Slashdot Mirror

Three points:

• Fighting words must be "face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation."
• Online speech isn't face-to-face.
• There's serious doubt about whether the exemption itself is still valid.

Here's a more complete explanation written by an actual first amendment lawyer:

Trope Seven: "Fighting words"

Example: "There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte." McClatchy.com, May 4, 2015.

No discussion of controversial speech is complete without some idiot suggesting that it may be "fighting words."

In 1942 the Supreme Court held that the government could prohibit "fighting words" — "those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Supreme Court has been retreating from that pronouncement ever since. If the "fighting words" doctrine survives — that's in serious doubt — it's limited to face-to-face insults likely to provoke a reasonable person to violent retaliation. The Supreme Court has rejected every opportunity to use the doctrine to support restrictions on speech. The "which by their very utterance inflict injury" language the Supreme Court dropped in passing finds no support whatsoever in modern law — the only remaining focus is on whether the speech will provoke immediate face-to-face violence.

That's almost always irrelevant to the sort of speech at issue when the media invokes the trope.

Source: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/

Exactly. Elements of involuntary manslaughter (AKA negligent homicide):

1. Someone was killed as a result of the defendant's actions.
2. The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
3. The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

Sure. They're going to do that.

Well, they did that, so you're simply denying reality.

Meanwhile, your neighbour may have just bled to death.

Let's get this straight -- well-armed and resourced police have no duty to do anything, but he does.

Depending which state you're in, you might well have broken the law.

Nope. One pretty much has to have actually seen a felony, or assisted someone after the fact knowing that they'd committed a crime.

What's wrong with calling the police, heading over the valley, assessing the situation and providing aid?

Apparently the risk of death even though you may be heavily armed and virtually immune from prosecution. Oh, wait, you meant a civilian. Lack of training, no qualified immunity, and the aforementioned being shot by first responders, methinks

Oh no, might get hurt? Fucking cowardly piece of shit.

Internet tough guy. Try not to select such an obvious meme.

Under California law, making criminal threats [...]

What part of the law. By doxing me on Slashdot, you're interfering with my constitutional right to express my opinion.

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-422-6.html

(a) No person, whether or not acting under color of law, shall by force or threat of force, willfully injure, intimidate, interfere with, oppress, or threaten any other person in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him or her by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States in whole or in part because of one or more of the actual or perceived characteristics of the victim listed in subdivision (a) of Section 422.55.

I think you need to stop mixing up bullshit in your head before writing said regurgitated bullshit onto a page.

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

And that's the problem with statists like you: they always believe that legality begets morality and not the other way around. Put them in Nazi Germany and they'll be the first to run around with rifles hunting Jews, because "it's legal so it must be right"

Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?

That is specifically illegal: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?

Federal courts have ruled that LGBTQ are a protected class under the Civil Rights Act https://www.lifesitenews.com/n... so, yes, that would be illegal on the part of the ISP. That's federal law. Now, the current administration would prefer that states be allowed to be petty tyrants and strip any citizen they want of their rights, so they've appealed the ruling.... we'll see how that turns our.

I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...

IF you had read that article, you'd have noticed this little tidbit in there:

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

So yes, a state court in Colorado said the bakery was violating the state law.

I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.

The former was a federal court ruling LGBTQ is a protected class, and falls under the Civil Rights Act, the latter is a state affirming you have to follow the law. The federal ruling was precedent setting, the state one... not so much. Regardless.... neither of those apply to worthless fucking NAZI's, because not only are NAZI's NOT a protected class... they are enemies of the United States.

... Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce--
an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
âa restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
âa motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
âan auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;


a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;


âa laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
âa terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
âa museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

... (a very long list continues...)

... Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce--
an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
âa restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
âa motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
âan auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;


a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;


âa laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
âa terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
âa museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

... (a very long list continues...)

