Slashdot Mirror

No, Captain Jack doesn't fly for American Airlines...

Ah.. for some reason my link didn't work on my previous comment, so here it's again: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/ct-met-levin-hit-and-run-2-20110603,0,7039906.story
Let's see if that works.

and you don't expect the lawyers to start asking for personal data because of trolling. (I'm going to shoot that president, and the vice-president of the United States with my ak47.)

The idea that a single off-the-cuff comment is hardly going to lead to all sorts of trouble coming down on you is an interesting view to take, however ITYF it's not shared by the majority of those in positions of authority.

Amazon thinks Texas is bad? Illinois is trying to get about 6 years back-taxes from online shoppers They want everyone who purchased goods in the past 6 years online to pay back-sales-taxes on those goods. How that is considered legal is amazing.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/state-to-offer-sales-tax-amnesty-for-online-shoppers.html

According to news reports, the scanner cannot scan body cavities or under skin.

They would see a pistol or grenade taped to your body, but not one shoved up your ass. I would imagine that a morbidly obese person could utilize a sufficiently large fold of skin to hide something.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/midway-airport-to-get-full-body-scanners.html

It's a perfect example of untrue but widely believed anti-union propaganda. This cop's union didn't help him, nor should it have. If your're caught stealing office supplies, your union won't help you. If you're reprimanded or fired for smoking in a no-smoking area, your union won't help you. If you're a "no call no show" your union won't help you. If you show up for work drunk your union won't help you. If your boss trumps up some bullshit charge because he just doesn't like you, then your union WILL help you.

This is an example of an untrue statement being widely believed simply because it's been parroted so many times. If you work for a paycheck, you're probably better off with a union.

How about doing the sane thing and limiting libel to only really -damaging- things that were intentionally untrue.

For example (using examples from all over the world and not just Canada), the woman that was sued for libel after tweeting that their may have been mold in her apartment ( http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/uptown-resident-sued-for-twitter-post.html ) is not damaging. Twitter, Facebook, etc. should not be grounds for libel unless it was clearly meant to influence a large group of people against something and had no proof. Basically, Twitter, Facebook and even some blogs are akin to people talking in a crowded room, the comments may be untruthful, insightful or just plain random. They aren't meant to be taken seriously.

Truth also should be taken with a grain of salt. The average person isn't an expert on everything, so generally their comments will reflect that. If someone said "Dell laptops are crap, my computer won't even boot up" and the fact is they just did something stupid like erase the MBR, that shouldn't be considered libel because they were not experts.

These are the same people who have no problem imprisoning others based on hearsay, and cops beating someone up because someone didn't look right.

It's much worse than that. Since this is Chicago we're talking about:

Official proceedings to remove Anthony Abbate from the Chicago Police Department began Tuesday with the airing of about 30 minutes of video showing the disgraced officer showboating and harassing patrons of a Northwest Side bar before he turns on the bartender, beating and kicking her.

The infamous recording -- played around the world -- largely has been seen in shorter snippets.

On Monday, city attorneys aired lengthy portions of the recording to highlight how events unfolded at Jesse's Short Stop Inn in the afternoon and evening of Feb. 19, 2007. The additional video shown in the hearing has not been released because Abbate's case is ongoing.

During two visits to the bar, Abbate consumed large quantities of alcohol and persistently harassed and physically abused patrons and the bartender, Karolina Obrycka, according to the attorneys and the charges filed against him by Police Superintendent Jody Weis.

Abbate, already convicted in criminal court for the felony aggravated battery of Obrycka, faces dismissal from the department before the Chicago Police Board. The board conducts hearings and determines punishment. Weis is seeking his dismissal.

Abbate invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at least 75 times during questioning by city attorney Anna L. D'Ascenzo, who repeatedly asked Abbate to identify himself on the recording.

"You pounce on Karolina Obrycka," said D'Ascenzo, referring to the video. "You throw her to the ground. ... You grab fistfuls of hair."

The cops claim it's an "isolated incident". Riiiiight.... Yeah, isolated. Stuff like that seldom happens. BTW, those links are from Google's first page of a search for "Chicago police beatings". One of them has a video of a cop beating the holy shit out of a "special needs" student for refusing to tuck his shirt in.

Is it any wonder people in the ghetto have nothing but fear, loathing, and hatred for the police? Anybody who says "but if I'm not brealing the law" are woefully ignorant.

Don't click thoise links if you're easily pissed off, or are one of those "law and order" folks. There is little law and less order.

You omitted the part of the article before that bit. Here's some more context:

The comments at the heart of the case came at the end of a series of posts between Hipcheck16 and Stone's son, who was concerned about online remarks the teen regarded as critical of his mother. At one point, the teen asked to know the poster's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.

Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"

source

The teen appeared to be soliciting a visit, and the posted declined, then lobbed an insult back. Wow, that's strong stuff. As a parent, I'd be more pissed off about the things my kid was saying online than the relatively-amusing response it garnered.

Since you keep repeating "we don't know enough" I guess you haven't read it, the source can be found in TFA adn here in slashdot.

From http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/11/trustee-may-learn-identify-of-anonymous-internet-poster.html

The comments at the heart of the case came at the end of a series of posts between Hipcheck16 and Stone[the Mom and public figure]'s son, who was concerned about online remarks the teen regarded as critical of his mother.

At one point, the teen asked to know the poster's identity and challenged him to debate the issues in person.

Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"

The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.

Stone said the comments crossed the line.

"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said. "There was no joke, there was no punch line."

Stone is obviously playing dumb, it's a clear rhetoric question implying "you should not invite strangers to your house, it does not look on records for your mommy"

i guess you'll still insist this is not enough information, maybe "mommy" is a secret code for "I'll kill you" between Stone and an third party, undisclosed, so Stone herself must verify the commenter's identity.

You said "The bar for this order being appropriate is pretty high", but the way you present it it seems like Stone (or any other claimant) is the only one who can judge whether we have anonymity in the web at all.

If I was a US citizen, I'd pressure to move the bar higher. Death threats and spam seem better metrics rather than simply asking "do you invite strangers home?" that's a pretty low bar to me.

Too bad there are no consequences for posting a story like this and linking to an opinion piece on some site nobody's ever heard of, when you could as easily link a real newspaper in the city it happened in, like the Chicago Tribune. Landlord sues Uptown tenant for Twitter post.

BAD submission. Bad bad bad. No cookie for you!

I wonder just how somebody like this stupid oxygen thief (woman killed a motorcyclist because she was too busy doing her nails to actually drive her car) might think "It's OK if I hit somebody now - I have this airbag!".

Nobody should be worried about cameras on every corner unless they are a criminal worried about being caught in the act.

Everybody who believes in civil liberties and political descent should be concerned about cameras on every, heck every other, corner. I'm sure the old Soviet Union would have loved to have that ability to track everyone.

To run around ranting that cameras invade privacy and erode civil liberties is fundamentally mis-targeted - it's not the cameras that invade privacy, and it's not within the function of a mere imaging device to erode your civil liberties.

It makes it easier for those who would invade privacy and erode civil liberties if they have the means to do so. Meanwhile as some have already pointed out these cameras don't stop or prevent crimes. One teen shot dead and two injured with two cameras capturing the shooting.

Falcon

Exhibit A; this happened yesterday:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/02/1-dead-2-wounded-in-southeast-side-shooting.html

I suppose if anything, the *two* cameras installed at that corner might make it easier to catch the guy who decided to gun down a 13, 15 and 17 year old with an assault rifle. But I would surprised if any public official still makes the claim of deterrence.