm accused of trying to kill.

You'll argue that the grand juries are a joke and I'd say that you're right. They are broken and need to be fixed. However, once they are fixed, they should serve as a temporary, provisional guilty in the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

[Joakal]

That's a poor analogy because MU case is about intangible property which can't be stolen, while you're talking about depriving property of people.