... Public accommodation The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce--
an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging, except for an establishment located within a building that contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as the residence of such proprietor;
âa restaurant, bar, or other establishment serving food or drink;
âa motion picture house, theater, concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment;
âan auditorium, convention center, lecture hall, or other place of public gathering;


a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;


âa laundromat, dry-cleaner, bank, barber shop, beauty shop, travel service, shoe repair service, funeral parlor, gas station, office of an accountant or lawyer, pharmacy, insurance office, professional office of a health care provider, hospital, or other service establishment;
âa terminal, depot, or other station used for specified public transportation;
âa museum, library, gallery, or other place of public display or collection;

... (a very long list continues...)

If my video is taken down, that implies I broke the law.

No it does not. It simply is a reflection of someone accusing you of violating their copyright. Furthermore it appears in this case that the person who posted the video likely DID violate copyright - just not Warner Music's copyright.

That's defamation of character.

Insert eyeroll here. No it is almost certainly not defamation of character. For it to be defamation there has to be real and quantifiable damage. While possible in certain circumstances the mere act of issuing a DCMA takedown request or asserting a copyright (even when non exists) would be unlikely to result in provable harm (financial, reputational, or otherwise) to anyone in the overwhelming majority of cases. If there is no provable damage then by definition it is not defamation of character.

There are legal avenues one can take to combat frivolous copyright claims but defamation of character would be a really stupid one in most cases.

Even if it's small claims.

Small claims court is very rarely an appropriate venue for libel cases. Libel cases are difficult to prove and typically require the aid of a lawyer. Small claims courts are for small and simple contractual disputes. While it's theoretically possible to take a libel claim to small claims court it's probably a really dumb idea.

Funny that, you don't have to be the biological father to pay child support.

While I don't disagree it sucks for the dude involved, being forced to pay for a child that is not his, I want to point out a couple of things about this case: Based on the court doc, they were married in 96, under two years later the kid was born, they weren't divorced until 2001. That would lead me to believe that for 3 years he raised the child as his own. The 2001 divorce filings "incorporated a revised marital settlement agreement acknowledging Richard as the father of the couple’s minor child and requiring him to pay child support." It wasn't until 2003, while his ex was suing him for non-payment of child support, that he contested paternity and subsequently attempted to claim fraud against her.

The judgement you referenced only stated that the statute of limitations for fraud had run out, and therefore he could not seek reparations. This other doc is an interesting read, paraphrasing a portion of it says: Because he signed the 2001 divorce decree acknowledging he was the father, he is the father for all intents and purposes of the law. Essentially legally adopting the child. If he would have presented the paternity tests at that time, or within a year, he would have gotten out of the support payments. Because he waited 2 years he's SoL.

Again, shitty for the dude involved and it sucks that he's stuck paying a shit load of money for a kid that's not his, but the facts and the laws are what they are.

No he doesn't. Even if he did the constitution mentions misdemeanors, which could include jaywalking. You don't think they could find him indictable for a misdemeanor? I suggest you read the following as obviously this has never happened no one knows for sure what the actual requirements are.

http://litigation.findlaw.com/...

Let me quote some basics, but first chastise you for not performing even a cursory glance at the law and opinions expressed by legal experts. One source of thousands possible.

Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of

See item 3.

Extortion is a felony in all states. Blackmail is a form of extortion in which the threat is to expose embarrassing and damaging information to family, friends, or the public. Inherent in this common form of extortion is the threat to expose the details of someone's private lives to the public unless money is exchanged.

This matches my assertion exactly.

Another common extortion crime is offering "protection" to a businessman to keep his business safe from burglary or vandalism. For example, Dan goes to Victor's place of business and demands monthly payment from Victor for the business's "protection" from vandalism and after-hours theft. Fearing that he or his business will suffer harm otherwise, Victor agrees to pay Dan.

This exactly matches my assertion as well.

Extortion can take place over the telephone, via mail, text, email or other computer or wireless communication. If any method of interstate commerce is used in the extortion, it can be a federal crime.

They published their threat on-line in numerous places for public display.

