Slashdot Mirror

I forgot when speaking about the other Commandments cases that the SCOTUS upheld the Establishment Clause in this regard in similar cases.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1693

Still this ruling isn't "airtight" enough that other Commandmenteers won't try new variations (by, again doesn't it sound humorous, trying to remove the religous meaning from a religious symbol) and appeal them all the way up at everyone's time/expense.

Sigh. Snarkily,
David

The first sentence was misleading and wrong. BBC said something like this- More than 300 bloggers attended the conference.

Yining corrected the BBC woman."No. you are wrong, the meeting participants are less than 200."

According Chinese law, any assembles by more than 200 people should be approved officially.If not, it's illegal.

Clever clever boy Yining... he caught the BBC in a lie. However, the Chinese "Law" he mentioned, interestingly, says waves more than anything he could've said in any interview. I don't know if he did it on purpose, but that by itself should give the BBC enough to write about. Right of association anyone?http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/ amendment01/12.html

The beauty of Yining's comment is that he takes such laws as accepted truths, and uses it to disprove the BBC's claim the same way a physicist would disprove a certain claim using Newton's or Einstein's theories.

This is the same thing as suing Coors or Budwiser for DUI deaths, or liver disease... addiction comes in all sorts of forms. You can't sue the maker of a legitimate product just because the person using said product has an addictive personality.

Actually... I seem to recall that there was one person who successfully sued some mfg. of spirits when her child was born with birth defects. Since then I there is a nice spiffy little warning label. And alcohol is not exactly the catagory of "legitimate" product... not like Methamphetamines which were onces prescribed like candy.

http://print.injury.findlaw.com/accutane/articles/ 2023.html

Not that I disagree with you. There is that film "Mazes and Monsters" staring a young Tom Hanks that revolves around a character who's so obsessed with a D&D style game after the death of his sibling IIRC he honestly believes that jumping off a skyscraper will result in some form of magical intervention that would reunite him with lost family. But as with this case of fiction it's generally accepted that anyone who can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy is well nuts... including the parents who showed this to their kids trying to get them to stop playing D&D.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084314/

The Supreme Court doesn't think so. Before you critize, read their opinion and the dissents. You'll be reading for awhile, because they total 300 pages long. Section I of the first majority opinion gives a decent history of campaign financing issues for the past hundred years. Section II is procedural. Section III is where the meat of the opinion begins. III(A) covers your First Amendment concerns, III(B) talks about the Elections Clause, Article I section 4, and the principles of Federalism, and III(C) talks about Fifth Amendment Due Process. Note I said first majority opinion, there were three majority opinions, covering different parts of the BCRA.

Actually yelling Fire! is the classic counter-example.
It is free speech to yell Fire!
The expression comes from a 1919 case, schenk v united states http://laws.findlaw.com/us/249/47.html
in which some guys were put in jail for passing out leaflets opposing the war and suggesting that the draft was involuntary servitude and thus unconstitutional under the 13th Amendment.
The case is taught not because it was right, but because it was wrong, to show how the modern view of the first amendment has evolved. It was brave wobblies (www.iwww.org) who took up the fight for free speech in the 1910s on the west coast, and gradually judges came to agree.

There are a number of reasons one might want to yell Fire in a crowded theater. It might be a line in a play, or the theater might be on fire.

Otherwise, I largely agree with parent poster.

For people interested in free speech and the FEC and blogging, here are a few resources:
http://www.electionlawblog.org/
http://redstate.org/
http://instapundit/
http://volokh.com/
http://electionline.org/
http://votelaw.org/
http://jamesmadisoncenter.org./
The supreme court currently has two cases about campaign finance. In one of them, wisconsin right to life v FEC, there are some signals the court will start to grant a series of narrow exceptions to McCain-Feingold as upheld in McConnell.
Assuming Alito gets confirmed by then, he might be a 5th vote for free speech, so this will be a case worth watching, as a signal for where things might be headed.
Meanwhile there's a lot of work to do in congress to pass the internet-exception-to-McCain bill,
we need to keep watching the FEC as it drafts new rules on blogging regulation-or-not, and in state courts under state constitutions to protect internet speech from state election authorities which continue to try to impose censorship.
Nobody reads my election law blog, http://ballots.blogspot.com./
Meanwhile, Fire!

