Driving is a privilege, ok, but it relates to the right to travel. I think, not too clear on this, that a driver's license, once you have one, is considered property, so if they take it away in an arbitrary and capricious manner without due process, you might have a claim.
OK, the the real ID bill has passed and been signed. Let's say you are in the state agency which would be forced to implement it. What can you do to comply with the letter of the law, while making it not work in practice? Conversely, how could you implement it to really screw with people, triggering a backlash so it's gets repealed or ignored?
Anybody want to draft a bill to repeal realID? should be easy, one paragraph. Find a sponsor, maybe Ron Paul for starters, and get it voted on every year, for as many years as it takes.
"The combination of medieval chivalry and modern lethal technology is pretty ridiculous," says Wilczek. "In real history, gunpowder--or even good crossbows--pretty much put knights out of business."
Wilczek is a rocket scientist or something, no historian. Seen a ninja lately? Of course you haven't. Proves my point. Or, in the anglosphere, knights became lawyers.
- Robbin Stewart, esq.
I pledge $50 as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rep. Sensenbrenner. What for? I have no idea. I'm not accusing him of any crime. But with nearly everything being illegal these days, there might be something if enough people look hard enough.
$50 isn't much, but then I don't have much. Perhaps others would like to chip in. Perhaps someone would step forward to coordinate things.
Awhile ago my RealID was lost or stolen. I was told I couldn't get a replacement without a birth certificate, and couldn't get a birth certificate without a RealID. This went on for a year. Eventually I hired a lawyer, and got it straightened out.
once upon a time, i rented a house. i thought it was a little odd the guy met me at mcdonalds to sign the lease, instead of at an office. he was an ok landlord - left me alone. at one point i did a little digging - the house was owned by "klv trust #47." who was that masked man? now this guy had a guy who did odd jobs for him. i am a public interest attorney. it doesn't pay, but it's fun, and i'd tossed this guy some free legal advice a time or two. i casually mentioned one time my car had blown up, and he gave me a car. when i went to get plates, i noticed the title was in the name of "universal covenant fellowship." so who was the guy who gave me the car? I don't know, and I don't need to know. I am still way too public, but I've learned a few things.
If i'd read the full article, I might have avoided two errors of fact above. It's Hiibel, and the ID bill does use federal funds as a carrot to get the states to go along, rather than just ordering them to. This from fourthamendment.com: PA statute that gives Game Officers authority to stop and ask for identification any person without Reasonable Suspicion is unconstitutional under Hiibel; RS was foundation of Hiibel: Commonwealth v Ickes (2005, Pa) 2005 Pa Lexis 945. As another commenter stated, Hiibel involved a terry stop, which is when the cop is worried about his own safety. That doesn't justify asking every pedestrian, or voter, for an ID.
Also, the cop asked Hiibel for his license. The supreme court misrepresented the facts of the case when they treated it as a request to orally identify himself - that's not what happened. It's rare (I hope) for the supreme court to get the facts wrong.
One approach would be to send it to the Republican Liberty Caucus c/o congressman Ron Paul. They are reasonably good about recruiting further-right people to run against bad republicans. However, their success rate isn't very high, and they tend not to play hardball.
When you need to take out a well-funded powerful politician, someone like Rostenkowski or Nixon, one of the more workable tactics is to invest in investigations of criminal activity. It can be hard to run for re-election from a jail cell, although it happens.
I am -not- suggesting I know of any illegality or wrongdoing by Sensenbrenner. I'm just saying sometimes that approach gives you more bang for your buck. And I don't know who you go to for that, in WI 5th district.
Maybe, if asked nicely, George Souros would put up some money to do background checks on certain republicans. Maybe the money could be used to hire declan (just for example)to coordinate things.
Campaigns and Elections magazine puts out a directory of political operatives, look under "opposition research" or "skullduggery."
rarely, but now and then, these things actually work. In 1994, a group called Dfoli8 America was able to raise just enough funds online to beat Tom Foley, who was the democratic house mahjority leader or some such.
Whether it works or not, a sincere and committed effort to get rid of Sensenbrenner because of this one bad bill, is the kind of thing that politicians respond to.
On the other hand, a few of us just talking on slashdot won't accomplish the thing without more.
So I'm just speculating, not planning.