Many dubious reviews
Allegations of "Payola"
Allegations of business shakedowns
Too many novices rate everything 5 stars, or 1 star

In the grander scheme of things I'm not sure we should take Company B's advice that Company A is wrong and should be penalized, merely because Company B writes op-eds and sweet talks regulators. AKA ~ Regulatory Capture.

Yelp is just out to destroy Google since they are the competition. I'm not defending Google either though.

The article you cite seems to be based on ignoring _local_ law and its interaction with federal and international law. In the USA, extortion is normally considered a state matter, not a federal or international one. But as soon as the offence crosses state or international lines, it can easily become one.

Please, be careful what you read from such an article. At least in the USA, there is considerable _state_ law about extortion. Much of it is easily discoverable at http://statelaws.findlaw.com/c.... While not every state has specifically mentioned computer extortion, the older extortion statutes should still apply with little confusion. As soon as money or goods cross state lines, it becomes a matter of federal interest to US law enforcement. If it crosses international lines, it becomes of interest the the UN FACT, which is concerned with money laundering.

It's completely understandable that an exchange like Coinbase would not want state or federal investigators involved in their operations in any way.

Back to the original point you keep dodging, asshole. You still haven't countered my original assertion that a business demanding a doctor's note is an illegal invasion of privacy.

Because it's a dead simple answer that you'll outright refuse to accept: It is NOT illegal to ask for a doctor's note.

While you can't ask for any details about why the doctor's visit was necessary, results, etc, you can ask for a doctor to just sign and date a note that says "Please excuse this fat lazy ass, Blarbara Hudson, from going to work today." However they could not say something like "Blarbara Hudson needs additional time to heal from the upper-back-butt implant he received and can't come to work today." The legality of this is actually pretty well established.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_...

You're welcome, and you ought to try looking it up before flapping your big fat uneducated slackjaw. Of course, it's basically pointless for me to say what I said above, hence I was hesitant to mention it earlier, and won't mention it any further, even if you ask.

Medical conditions are protected by HIPAA, and businesses requiring doctor's notes is a clear violation - they should not even be allowed to know you have a medical condition.

Precisely why a doctor's note doesn't have to (and won't unless you ask) include any details, you dumb fuck. If the doctor did write those details, he could be held liable under HIPAA.

As fror the rest - what an idiot you are. Go look at pictures. The nerves are preserved as is a fair amount of tissue. And let's face it, it's the nerves and connected tissue that count. The parts that enable an erection are definitely not wanted, as they not only don't contribute, they detract from the final result.

Skin and a piece of the glans is all that remains, and it is NOT genitalia. Does the skin retain nerves? Yep, but again, this is part of a separate organ. A real vagina isn't skin, and is in fact a mucus membrane similar to the inside of your mouth and nose. There are two critical differences here:

- External skin found on the penis (and elsewhere) has a keratin layer, a mucus membrane does not.
- External skin poorly handles warm, moist environments, where it is increasingly susceptible to infection. A mucus membrane has its own mechanisms of fighting off infection in this environment that skin doesn't.

In fact, given how obese you are, I'm sure you've observed the later under your skin folds by your arms and in the middle of your stomach: The moist environment is prone to infection, up to and including bleeding. Absent of maintenance, your "neovagina" as you call it will actually harden over time to resist these infections. And no, putting this kind of skin into your pelvis doesn't cause it to change from regular skin to a mucus membrane, even with hormones.

The prostate doesn't enter into it. Anti-androgens and estrogens shrink it to almost nothing.

Precisely, and yet it still retains its functions related to orgasm.

And also reduce the cancer risk to next to nothing.

False. It is reduced, but not "next to nothing" as you put it: http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/tr...

The same way that breast cancer screening isn't necessary because M2F have a lower breast cancer risk than men.

Just like how real women with breast implants also have a lower risk, and for the same reason.

There is little disagreement among professionals

I like how you state that without even bothering to address the one counterexample I gave you.

