Slashdot Mirror

Even if you provide the ID free of charge.

Thanks in no small part to the States failing to provide the ID free of charge. Like in Pennsylvania

I bet if you needed a photo ID to collect social security benefits the person named in that lawsuit would have had one for 20 years.

Even if you provide the ID free of charge.

Thanks in no small part to the States failing to provide the ID free of charge. Like in Pennsylvania

Meanwhile the GOP lies about California

Sorry, Mashiki, but you are as wrong about this as you were about the Alberta power grid, which as I pointed out to you, was done under the previous government, and not for clean energy, but so co-generation plants could make money.

For additional citations, see also the US DOJ's amicus brief in a similar case before the 3rd Circuit. The core arguments start on page 18. (It doesn't look like the appeals court has ruled on that case yet, and I don't know when they will.)

citations needed.

http://www.aclupa.org/issues/p...

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guid...

Im pretty sure you can have whatever you want in the way of recording in your house without needing anyone's consent. In public the rules are different sometimes, but I suggest you read here:

http://www.aclupa.org/issues/p...

Maybe you know of some law I do not that singles out FBI, but AFAIK there is none, and when you are on your property and they come unsolicited, I would be amazed if you could find a judge who would even entertain a federal lawsuit for the recording. Your property-- your rules.

"Yes" and "no" are the only ways you get to vote on a bill.

Before a bill is voted on there is a discussion phase where amendments can be introduced. The ACLU has not suggested any concrete amendments.

You don't see that here, because that's not what this story is about,

I referenced and read the ACLU's letter on this subject.

They point out quite clearly what needs to be addressed

But they do not state clearly how they would like it to be addressed. That is the problem. Without a solid solution all they are doing is pointing out problems and not really helping. What is stopping the ACLU from making concrete amendment suggestions?

Is the only things the ACLU can say is "Yes" or "No"? Instead of saying "I respectfully urge you to please vote “no” on this legislation" perhaps say something like "I respectfully ask you to amend the legislation as follows". It is easy to point at legislation and say "bad bill" but it is much more difficult, and productive, to say how the bill can be fixed. They make some oblique suggestions but they are not set out so that the can be easily added to the bill. For example, one of their issues is retention length but they never states how long they consider optimal. If the bill was amended to have a retention time there is a good chance that the ACLU would object because it is too long or too short. Become part of the process instead of an obstructionist.

There was a Supreme Court case, Layshock v. Hermitage, which was very similar to this one: high school senior posts offensive content outside of school, punished with banishment to an "alternative" school (where they send the special naughty kids). Layshock sued the school district and won, on the following grounds:

• - His action was performed completely outside of the school, and was protected speech under the First Amendment.
• - The content he created (a satirical page about his principal) did not significantly disrupt school activities (See also: Tinker v. Des Moines)

The only potential liability is the fact that his school laptop VPNed through the school, but because the tweet was in no way illegal (not even questionable... it's a diatribe on the word "fuck" for those who did not RTFA) there is NO CHANCE of legal liability by the school, barring some obscure law that requires schools to censor all outgoing bad words or something.

This student needs to sue his district. What they did to him is not right, and very similar cases have resulted in rulings in favour of students.

Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.

I don't think the decision does any such thing. (The full text of the judge's order may be found here.)

This is only a temporary restraining order. It doesn't really get into the underlying issues of the prosecution itself. It's just a preliminary finding that the girls do seem to have a good First Amendment case, and that allowing the prosecution to proceed without some more argument into the free speech question might cause irreparable harm. The judge expressly notes that even a temporary infringement of First Amendment rights is a legally cognizable harm. Good for him.

The judge also takes note of the argument that the girls here are victims, not perpetrators. That question isn't decided (though it certainly isn't ignored), because again, this is only a temporary restraining order that doesn't reach that far into the substance of the case.