You could have appealed, and reasonably chose not to. You could have filed a 42 usc 1983 action for the unwarranted search, and reasonably chose not to. My roommate joell got the aclu to back him up when he was illegally stopped and searched, and the supreme court upheld his position in edmonds v indianapolis, and he got $10K and his lawyers got $100k. But that's the exception, not the rule.
papersplease.org link has more up-to-date info on both the hibbel case (pedestrian license upheld 5-4 by supreme court) and gilmore v ashcroft (secret law requires plane passenger license.)
There are indeed serious state's rights issues raised by the ID bill, which will get litigated. The federal government is telling the states what to do, and not providing funds, instead of just making it a string attached to highway grants. Sometimes the courts remember that the federal government isn't allowed to commandeer the state governments without specific constitutional authority. Other times, the feds get away with it. EFF will likely get involved, and is a good group to support. The iclu (indiana civil liberties union, iclu) last week filed a suit about whether the state can require voting licenses. They would welcome your contributions. I'm personally not a big fan of donating to worthy causes; I'd rather see a futures-market based approach, in which you could invest in the outcome of cases like that. Not motivated enough to try to implement it myself.
That's papersplease.org. papersplease.org I hope John Gilmore wins his suit. As a laywer who's read the briefs, it looks good, although I'm not objective on the issue. "a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane," His best argument is, this is a search, a search requires probable cause and, usually, a warrant. He also has a strong argument that the regulation, if there is one, shouldn't be secret. I've written, twice now, to a congressman asking for a copy of the regulation, if there is one, and get the usual evasive non-answer letters in response. I encourage slashdot readers to ask their congresspeople and or senators for a copy of whatever law says you need to have a driver's license to get on a plane, and keep asking until you get a strait answer, and if there is one, send me and EFF a copy.
Mod parent up. Chances are you have drug paraphernalia in your pocket, or within arm's reach. Matches, paper clip, tin foil. I don't like meth, or meth users, and I wasn't there. One common bit of paraphernalia associated with meth users is a hypodermic needle. By outlawing clean needles, the US government created the AIDS epidemic . Most AIDS cases in the US can be traced to shared needles. Every one who serves on a jury needs to understand their obligation to nullify bad laws, or bad cases. fija That is one of the checks and balances of our legal system, derived from the magna charta.
I finished "takedown" yesterday. I had avoided reading it before, because it gets bad press as overhyped and demonizing KevinM. OK, it has an editorial slant I don't agree with, but it was a well-told tale including some people I've met, and a good read. The new book sounds even better.
Mod parent up - informative. Open source is socialism on the jesus model - let's share - instead of the stalin/roosevelt model. Those of us who are anarchists tend to avoid the A word, and talk instead of post-scarcity economics brought on by the open source revolution. Cory Doctorow (of boingboing and eff) has a novel on these themes, down and out in the magic kingdom, free online at www.craphound.com/down. link
Wikipedia and google are open source info. blogs have opensourced journalism. So far there is little progress in opensourcing textbooks and schools - but that will happen. As the open source movement starts to provide, free, what we used to think we needed governments for. Perhaps the state will wither away. In soviet russia, government forks you. In soviet new jersey, same.
Slashdot readers might enjoy a little more research on this story... Alison's photo album. She's 18, about to start her phd, takes classes in GEB for fun, and looks like this: link http://www.chemicallace.com/gallery/March16%2C20 04/march162004_6 She is aka smileloki.
Her lawyer is
Lory R. Lybeck
7525 SE 24th St Ste 110
Mercer Island, WA 98040
EFF is where they usually are, at www.eff.org. You are right that eff does lots of good work on exactly this issue, protecting the anonymity of internet users against abusive discovery practices. I doubt she has a strong case meriting eff involvement, but that she sued sends a good signal.
I do not happen to have the home addresses of the collection agency officials handy, maybe someone else can dig that up.
It's similar. I googled for "hydraulic society" and found link this entry on Karl Wittfogel's "oriental despotism". When the egyptians built a water grid everyone relied on, the local government guy was able to make himself a god emperor. In new jersey, garbage pickup was traditionally handled by the mafia. Try to go into the garbage business without their approval, and your trucks get blown up. Local governments are like the mafia, but without all the checks and balances.