You wish.

• ProCD vs Zeidenberg.
• Blizzard vs. battleNet

The general trend in the courts seems to be roughly as follows:

• EULA agreed to by a click - enforceable.
• EULA on outside of box, seen before purchase - enforceable.
• EULA inside box on paper - probably not enforceable, burden of proof on vendor to demonstrate agreement.
• EULA inside box on paper and contains terms allowing vendor to change contract terms - not enforceable, no possibility of agreement.
• EULA on website, with claim to implicit agreement - probably not enforceable, but repeated accesses to web site may signify acceptance of terms.

Careful now. After Kelo, you might get yourself branded a terrorist.

Commercial or non-commercial use doesn't enter into it.

If the work in question is under copyright, you can't copy and redistribute it; if it's not, then you can. The only exceptions would be the fair use provisions, and I don't think that they would cover you reproducing an entire book, even if it was for non-commercial use: if you're a university professor you can't copy an entire textbook and give them out to your students. That's a non-commerical use, but it's still illegal. There might be some exceptions for purely personal use -- some type of "format shifting" perhaps, like OCRing it and running it through text-to-speech and putting the result on your iPod -- that you could make a good case for if you already owned the book in print form, but non-commerical use normally isn't an excuse for infringement. Despite public opinion to the contrary, there is no exception to a copyright holder's exclusive rights for "non-commercial" uses.

Also, if you made a derivative work from something that was out of copyright, and then went and tried to sell it, only the portions that you contributed anew would be protected, the existing stuff doesn't change. That's not to say that you couldn't sell it (if it's out of copyright you don't even have to change anything to sell it, you can go and print out anything you want from Project Gutenberg and try to sell it, if you think you'll get any buyers), but you wouldn't have any recourse against someone taking your changed version, editing out all of your changes, and selling it themselves.

There is a fairly good introduction to these concepts here. Or read it straight from the U.S. Code.

Commercial or non-commercial use doesn't enter into it.

If the work in question is under copyright, you can't copy and redistribute it; if it's not, then you can. The only exceptions would be the fair use provisions, and I don't think that they would cover you reproducing an entire book, even if it was for non-commercial use: if you're a university professor you can't copy an entire textbook and give them out to your students. That's a non-commerical use, but it's still illegal. There might be some exceptions for purely personal use -- some type of "format shifting" perhaps, like OCRing it and running it through text-to-speech and putting the result on your iPod -- that you could make a good case for if you already owned the book in print form, but non-commerical use normally isn't an excuse for infringement. Despite public opinion to the contrary, there is no exception to a copyright holder's exclusive rights for "non-commercial" uses.

Also, if you made a derivative work from something that was out of copyright, and then went and tried to sell it, only the portions that you contributed anew would be protected, the existing stuff doesn't change. That's not to say that you couldn't sell it (if it's out of copyright you don't even have to change anything to sell it, you can go and print out anything you want from Project Gutenberg and try to sell it, if you think you'll get any buyers), but you wouldn't have any recourse against someone taking your changed version, editing out all of your changes, and selling it themselves.

There is a fairly good introduction to these concepts here. Or read it straight from the U.S. Code.

If you bought a copy of any classic book that is out of copyright, and it's a literal republication of the original (not a 'modern interpretation' or new translation or anything else) than you could, I believe, scan, OCR, and distribute the resulting text. The literary work -- be it Shakespeare's, Clemens', Dickens', etc. -- is no longer protected by copyright.

You could not, however, scan the book and distribute the images of the pages. Because although the original author's text is not under copyright protection, the book itself (layout, design, etc.) could be. Also, any changes they might have made to the text (new grammar, or diction) could be, which is why you'd have to be careful. I think it would only qualify as a new protected work if the changes represented "an original work of authorship" according to 17 U.S.C. 101, but depending on the publisher they might try to sue you into bankruptcy anyway.