I also like how you just throw terms like narcissist and religious at me without any basis for doing so (I've provided plenty, in your case.)

Citation? Date range?

Politifact claims it's the 6th, 11th, then 9th.
Findlaw also says it's the 6th.
In 2015 it looks like it was the 11th, and in 2014 it looks like the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th and 11th came ahead of the 9th in reversals.

But Fox news agrees with you, even though the year they select, 2012, it was not the most overturned, with the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 11th having more (the 9th was tied with the 5th).

I'm not sure how this counts as tap dancing...

Wouldn't a joke inherently fall under the parody exclusion?

Weirdly, no......it has to be a valid parody. Whether or not something is a valid parody is of course a fuzzy line.

Do not worry citizen! It is protected, by Title 17 Section 1201 of the US code. So it never expires. (MAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA!)

Yours,
- RIAA

(3) “Launch” means to move or attempt to move people or property from Earth to space. For purposes of this regulation, "launch" also includes the movement or attempted movement of people or property from space to Earth.

And the enabling law California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 19503 allows them to do so retroactively.

(3)The Franchise Tax Board may provide that any regulation may take effect or apply retroactively to prevent abuse.
(4)The Franchise Tax Board may provide that any regulation may apply retroactively to correct a procedural defect in the issuance of any prior regulation.

And guess who get to define the terms "abuse" and "procedural defect"?

Calling those judges SJW diminishes the power of the insult

It is not an insult — the judiciary has no say in who is allowed to cross the border. None. Zilch — it is entirely up to the Executive branch. At least, that's what we were told, when Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba — in defiance of wishes of his mother, who gave up her life to get him out of there. A court refused to grant Elian a reprieve, deferring to the President, who wanted to send the boy back:

"in no context is the executive branch entitled to more deference than in the context of foreign affairs"

To suddenly switch for the exact opposite opinion requires utter disregard for the actual law and earlier precedents, however recent. The explanation, that the judges' motivation is some kind of "higher" justice — such as "Social" justice — is the most reasonable one...

And, before you ask, they were talking about Federal Executive branch — not that of any of the member States (suck it up, California). It was only in 2012, that Supreme Court Justice Kennedy wrote for the court's majority against Arizona:

The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations.

California has a two-party consent for recording private individuals law. Which means, oh deluded ones, both parties have to notified recording is taking place and both have to consent. He did not notify or get the second party's consent. Guilty. Explain away that.

I do expect insurance to rise to the point where it's unaffordable for us plebs to drive our own cars in short order though

If drivers aren't costing insurance companies more, rates won't go up. And you can be sure that any effort by the insurance companies to conspire to arbitrarily raise rates to absurd levels industry-wide will be fought hard in states where insurance is mandatory, if those states don't already dictate rate structures. Unless you either get rid of industry regulations or have the rate increases enacted by state governments, this will not happen.

and camera-based traffic enforcement to be so prevalent that anyone driving with less than mechanical precision will get heavily fined.

This is already prohibited in eight states and restricted in several more. Expect serious pushback if the other states try to expand use of these systems.

Don't tell me what to do.

You don't know the strategy of every fucking immigrant who comes here.

It is not illegal to come to this country.

The response to a first-timer is simply deportation.

There are no fines, no jail time.

Just deportation.

But mere unlawful presence in the country is not a crime. It is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, but this violation is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal. Chief among these civil penalties is deportation or removal, where an unlawful resident may be detained and removed from the country. Unlawful presence can also have negative consequences for a resident who may seek to gain re-entry into the United States, or permanent residency.

Ironically, the bigger assholes here are Zuckerberg's attorneys, and they're being assholes to Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg doesn't need to sue anyone, nor does he need to track down the owners, nor does he need any fucking attorneys to acquire ownership of that land, and he doesn't even need to buy it.. All he needs to do is pay the back taxes on it, continue paying the taxes on it, and live there 20 years while improving the property, and ownership of the land passes to him via Hawaiian adverse possession laws.