I've seen different permutations of this comment being thrown around, and this is indicative that either the system is really broken or people are highly exaggerating and don't know what they're talking about. Do we have any legal precedence of parents suing schools, teachers, and school boards for giving their child detention? Unless the teacher beat the crap out of the kid before detention, or unless the child was sodomized while in detention, I do not see how anyone can just sue and not be laughed out of court.

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/studentsuspendedforinterne.htm

Read the MySpace page in question. It's obviously not real and the only hints of 'pedophilia' I noticed anyway was that he belonged to the 'Baby Gap Inc.' club and that he said his favorite clothes style was "XXXSmall". Everyone tries to make a mountain out of a molehill and bend the truth in court cases.

He should have just gone with it, and had fun with it.

That would work if they said "He's fat and bald" or made him look like a monkey or something like that, but it sounds like the page labelled him as a pedophile among other things. In this day and age, that's not a laughing matter: he can't start playing along with that: "Oh yeah, I really like to have sex with students, don't tell anyone." The suspicion of pedophilia could be enough to ruin his career and his life.

"So he posts knowingly fake allegations that can (and probably will) ruin someone's career,..."

Read the preserved original MySpace page [PDF file]. The chances of a page like that ruining someone's career are vanishingly small, given the content of the page. It's so obviously a joke, so completely over the top, that nobody would EVER take it seriously.

Look, it is still malicious, and the student should have been punished for it, but claims the page could actually ruin somebody's career because of what it said are ridiculous.

Statement from Justin Layshock's parents on why they brought suit

Original MySpace page created by Justin Layshock

Statement from Justin Layshock's parents on why they brought suit

Original MySpace page created by Justin Layshock

From TFA the link to the PDF version of his myspace profile: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Justinswebsite.pdf

And the best part(if you check out the PDF)...

again from TFA:

The [b]bigger[/b]--and more important--issue is where a principal's authority ends

Unless there was a [i]lot[/i] more to this the Principal seriously overreacted. Like bigly.

I propose a new term in his honor, "Dude clam down, don't pull a Trosch"

Even the anti-evolution premier scientist Michael Behe testified under oath in court that there is no scientific support for the Irreducable Complexity argument, and that the various efforts to make such an argument have been fatally flawed, and that the various attempts to cite examples of biological Irreducable Complexity have one after another been shown to have evolutionary valid pathways to establish them.

Henry Morris is not the best source of information on probabilities of harmful mutations. The probability of a mutation being harmful is overstated, and to have five happen at the same time in a generation in functionally related genes is highly unlikely.

Mutations that are seriously harmful can prevent child bacteria from dividing or living, or in humans, can prevent sperm from surviving, eggs from surviving, sperm and eggs from fusing, zygotes from being implanted, can cause miscarriages, or can lead to unattractive people who give potential mates the creeps.

Despite all the 'dice rolling' that natural selection and gene crossover in meiosis do, natural selection is the opposite process. It cuts down on the number of variations that are not so good or appropriate for the conditions.

Even Behe, admittedly ID's "powerhouse", had to back off from such statistical arguments on day 12 of the Dover case.

Dembski is one of the creationists who likes to play the numbers game, but plays loosely with information theory.

Creationism is what is easier to understand, and isn't science at all. ID is less understandable, because it attempts to dress itself up as science.

Actually, most people I've seen on the pro-ID side here are either actually thinking of creationism, perhaps in part because Intelligent Design is less well-defined (?) ("there are natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural forces and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to intelligence" is not the best definition of a whole field), or the oft-repeated and oft-debunked carried-over-from-creationism jabs against evolutionary theory.

Intelligent design does not specify the intelligent designer, though almost to a fault, its proponents are unequivocal that it's God, but try to pretend it's not when making their sales pitches (whether winking across the table at the school boards or not).

"Intelligent design? As far as I know, nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. The man is not an idiot, he knows his molecular biology, and he raises some valid points. "
Clearly, you haven't read his cross examination during the dover trial ( check here: http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligen tdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm). He may know his molecular biology, but he seems to have a few issues with reality in general.