This thread is focused on a false dicotomy: big dumb corporation, or government. Us deep thinkers call that the fallacy of the excluded middle. Yes, the current wired model of broadband is a dinosaur. I'm paying $50/mo to the cable co because i don't like the fine print on verizon contract. Wireless networks are where things are headed. I wish slahsdotters were doing a better job of giving me info on the real costs of setting these up and running them. Real costs will affect the doability of these things. But government, or even the mafia, are among the worst choices for who should run them. If the open source movement doesn't want to step up, at least we could look to the third sector - nonprofits, foundations, private schools, churches, the girl scouts.... But i see no inherent reason this couldn't be done as a business. Encrypted wireless signal with a rented unscrambler at a reasonable rate (say $5/mo? does that work?), or something backed by ad revenue, or corporate sponsorship. The pepsi network eg. Again, what works will be determined by the numbers, and I don't have the numbers. But government should be avoided if there's any other way to do it.
You put that well, although I disagree. Every time the government imposes censorship on election speech, it undermines the integrity of the election process.
Let's be clear here that the bill would not prevent the FEC from censoring the internet. It would amend section 301 of BCRA, to clarify the issue in Shays-Meehan v FEC, which requires the FEC to revisit rulemaking on applying section 301 to the internet. The public comment period for that rulemaking is now under way, and we need slashdotters to take part and be heard. www.fec.gov.
There are other placs in BCRA, such as 311, that attempt to censor campaign speech, and this bill will not fix those problems. Even before BCRA, the FEC, relying on 317 of FECA, has been trying to censor the internet, and we've been fighting it.
This bill is typical of what congress does. It passes a stupid law under pressure from special interest groups. Here the special interest group was the Pew Charitable Trust, which spent ~100 million to pass BCRA (McCain-Feingold). This turned out to have unforseen consequences on another special interest group, in this case bloggers, so a bill is being introduced to cater to that interest group. And so it goes.
It's not about making sense or doing the right thing - it is about responding to stimuli, like an amoeba does. By all means let's support this bill. Whether it passes or not, the support it gets is a measure of how much clout we have. But it doesn't fix the problem, just provides some grease for the squeakiest wheel. Kudos to Declan at cnet and Commissioner Brad Smith and Mike (Krepanski?), Michelle Malkin, the instapundit, the three thousand of you who have signed the coalition's petition. But there's much more work to do to free the internet from state and federal regulation of political speech. I blog about this stuff at ballots.blogspot.com. One of the best sources to keep up with these issues is Rick Hasen's http://www.electionlawblog.com. I try to do what I can, but frankly I need either help from other lawyers, or somebody with deep pockets, before I take on the FEC in court.
Good idea. Free iballs, supported by adware.
The liberals will complain, of course.
I was wondering how soon these will be better than the current version, biological vision?
How soon will these become a fashion accessory?
I disagree with the grandparent post that suing is easy or quick or cheap or anything of that sort. I've spent much of the last 7 years suing about internet anonymity without much to show for it. majors.blogspot.com On the other hand, if there will be a lawsuit over this issue, maybe you'd like to be the named plaintiff, fuckcensorship.us, et al. v united states. I always look for fun distinctive case names.
As you say, they would probably win about naughty domain names, although there are cases like Cohen v California or Price v Indiana that protect fuck as political expression.
I am guessing the government took this step without thinking much about the constitutionality of their action.
The right to privacy at issue here was "discovered" in Talley v California, 1960. www.findlaw.com. Talley held that there is a right to anonymous political speech. If flyers and books are protected, internet sites may be also. I wouldn't bet the farm, but there's a case there. ACLU v Johnson and a series of other state decency act decisions found that there is a right of privacy such that they can't make everybody use a credit card to verify age. Whether this would extend to domain registration is an open question. There also seem to be search and seizure and due process issues raised. It's not a case I could handle myself, but I wouldn't be opposed to being part of a team. Does EFF have a position on this?
You might have some fun looking at how the U describes it own peer to peer networking. Does it have journals that are peer-reviewed? Does the counseling center offer peer counseling? Do they have some deeprooted objection to sharing among equals? Resources might include thefire.org, chillingeffects.org, eff.
Slashdot Mirror
i thought everybody knew those kittens...
http://www.plus613.com/image/149
avoid thought stealers, wear tfh.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
Driving is a privilege, ok, but it relates to the right to travel. I think, not too clear on this, that a driver's license, once you have one, is considered property, so if they take it away in an arbitrary and capricious manner without due process, you might have a claim.
OK, the the real ID bill has passed and been signed.
Let's say you are in the state agency which would be forced to implement it. What can you do to comply with the letter of the law, while making it not work in practice?
Conversely, how could you implement it to really screw with people, triggering a backlash so it's gets repealed or ignored?
