SurfTheChannel Founder Gets Extra Jail Time For Revealing Documents That Raised Questions About His Convictionby Mike Masnick
Nov. 23, 2012
1.The Huffington Post Is What Happens When There's No Men In The Room
2."That's Not True" BBC Host Hangs Up On Guest for Citing Rotherham Muslim Rape Scandal
3.Gary Johnson's Plan to Beat Trump: 'Call Him Racist'
4.Swedish Government Kicks Local Family Out of Home, Gives It to Muslim Migrants
5.EU Cites Terrorism by Muslims They Let In as Reason to Ban Right-Wing's Free Speech
6.Desperation: Brexit Ballot "How to Vote" Guide Instructs Brits to Vote to Stay in EU
7.Trump Rips Bill Kristol: "All The Guy Wants to do is Kill People and Go to War"
8.SHOCK POLL: Trump Leads Hillary in Oregon 53% to 26% Among Independents
You may recall that, earlier this year, we wrote about a very troubling ruling in the UK against the founder of SurfTheChannel, Anton Vickerman. STC was a linking site, no different than others that had been found perfectly legal in the UK. After the conviction, which resulted in Vickerman being put in jail for four years, some additional info came out that was really horrifying. First, there was the fact that this criminal case, including the investigation, was driven entirely by a private anti-piracy organization, FACT, which is financed by the Hollywood studios. Yes, a criminal case that was run by private interests. Actual law enforcement had refused to proceed with the case, saying that there wasn't evidence of direct infringement. Furthermore, some "anonymous" notes from the court room suggested a judge was on a mission to put Vickerman away.
Now comes the news that Vickerman has been hit with contempt of court and given an extra month in jail all for releasing some of the documents that revealed what a farce the case was. Once again, the judge seems focused on punishing Vickerman for his attitude, rather than any real problem:
Vickerman, 38, apologised to Judge John Evans, who had previously branded him the "most arrogant" defendant he had ever come across.That whole "most arrogant" part is really troubling. If you were genuinely innocent and being railroaded in a criminal case by private money (the same money that financed a competitor to your site), I think you'd be pretty pissed off too.