> By extending their argument from "IP block and C&D" (something I accept may be valid here as a civil violation) to merely "IP block", the court may have just found that 1) is a crime independent of any malice or damages, among other things.
I don't read the opinion to say that. In fact, I'd say that the court put more weight on the C&D than the IP ban (contra Prof. Kerr who reads the statue as giving primacy to the technological measure). Though admittedly the analysis is rather short.
3taps doesn't argue it thought it got caught up in an over aggressive automated filter. It knew Craigslist didn't want it to access its website and did anyway. I don't see why slippery slope arguments ought to let them off the hook. Though I agree a civil forum is generally the best for this sort of thing.
I don't read the opinion to say that. In fact, I'd say that the court put more weight on the C&D than the IP ban (contra Prof. Kerr who reads the statue as giving primacy to the technological measure). Though admittedly the analysis is rather short.
3taps doesn't argue it thought it got caught up in an over aggressive automated filter. It knew Craigslist didn't want it to access its website and did anyway. I don't see why slippery slope arguments ought to let them off the hook. Though I agree a civil forum is generally the best for this sort of thing.