Anybody want to draft a bill to repeal realID? should be easy, one paragraph. Find a sponsor, maybe Ron Paul for starters, and get it voted on every year, for as many years as it takes.
"The combination of medieval chivalry and modern lethal technology is pretty ridiculous," says Wilczek. "In real history, gunpowder--or even good crossbows--pretty much put knights out of business."
Wilczek is a rocket scientist or something, no historian. Seen a ninja lately? Of course you haven't. Proves my point. Or, in the anglosphere, knights became lawyers.
- Robbin Stewart, esq.
I pledge $50 as a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rep. Sensenbrenner.
What for? I have no idea. I'm not accusing him of any crime. But with nearly everything being illegal these days, there might be something if enough people look hard enough.
$50 isn't much, but then I don't have much. Perhaps others would like to chip in. Perhaps someone would step forward to coordinate things.
Awhile ago my RealID was lost or stolen. I was told I couldn't get a replacement without a birth certificate, and couldn't get a birth certificate without a RealID. This went on for a year. Eventually I hired a lawyer, and got it straightened out.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312319061/ 002-4715325-2440858
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=0312319061
how to be invisible.
once upon a time, i rented a house. i thought it was a little odd the guy met me at mcdonalds to sign the lease, instead of at an office.
he was an ok landlord - left me alone.
at one point i did a little digging - the house was owned by "klv trust #47."
who was that masked man?
now this guy had a guy who did odd jobs for him.
i am a public interest attorney. it doesn't pay, but it's fun, and i'd tossed this guy some free legal advice a time or two. i casually mentioned one time my car had blown up, and he gave me a car. when i went to get plates, i noticed the title was in the name of "universal covenant fellowship." so who was the guy who gave me the car? I don't know, and I don't need to know.
I am still way too public, but I've learned a few things.
Once upon a time, the student paper at my alma mater ran a classified ad:5 243424/002-4715325-2440858?v=glance r l/index=books&field-author=%20Harry%20Shipman/002- 4715325-2440858
Red giant seeks white dwarf for binary relationship. Contact harry shipman [phone number for astronomy department.]
Even since then, the paper has required ID to place a personal ad.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/039
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-u
Black Holes, Quasars, and the Universe
by Harry L Shipman
If i'd read the full article, I might have avoided two errors of fact above. It's Hiibel, and the ID bill does use federal funds as a carrot to get the states to go along, rather than just ordering them to.
This from fourthamendment.com:
PA statute that gives Game Officers authority to stop and ask for identification any person without Reasonable Suspicion is unconstitutional under Hiibel; RS was foundation of Hiibel: Commonwealth v Ickes (2005, Pa) 2005 Pa Lexis 945.
As another commenter stated, Hiibel involved a terry stop, which is when the cop is worried about his own safety. That doesn't justify asking every pedestrian, or voter, for an ID.
Also, the cop asked Hiibel for his license. The supreme court misrepresented the facts of the case when they treated it as a request to orally identify himself - that's not what happened. It's rare (I hope) for the supreme court to get the facts wrong.
Bill Scannell, the webmaster behind unrealID.com, is also the webmaster behind papersplease.org. html . html
link.
I think he was profiled in wired awhile back.
He is a publicist/lobbyist who works closely with john gilmore on privacy issues.
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,57909,00
http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,64249,00
It's in anticipation of all those boom boom jokes.
One approach would be to send it to the Republican Liberty Caucus c/o congressman Ron Paul. They are reasonably good about recruiting further-right people to run against bad republicans. However, their success rate isn't very high, and they tend not to play hardball. When you need to take out a well-funded powerful politician, someone like Rostenkowski or Nixon, one of the more workable tactics is to invest in investigations of criminal activity. It can be hard to run for re-election from a jail cell, although it happens. I am -not- suggesting I know of any illegality or wrongdoing by Sensenbrenner. I'm just saying sometimes that approach gives you more bang for your buck. And I don't know who you go to for that, in WI 5th district. Maybe, if asked nicely, George Souros would put up some money to do background checks on certain republicans. Maybe the money could be used to hire declan (just for example)to coordinate things. Campaigns and Elections magazine puts out a directory of political operatives, look under "opposition research" or "skullduggery." rarely, but now and then, these things actually work. In 1994, a group called Dfoli8 America was able to raise just enough funds online to beat Tom Foley, who was the democratic house mahjority leader or some such. Whether it works or not, a sincere and committed effort to get rid of Sensenbrenner because of this one bad bill, is the kind of thing that politicians respond to. On the other hand, a few of us just talking on slashdot won't accomplish the thing without more. So I'm just speculating, not planning.