Mr. Zuckerberg, your attorneys are fucking you. I hope you can enjoy it as much as everyone else is.

Why do people keep repeating this zombie talking point? I know y'all didn't flunk out of school before they covered Nixon in civics class.

Because the legality of the Nixon pardon was never established. Nor did Burdick , upon which Ford justified that pardon, provide actual curial authority that the President's power extends to granting immunity from future prosecution. On the contrary, the court specifically declined so to find:

"The Solicitor General, in his discussion of the question, following the division of the district court, contends ... that the President has power to pardon an offense before admission or conviction of it ... In our view of the case it is not material to decide whether the pardoning power may be exercised before conviction."

The better view is that granting immunity from prosecution is overreach, that Ford acted unlawfully, and that pardoning Snowden would similarly be beyond the President's powers. At the very least, Obama's exercise this power under these circumstances would be open to a serious challenge (which might at least provide some legal clarity).

Psh. A pre-emptive pardon can still be issued. A century and a half ago, SCotUS explicitly determined that except for cases of impeachment, presidential pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment". Where do people get the notion that such a pardon can only be issued after a trial?

I don't know about law in any of the US, but in the UK: a private letter is considered to be "published", for libel purposes, the moment it is opened (by someone other than the party being libelled, or someone acting as their agent and with their express permission to open it)

Yes. It is roughly the same in the U.S. See HERE, in the section headed "Publication".

But the fact that the power hasn't been exercised isn't the point. The law is still on the books, so the state all has "ownership" and can in theory send you off to you to do whatever they want. Your Supreme Court considered this different to slavery only because serving in the armed forces is an "honour". http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

1) No, your analogy is ridiculous. It shows that, despite your desire to buff up the scholarly chops of your post with a link to a dictionary definition, you do not understand the legal concept of assault.

2) Not every goddamn thing is about "The Left" (or I suppose, by corollary, the heroic "Right"). By choosing to couch your entire worldview** in these terms, you do yourself a great disservice. When the only tool you have is a shoehorn, everything looks like a left or right shoe (to paraphrase Maslow).

But often times, as is the case here, you'll find yourself trying to jam a 1L Torts textbook into some weird partisan ideological clog, and it comes off as ham-fisted and inapt. What's next? Can we work "SJWs" in here somehow? Is it too much of a stretch to blame this one on Islam?

**If your worldview is somehow more nuanced, it hasn't come across in your prodigious post history.

In America, unpaid internships are illegal.

No they are not. But in the USA, in order to not have to pay them minimum wage you do have to meet certain criteria:

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.c...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/o...

Since this was up-voted, I guess I should at least inform my Democratic colleagues who are interested in fixing gerrymandering. Redistricting happens after each census, and the census happens once a decade in years ending in 0. (This is also when reapportionment happens - changes in number of House members each state gets). So the next census will be in 2020, and the first election with new districts would be 2022. If you've got an idea, a ballot initiative, whatever for fixing gerrymandering, the time to work on it is between now and 2019. You want it to be on the 2020 election ballot at latest so people can vote for it, and if it's approved the changes would go into effect before the districts are redrawn for the 2022 election.

Actually, as Texas in 2003 showed, it can be done between a Census. You might feel inclined to quibble over the details, since technically, the process went to the alternative method since there was deadlock in the state legislature, but the fact is, the Supreme Court already ruled and expressly provided for it. It would be entirely legal to begin to redistrict immediately. There is no need to wait until 2022. It could be done at the next election. (I am not sure if the entire legislature could be dissolved, and schedule elections off-cycle, theoretically there is no impediment, but it has not been tested.)

You should really inform yourself better, before you start giving advice.

This needs to be done on the State level. The Constitution outlines how many House members each state should get, but leaves the details up to the states.

Constitution contains no such outline, except for setting a minimum of one and preventing it from reaching a certain threshold. Well, setting the standard for the count(later modified by the 14th Amendment) and providing for the initial allocation before the first enumeration. Otherwise, there is no constitutional standard for the numbers of the House beyond that. Don't feel bad, I have had many other persons tell me that they thought it was fixed for some reason.

