I was shocked by this as well. I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would face if it had such a mechanism.

Only in Quebec is this allowed though, not the rest of Canada [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Quebec_.28c...

EDIT: turns out I'm wrong, disregard this.

From what I understand, Quebec had to recognize Anton Piller orders as they use civil law, not common law.

Anton Piller orders are under common law, so already completely legal in the 'rest of Canada' as you say

"Similar provisions are now required in the rest of Europe, under Article 7 of the European Union Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, approved in April 2004."

Yet another wonderful law funded by the IP lobby. Buying instead of pirating is rapidly becoming indefensible, when the profits are used to buy laws like this.

When corporations bribe politicians to strip you of your rights, they should be considered hostile.

On the other hand, Canada does seem to make some odd laws or judgements, such as the supreme court (or a similarly high court) judge ruling that for the purpose of child pornography laws, "person" includes a completely fictitious character, not based on any real person, and may have extremely abnormal and non-humanlike proportions.

A depiction of a fictional person is still a depiction of a person. Its just that the person being depicted is fictional.

Would you argue that propaganda glorifying the extermination of a community of a real religious or ethnic group, say Jews, would be ok if the community depicted was fictional?

Without really questoning what a "person" is, to get into a debate about abstract and concrete forms, etc. I firstly do not believe the example you have provided is a good counter example or fitting analogy given the intent of child pornography legislation, nor do I believe the material you describe should be illegal.

There is first a key difference in the kind of material I am talking about. You are talking about propaganda, I am talking about even private possession of drawings. Further, I think that it depends on if the cartoon in your scenario acutally calls for violence, or if it is merely a scene drawn in disgusting taste. I would find it disgusting, as would many others - but does that mean it ought to be illegal? To distribute on the street perhaps, but what about privately on the Internet? Or publicly on the Internet?

The key is intent. The intent of child pornography legislation is to prevent its circulation and production, for its production necessarily requires the abuse of a child, and market effects can demand more to be produced, necessitating more child abuse. As such I think it absurd to consider, for the purposes of child pornography legislation, a fictional character to be a "person". What harm is done by drawing on paper? What of keeping that paper to oneself in private? What of giving that paper to your friend? What of selling that paper for a price? What of giving it away for free?

It would be strange, though I accept, that you want the propaganda you describe to be illegal to possess or share. I however cannot agree on that principle, for I view it as a violation of one's rights of freedom of expression. In the same way, illegalising a disgusting pornographic comic I believe is also an infringement.

Finally there is no real victim being hounded in your example. There is no call to violence, threat etc. and I judge it hideous that one would prevent me from owning such material.

Hmm, I can't reply so I'll post here. I don't think bans on child pornography are just to prevent children being abused in its production. I think partly it's because the circulation of such depictions make it more likely for people who enjoy such material to act on their fantasies against real children. It. Institutes incitement.

In other words I think child pornography is a form of propaganda glorifying the sexual abuse of children.

Although I share this concern, I can't really square with the idea of freedom of expression. Because someone may do something, I don't think it's good reasoning. And as far as I know, there's little or no evidence linking drawings of fictional characters having sex to child abuse. I think it's strikingly similar to the argument that violence in video games may cause people to act out similar violence in real life, i.e I don't agree with it.

Until there is sufficient evidence, I will tend to err on the side of freedom. Unfortunately in my country (England) such depictions are illegal and I have campaigned online for the past couple of years for its repeal - though God forbid I do it in person.

I think we are living in a very strange world in which drawings are illegal because they might cause people to do bad things.

With regard to the idea that drawn CP is a form of propaganda, I must disagree. In propaganda there is intent, and there is no intent I can see in lolicon hentai manga to encourage abuse. In fact, many manga contain warning notices saying that such things in real life are hideous crimes.

And even in the instances in which it is propaganda, so what? People must be shielded by the law from propaganda?

The HN mods have put a flag on my account which says that I'm not allowed to post very often because once I was posting in quick succession on a political topic. As such, if you reply to this, my reply may be an addendum to this comment.

That's certainly the argument, but it's not clear at all that the argument is sound. For instance, there's compelling circumstantial evidence that Internet pornography leads to a decline in rape. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201601/ev...) Maybe prohibitions on child porn lead to more sexual abuse of children?

This reminds me of the "video games promote violence and shootings" argument. Let's ban GTA while we are at it.

Yes, after all it is fictional and nobody is harmed.

That's not what the section immediately before the one you linked says.

I mean... this could/does literally happen in the US as well. Don't get me wrong, the circumstances are slightly different, but the basic premise is the same:

http://www.itworld.com/article/2807200/business/riaa-raids-a...