You could have appealed, and reasonably chose not to. You could have filed a 42 usc 1983 action for the unwarranted search, and reasonably chose not to.
My roommate joell got the aclu to back him up when he was illegally stopped and searched, and the supreme court upheld his position in edmonds v indianapolis, and he got $10K and his lawyers got $100k. But that's the exception, not the rule.
papersplease.org link has more up-to-date info on both the hibbel case (pedestrian license upheld 5-4 by supreme court)
and gilmore v ashcroft (secret law requires plane passenger license.)
There are indeed serious state's rights issues raised by the ID bill, which will get litigated. The federal government is telling the states what to do, and not providing funds, instead of just making it a string attached to highway grants.
Sometimes the courts remember that the federal government isn't allowed to commandeer the state governments without specific constitutional authority. Other times, the feds get away with it.
EFF will likely get involved, and is a good group to support. The iclu (indiana civil liberties union, iclu) last week filed a suit about whether the state can require voting licenses. They would welcome your contributions.
I'm personally not a big fan of donating to worthy causes; I'd rather see a futures-market based approach, in which you could invest in the outcome of cases like that. Not motivated enough to try to implement it myself.
That's papersplease.org.
papersplease.org
I hope John Gilmore wins his suit. As a laywer who's read the briefs, it looks good, although I'm not objective on the issue.
"a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane,"
His best argument is, this is a search, a search requires probable cause and, usually, a warrant.
He also has a strong argument that the regulation, if there is one, shouldn't be secret.
I've written, twice now, to a congressman asking for a copy of the regulation, if there is one, and get the usual evasive non-answer letters in response.
I encourage slashdot readers to ask their congresspeople and or senators for a copy of whatever law says you need to have a driver's license to get on a plane, and keep asking until you get a strait answer, and if there is one, send me and EFF a copy.
AMD:
your kung fu is weak old man.
Intel:
If you strike me down, I will only become stronger.
Mod parent up.
Chances are you have drug paraphernalia in your pocket, or within arm's reach. Matches, paper clip, tin foil.
I don't like meth, or meth users, and I wasn't there.
One common bit of paraphernalia associated with meth users is a hypodermic needle. By outlawing clean needles, the US government created the AIDS epidemic . Most AIDS cases in the US can be traced to shared needles.
Every one who serves on a jury needs to understand their obligation to nullify bad laws, or bad cases. fija
That is one of the checks and balances of our legal system, derived from the magna charta.
Google returns 1000+ hits for boundled. Typo or neologism?
I finished "takedown" yesterday. I had avoided reading it before, because it gets bad press as overhyped and demonizing KevinM. OK, it has an editorial slant I don't agree with, but it was a well-told tale including some people I've met, and a good read. The new book sounds even better.
Mod parent up - informative.
Open source is socialism on the jesus model - let's share - instead of the stalin/roosevelt model.
Those of us who are anarchists tend to avoid the A word, and talk instead of post-scarcity economics brought on by the open source revolution.
Cory Doctorow (of boingboing and eff) has a novel on these themes, down and out in the magic kingdom, free online at www.craphound.com/down. link
Wikipedia and google are open source info.
blogs have opensourced journalism.
So far there is little progress in opensourcing textbooks and schools - but that will happen.
As the open source movement starts to provide, free, what we used to think we needed governments for. Perhaps the state will wither away.
In soviet russia, government forks you.
In soviet new jersey, same.
Slashdot readers might enjoy a little more research on this story... Alison's photo album. She's 18, about to start her phd, takes classes in GEB for fun, and looks like this:0 04 /march162004_6
link
http://www.chemicallace.com/gallery/March16%2C2
She is aka smileloki.
Her lawyer is
Lory R. Lybeck
7525 SE 24th St Ste 110
Mercer Island, WA 98040
EFF is where they usually are, at www.eff.org.
You are right that eff does lots of good work on exactly this issue, protecting the anonymity of internet users against abusive discovery practices. I doubt she has a strong case meriting eff involvement, but that she sued sends a good signal.
I do not happen to have the home addresses of the collection agency officials handy, maybe someone else can dig that up.
It's similar. I googled for "hydraulic society" and found link this entry on Karl Wittfogel's "oriental despotism".
When the egyptians built a water grid everyone relied on, the local government guy was able to make himself a god emperor.