I mean, technically, if you want to consider Article, the First to be still under review, it could be implemented, but meanwhile, no, it is set by statutory law, not the Constitution. And the 435 number dates from act in 1929, which has lingered, despite the awareness of its flaws.

Furthermore, as a review of Section 4 shows you, the Congress has the power over the State Legislatures in this issue. And they have exercised it, by regulating districts, whether at-large, multi-member, or through Civil Rights clauses. This has been an issue in the resolution of a claim over a commission that helped resolve the case, as Congress provided that was permissible in existing law.

Of course, you could say that Congress could also forbid it, but as of yet, they have not done so, making it a minor point. Still, the point is, Congress could act today itself, if it so desired.

As a state matter, by default it ends up being decided by the state legislature (majority vote) and signed by the governor. Unfortunately that's the fox designing the henhouse, which is where the entire problem of gerrymandering comes from. The most popular way to fix it seems to be the people passing a ballot initiative which takes the job away from the legislators and assigns it to a

Just a small correction: the 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's the States or the PEOPLE, not just the States. Not that our Federal Government likes to abide by that pesky 10th Amendment anyway...

@avandesande

You tacitly admit that Facebook's options squarely amount to offering a means for racial discrimination, but you argue that not all racial discrimination is to the detriment of the party discriminated against and hence not illegal.

A reasonable point. However I'd say that the one offering this mechanism (Facebook) has an obligation to take reasonable precautions that it's not used for illegal forms of racial discrimination.

See also: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us... and specifically sections (b) which governs the ability to "make and enforce contracts" and (c) which governs "Protection against impairment".

Those sections suggest to me that any mechanism offered by Facebook that provides a means of racial discrimination in targeting advertisements, where not receiving those ads (which constitute commercial information) is *detrimental* to the party being discriminated against, runs afoul of the law.

But as I said, I am not a lawyer.

Facebook's terms of service specifically prohibit using the targeted advertising tools for illegal discrimination.

If you use their tools in violation of their policies to do something illegal and they do not catch you, they are not liable for your violating the law -you are.

If there is a provable pattern of Facebook ignoring such usage of their tools for illegal discrimination, then they would be liable.

You tacitly admit that Facebook's options squarely amount to offering a means for racial discrimination, but you argue that not all racial discrimination is to the detriment of the party discriminated against and hence not illegal.

A reasonable point. However I'd say that the one offering this mechanism (Facebook) has an obligation to take reasonable precautions that it's not used for illegal forms of racial discrimination.

See also: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us... and specifically sections (b) which governs the ability to "make and enforce contracts" and (c) which governs "Protection against impairment".

Those sections suggest to me that any mechanism offered by Facebook that provides a means of racial discrimination in targeting advertisements, where not receiving those ads (which constitute commercial information) is *detrimental* to the party being discriminated against, runs afoul of the law.

But as I said, I am not a lawyer.

There is a big difference between having an ad that states there is a racial preference and targeting readers by race.

No, not really. The only purpose and intended effect of this construct is to achieve racial discrimination in who sees these properties for rent. What you're doing is trying to construct an excuse based on an extremely narrow and literal interpretation of the law cited in the article.

I am not a lawyer, but I really doubt whether a court would let either the advertiser or Facebook get away with such an obvious ploy.

However if you insist on arguing you can wiggle out of it by splitting semantic hairs, you might want to take a look at this site, which explains a little about anti-discrimination laws: http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

Check out the third item from the top in the list of banned actions: "Making housing unavailable". I'd say that deliberately flagging advertisements to exclude blacks, asians, and hispanics (as Facebook is offering as a service here) can be construed as "making housing unavailable" to those groups.

It's interesting to see Facebook doing this because it provides an extremely clear example of just how pervasive racial discrimination still is in the US.