*nvm, as I read more of the article it's pretty much the same thing

This article is unclear about whether the RIAA actually executed the raid and on what legal grounds. It says they worked with the Secret Service (which is confusing itself--why would the secret service be involved in copyright violations?) and that people were arrested; I find it particularly hard to believe that the RIAA had legal authority to detain anyone.

The US does have such a mechanism: impoundment orders under section 503(a) of the Copyright Act. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Piller_order#Impoundment...

I skimmed, but I couldn't find anything that indicates that a civil party can execute the warrant. To be clear, is not interesting that a court can order the forfeiture of property; it's interesting that a civil plaintiff can execute the order.

> I can't imagine the criticism the U.S. would face if it had such a mechanism.

Probably none. The US has civil forfeiture and is barely raises an eyebrow. Hell, Jello Biafra was singing about it in the 1980s about when he had his stuff taken by the sheriff and it was sold before his trial. Regardless of whether you were innocent or not, the cops could sell your stuff.

There's strong bipartisan opposition to civil asset forfeiture: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/session...

The only question is whether Congress or the Supreme Court will strike it down first.

The interesting distinction is that the plaintiff was given authority to conduct a raid.

What a lame pot shot...

Who do you think that was aimed at?

This wouldn't be the first time the government has elevated corporate policy to criminal law.

> This wouldn't be the first time the government has elevated corporate policy to criminal law

The novelty isn't in the crime. It's in the mode of enforcement. Had a police officer knocked on his door and executed a search warrant or the plaintiff filed a motion to compel [1] discovery proceedings [2] with a court, this would have been business as usual.

The novelty is the plaintiff, a private citizen, executed the search warrant themselves. The only party that should be able to force you, on pain of violent punishment, e.g. imprisonment, to do something against your consent is the state, acting on behalf of itself or another party.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_to_compel

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)

One could argue that the state, by allowing private entities to conduct raids without the ability of appeal, by enforcing laws so one-sidedly, has lost the legitimacy of its monopoly on violence, so violent retribution is fully legitimate.

Or maybe not. Maybe those responsible will be held accountable, and face jail-time for effectively holding someone prisoner, breaking into their home, and stealing their belongings, albeit with the dubious stamp of approval of a judge.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

> so violent retribution is fully legitimate.

Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself, your family, or your home. So far as I (as a fairly well-educated citizen) know, this is only voided when the invader is an officer of the police. And there are stiff laws prohibiting the impersonation of a police officer.

If someone other than a police officer attempted to force their way into my home and attempted to take myself, my wife, and my son prisoner, I don't think I would believe them if they claimed to have some kind of civil search warrant. Now I know that "Anton Piller orders" are a thing that exists, but I still have my doubts.

> Violent retribution by one private individual against another is already a right in many places if you're defending yourself

If Person A violently attacks Person B, then Person B has a right to defend themselves on the legal theory that Person A instigated the violence. "Credible threat" clauses muddy the line, but continue to rest on the pedestal of reaction versus action [1].

Here a court gave a company the right to instigate violence against the defendant. At least to this American, that's absurd.

[1] http://cji.edu/site/assets/files/1921/actionversusreaction.p...

Yes, and to this American, I assume I'm person B and in my rights to resist if they instigate and are not carrying a badge.

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but doesn't a bail bondsman do something similar in how extreme it is in the US too?

Note that self-defence is a defense, not a justification. It doesn't stop you from being taken to court, because you still were involved in something the law considers a crime. Your actions being self-defence just mean that the judge will likely find that there is reasonable doubt whether you were, in fact, committing murder. You might still have been committing murder! You might have set the other guy up to attack you so you could kill him, like with the old custom of professional "hired gun" duelists. But, since the other guy did attacked you first, it's (usually) impossible to prove that that's why you did it, rather than it just being because you were, in fact, trying to save your own life. (Unless you left written documentation of your nefarious plots somewhere.)

Fun fact: this is also true of "Fair Use" in copyright suits—it's also a defence, not a justification. If you put a 30-second sample of someone else's song in your song, they can still sue you, and waste your time and money in court! They just probably won't win, in the end. But if they have a lot more money than you, you might plea anyway.

Retribution and self defense are distinct motives. The former is about justice and the latter is about protection.

There is a reason for the second amendment.

Yes there is, to ensure a well regulated militia is possible.

To note, "well-regulated" had a different meaning when the Bill of Rights was authored than what a contemporary reader may interpret the term to mean. Some context is available here[1].

[1] http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

That just leaves the question of what a well regulated militia in this sense is, how it being well regulated is determined, etc open to legitimate further legislation.

