criminal-law freedom-of-speech fbi
Can an &quot;FBI domain seizure&quot; April Fools joke land you in jail?
<p>I found this <a href="https://github.com/Linuzifer/domain_seizure" rel="noreferrer">GitHub repository</a> that contains collection of several different intelligence agency domain seizure pages, including FBI domain seizure.</p>
<p>It is meant to be used by said agencies for real seized domains, but I figured out one of my April Fools jokes on my own websites would be to include the FBI domain seizure page for just one day and display it to anyone who visits the page on April 1st for the first time.</p>
<p>The domain is on a national TLD outside U.S. so it's fairly obvious that FBI couldn't seize that domain (and it's a 3rd level domain, too).</p>
<p>However I would still make sure that I won't face any kind of jail for that if I misuse the domain seizure template for a silly April Fools joke. I would add a button to it that will be labeled as something like &quot;Details on this seizure&quot; or something, and clicking it will display an alert box saying &quot;APRIL FOOLS&quot; and redirecting back to the real website homepage.</p>
<p>I also figured out that just for the sake of being sure, the page would visibly include a disclaimer stating that that page isn't real and was only installed for the purpose of a one time April Fools joke and does not intend to misinterprets it as a real domain seizure, and that the artwork is licensed under Public Domain as an official U.S. government agency artwork.</p>
<p>Am I still in trouble if I go with that route? Is it too overboard?</p>

<p>I can't comment on what the legal situation would be in your home country, but as a matter of U.S. law, the hypothetical scenario you've described is not illegal.</p>
<p>First, because you aren't a U.S. citizen and because you aren't operating in the United States, the U.S. government probably has no jurisdiction over you, your website, or your conduct.</p>
<p>Even if it did, the most relevant statute, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1017" rel="noreferrer">18 U.S. Code § 1017</a>, would not apply. The statute prohibits the &quot;fraudulent or wrongful&quot; use of the FBI's seal. But &quot;fraudulent&quot; and &quot;wrongful&quot; generally refer only to conduct where one uses deception or other means to obtain money, property, etc. to which they have no lawful entitlement. <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-enmons" rel="noreferrer"><em>United States v. Enmons</em>, 410 U.S. 396, 399 (1973)</a>.</p>
<p>Because you aren't using the seal to obtain anyone's property through deception, this use would not fall within the statute's proscriptions.</p>
<p>Even if the government sought to prosecute you, you would have a valid First Amendment defense. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, and it does not allow statements to be criminalized merely because they are false. <a href="https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-alvarez" rel="noreferrer"><em>United States v. Alvarez</em>, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012)</a>.</p>
<p>This outcome should be unsurprising to most U.S. observers. I think most people would agree that the U.S. obviously cannot prosecute a Hollywood producer for making a movie dramatizing the FBI's efforts to shut down the Pirate Bay, even if it displayed the FBI's seizure message on a monitor in the course of the movie, and even if it showed the seal being used on a completely fictional website.</p>
<p>The hypothetical you're describing is not materially different. In both cases, the seal is being used to falsely create the impression -- for entertainment purposes -- that the FBI has shut down a website. Saying false things for entertainment purposes is not a crime in the United States.</p>