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Heh, my opinion is based on the same law actually. Lets look at how lawyers, courts, and the legal system actually treat it...

http://nationalparalegal.edu/p...

excerpt:

For example:

Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.

As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).

http://www.lawteacher.net/lect...

TRESPASS TO LAND
DEFINITION

Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.

Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-...

Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).

emphasis mine... plenty of others.

The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

From UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY, (1946):
"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. 9 The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as they can occupy or use in connection with the land."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

Who is 83? The woman in TFA is 65. The only place I saw "83"mentioned was the distance....

I believe the 83 was just the reference to the Supreme Court case (UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...) that recognized property rights could extend at least 83 feet into the air. Because a landowner near a new airport successfully sued the government to claim that the flight path over their home constituted a "taking" that required compensation.

So the use of airspace over someone's home up to 83 feet could certainly be considered a trespass under state law at least up to 83 feet under Supreme Court precedent.

Wanna bet no one goes to jail?

Knowledge of a crime without reporting it is called accessory. Even if they tell you about the crime after they've done it you are still an accessory after the fact.

Not exactly. You'd have to help conceal the crime to be charged with accessory after the fact.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

And it isn't enough that the DNC is corrupt, it is also corrupting. You read the exchanges with the press? Surprise, CNN and MSNBC see themselves are the propaganda wing of the democrat party. Is that what they told the FCC and the American people they were going to be doing?

Kind of yes, and the Supreme Court said it is ok to do so as far back as 1964

I understand that this is about the Navy who is actually capable of piracy.
Reading further however makes it clear that it's just another case of copyright infringement.
Piracy is, in fact, an act of robbery or criminal violence at sea.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...

Or, of course, the US could overhaul it's ridiculous justice system. Start by eliminating the "War on Drugs". MJ should be legal. People addicted to hard drugs need help, not jail. If they could get their fixes under controlled conditions, you would the dealers and smugglers out of business, and the addicts themselves wouldn't need to steal to finance their habits. This would do more to eliminate crime than any thing else.

Second, stop trying to be "tough on crime". Mandatory, multi-year sentences for first-time offenders, for non-violent crimes. Everything is a felony, and far too many things are federal felonies. Just as an example: attempt to get some Marijuana across the Mexican border, any amount at all - even if it's your first offense, the minimum sentence is 10 years.

Then one could go after all of the other low-hanging fruit: other stuff that shouldn't be illegal. Lying to a federal officer (Martha Stewart).
Improperly packed lobster tails. Taking home an Indian arrowhead you find at a public camping ground. Picking up a feather you found on the ground. And on, and on...

Really, it's no wonder the jails are overcrowded.

Trademarks are not protected from parody.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/i...

The standard is whether or not the use is "likely to cause confusion". If the use of the NRA and S&W trademarks by the Yes Men are "likely to cause confusion", then they have a bigger problem than their trademarks (see Poe's Law).

And if it's not likely to cause confusion, then they don't have a cause of action. It can't be both ways.

Nope.

LOL if that isn't sad and twisted.

So the right to defend yourself and to have the means to do so is not a civil right.

By that reasoning there are no rights.

Nope.

I see, I had never heard of that being asked before. I searched again and everything that I find so far seems to say that employers are not allowed to ask your health, with a few very job-specific exceptions (ex: if the job requires lifting 50lbs every day, they can ask if you are capable of doing that). Apparently the law that limits these kinds of questions is actually the ADA: http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_...

If I were asked this on an interview, I would try to politely decline to answer. Especially if they asked for mental health history. I wouldn't want to work at a place that asked that anyway. So going back to your original point, people should not avoid mental health treatment for fear of questions from potential employers. Employers that ask these types of questions are opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

Had to reply to this, because it is inaccurate. The US has a law called HIPAA which severely restricts access to any medical information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Also, see what findlaw says about what health information an employer can request from you:
http://employment.findlaw.com/...

Medical Records: When relevant to the job, employers may require a physical examination. Otherwise, medical records are confidential.