In new jersey, garbage pickup was traditionally handled by the mafia. Try to go into the garbage business without their approval, and your trucks get blown up. Local governments are like the mafia, but without all the checks and balances.
This thread is focused on a false dicotomy:
big dumb corporation, or government. Us deep thinkers call that the fallacy of the excluded middle. Yes, the current wired model of broadband is a dinosaur. I'm paying $50/mo to the cable co because i don't like the fine print on verizon contract. Wireless networks are where things are headed. I wish slahsdotters were doing a better job of giving me info on the real costs of setting these up and running them. Real costs will affect the doability of these things.
But government, or even the mafia, are among the worst choices for who should run them.
If the open source movement doesn't want to step up, at least we could look to the third sector -
nonprofits, foundations, private schools, churches, the girl scouts....
But i see no inherent reason this couldn't be done as a business. Encrypted wireless signal with a rented unscrambler at a reasonable rate (say $5/mo? does that work?), or something backed by ad revenue, or corporate sponsorship. The pepsi network eg. Again, what works will be determined by the numbers, and I don't have the numbers.
But government should be avoided if there's any other way to do it.
Qui Custodes Custodiat?
latin for, who sweeps up after the janitor?
You put that well, although I disagree.
Every time the government imposes censorship on election speech, it undermines the integrity of the election process.
Let's be clear here that the bill would not prevent the FEC from censoring the internet. It would amend section 301 of BCRA, to clarify the issue in Shays-Meehan v FEC, which requires the FEC to revisit rulemaking on applying section 301 to the internet.
The public comment period for that rulemaking is now under way, and we need slashdotters to take part and be heard. www.fec.gov.
There are other placs in BCRA, such as 311, that attempt to censor campaign speech, and this bill will not fix those problems. Even before BCRA, the FEC, relying on 317 of FECA, has been trying to censor the internet, and we've been fighting it.
This bill is typical of what congress does. It passes a stupid law under pressure from special interest groups. Here the special interest group was the Pew Charitable Trust, which spent ~100 million to pass BCRA (McCain-Feingold).
This turned out to have unforseen consequences on another special interest group, in this case bloggers, so a bill is being introduced to cater to that interest group. And so it goes.
It's not about making sense or doing the right thing - it is about responding to stimuli, like an amoeba does.
By all means let's support this bill. Whether it passes or not, the support it gets is a measure of how much clout we have.
But it doesn't fix the problem, just provides some grease for the squeakiest wheel. Kudos to Declan at cnet and Commissioner Brad Smith and Mike (Krepanski?), Michelle Malkin, the instapundit,
the three thousand of you who have signed the coalition's petition.
But there's much more work to do to free the internet from state and federal regulation of political speech.
I blog about this stuff at ballots.blogspot.com.
One of the best sources to keep up with these issues is Rick Hasen's http://www.electionlawblog.com.
I try to do what I can, but frankly I need either help from other lawyers, or somebody with deep pockets, before I take on the FEC in court.
Good idea. Free iballs, supported by adware. The liberals will complain, of course. I was wondering how soon these will be better than the current version, biological vision? How soon will these become a fashion accessory?
I disagree with the grandparent post that suing is easy or quick or cheap or anything of that sort.
I've spent much of the last 7 years suing about internet anonymity without much to show for it.
majors.blogspot.com
On the other hand, if there will be a lawsuit over this issue, maybe you'd like to be the named plaintiff, fuckcensorship.us, et al. v united states.
I always look for fun distinctive case names.
As you say, they would probably win about naughty domain names, although there are cases like Cohen v California or Price v Indiana that protect fuck as political expression.
I am guessing the government took this step without thinking much about the constitutionality of their action.
The right to privacy at issue here was "discovered" in Talley v California, 1960.
www.findlaw.com.
Talley held that there is a right to anonymous political speech.
If flyers and books are protected, internet sites may be also. I wouldn't bet the farm, but there's a case there.
ACLU v Johnson and a series of other state decency act decisions found that there is a right of privacy such that they can't make everybody use a credit card to verify age.
Whether this would extend to domain registration is an open question.
There also seem to be search and seizure and due process issues raised. It's not a case I could handle myself, but I wouldn't be opposed to being part of a team. Does EFF have a position on this?
You might have some fun looking at how the U describes it own peer to peer networking. Does it have journals that are peer-reviewed? Does the counseling center offer peer counseling?
Do they have some deeprooted objection to sharing among equals?
Resources might include thefire.org, chillingeffects.org, eff.