To put it another way, is there constitutional justification for citizens to bear arms for purposes which have nothing to do with a well regulated militia? If so the well regulayed militia qualification has no meaning, right? So what's it there for?

Just curious, fair disclosure I'm a Brit so I have no standing in this.

American here. I just don't understand the line of reasoning used above you.

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the intent is only a well regulated militia is to own arms why does it specifically call out the people in that way? Isn't "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Its worded very oddly, if the intent actually was "the right of the government to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." why not say that?

Also, if the intent is to allow only governmental actors to own arms why does that right have to be specifically called out? The purpose of the constitution was to protect the people from government over reach has there ever been a nation where a totalitarian regime prevented his own army and police from having guns against the wishes of his people?

Yes. The second amendment is using the comma as an "and". It means that we have the right to both a well regulated militia and for the citizenry to own and bear arms. It is not for the purposes of conscripting the citizenry into some militia. It is intended for the citizenry to defend themselves, against tyrants and assailants.

If the second amendment was just about having a well regulated militia, then they would not have mentioned the second part about citizens bearing arms.

The comma is "just an 'and'"?

> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's a garbage sentence.

Also, there isn't a 'first part' and a 'second part', because "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence.

The sentence means this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

The comma acts as an "and", to combine two different but similar rights

But how do you infringe on a militia? Only one right is actually mentioned here; nothing is said about a right to a militia.

And that meaning of 'well-regulated' is also missing from the armed citizens of today. 'Well-regulated' did not mean the chaos of every-man-for-himself and zero oversight.

Not to mention that the definition of 'militia' as 'all adult men' came from the 1900s, not the 1780s.

I don't know much about America (not from there): do you guys actually have those? I know you have a National Guard, but that's state-run, right? Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?

Odd thought: would private paramilitary security contractors technically be a "well-regulated militia" in this sense? If the US were attacked in a land war (somehow), would employees of Academi et al be expected to come out to defend their local areas?

The Unorganized Militia as defined in 10 U.S. Code Section 311 is effectively all able-bodied fighting-age male citizens:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 The classes of the militia are--

 the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-10-armed-forces/10-usc-sec...

That definition came in well over a century after the Second Amendment was written (1956, as far as I can tell), and so should have no bearing on interpretation of the founders' intent.

> Do the "local militias" referred to in the federalist papers still exist?

"The Southern Poverty Law Center identified 334 militia groups at their peak in 2011. It identified 276 in 2015, up from 202 in 2014" [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_U...

Are those the same, or indexed because they have a high probability to cause trouble?

All National Guard units were federalized immediately after World War 2 (meaning that yes, they are "state-run" both literally and figuratively).

Yeah, because righteous revenge works so well for maintaining a civil society.

I'm not saying it would work well, I'm saying it would be justified.

And I wouldn't call what happened here 'civil' - at best, the civility was one-sided: they get to raid his home, hold him captive, and force him to answer, but he doesn't get to do anything.

For what it's worth, there are already other exceptions. For example, you can use (non-deadly) force to detain other persons if you reasonably believe you have witnessed them commit a felony or certain misdemeanors, as long as the force used is necessary and reasonable (possibly matching the force used by the offender to commit the felony, or sufficient to restrain the offender) under the circumstances. You generally have the same duties in an arrest as an officer of the law, but with less protection from potential prosecution.

Civil search of property is, in my opinion, a less serious power/responsibility than citizen's arrest; though I guess it could apply in more circumstances.

> Mind boggling that Canadian law constructed a civil no-notice (i.e. unappealable) instrument with third-party enforcement. That literally cedes the state's monopoly on violence.

No, the monopoly on the legitimated use of force (“monopoly on violence” in popular alternative, though less clear, phrasing) is not ceded when the State legitimizes force applied by entities that are not full-time agents of the State.

It's only ceded when the State allows some other entity to become accepted as legitimately (in the eyes of the people) able to exercise or authorize force without regard to the rules and procedures of the State.

"Monopoly on violence" means "monopoly on determining who may use violence legally", not "is the only one whose employees may legally use violence."

If the state says, "Alice, you can arrest Bob and bring him in", and Alice is not a sworn police officer, that is not ceding the state's monopoly on violence. (The state would, of course, have liability for whatever their authorized Alice to do.)

There is supposed to be a court appointed supervisor there to ensure the rights of the defendant.

Sounds like a pretty massive screwup by them.

Michael Geist put it well -

@mgeist Stunning, abusive behaviour by Bell, Rogers & Videotron in copyright case

Do self-defence laws also cede monopoly on violence?

No, because you're not the one who started it. This case is different.