As long as you didn't copy the layout or any of the additional materials (critical essays, introductions) that publishers put into re-prints of classic literature, I see no reason why it would be illegal to type in and share the $2.99 Penguin Classics edition of Tom Sawyer that you can get at any Borders.

The patent bar is the only bar in the U.S. that allows practicioners to be non-lawyers. Sure, you're an agent, rather than an attorney, but you still practice before the USPTO. (And the practice is quite lucrative, if anybody is thinking of finding a new job.) The USPTO has tons of discretion to choose who practices before it, according to the Supreme Court in Sperry v. Florida.

Just another example of how the USPTO has too much power for it to use effectively, and how Congress has failed to properly regulate the patent industry.

UPS, of the brown vans, has a service mark on "Brown." While sitting on an airline, a friend and I were talking about how ridiculous a copyright on silence was. http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/cyberia-l/ms g41561.html

At that point, I flipped the magazine page in my lap and saw a UPS ad. At the bottom it showed " Brown(SM) ". Yikes!

This case appeared to be a lot closser to the latter case than it does to the former.

From the UNC catalog:
Richard Preston Maas (1987) Professor of Environmental Studies B.A., Bucknell University; M.S., Western Carolina University; M.S.P.H., Ph.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

"M.S.P.H." is "Master of Science in Public Health". His field is water quality. He's been an expert witness on lead leaching from bronze parts of water systems.

And where are the "65 peer reviewed papers"?

http://www.eff.org/Spam_cybersquatting_abuse/Cyber squatting/Kremen_v_NSI/20020123_eff_amicus_brief.h tml http://downloads.sex.com/corporate/lawsuits/pdf/25 80.pdf http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremen cohen72503opn.pdf

Kansas is where this kind of stuff happens

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=347&invol=483

You are partially incorrect. There is minimal due process, but that due process is lacking significantly. Specifically, your rights may be determined by a "properly authorized" military tribunal, with relaxed rules of evidence.

The issue of rights of enemy combatants was litigated in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . You can find my discussion of that case, based upon my law school lecture, at this location.

  - Neil Wehneman

I do not dispute that Mexican some towns and cities or even regions may individually be having economic problems when a large percentage of their population decides to pull up roots and move (usually) to the US where they can earn higher wages. However, this is not necessarily the case for Mexico as a whole—comparing the figure given for total remittances sent back to Mexico by Mexican immigrants to the US in 2004 here, and the figure for Mexico's estimated GDP in 2004 given here, you can see that more than 1% of Mexico's GDP comes directly from remittances sent from Mexican immigrants living in the US. This is not an insignificant figure, and I would be surprised if the Mexican (national) government did not at least ignore illegal immigration to the US, if not encourage it (though discreetly, so they don't anger their greatest economic partner), because of this. Evidence of this last statement includes the brochure I linked to in my previous post.

Yes - it was Verisign who messed up - http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/kremen cohen72503opn.pdf

I'm not going to take sides in the debate over the Gitmo detainees, but it is far from settled what protections and privileges they enjoy. You may want to look at United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez at 494 U.S. 259. If you don't want to read the whole case, there's a very brief summary here. In general, the protections of the Constitution apply to citizens or aliens within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States who are "part of the national community." These guys are battlefield detainees being held as prisoners of war. They are not in the territory of the United States voluntarily (as was the case in Verdugo). I'm not sure our Constitutional jurisprudence guarantees them much of anything (I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it is). Also, these combatants are not sponsored by any state, so (in the Administration's analysis) they're not even subject to the Geneva convention. I'm not a constitutional scholar (so anyone who is can feel free to correct me), but I'm not aware of any precedent that grants enemy combatant POWs any of the rights and privileges of citizens.

I still contend that, in the event the US Attorney General actually brings charges against the Onion, there is quite a good chance they would win. The first ammendment must trump laws and executive orders except in very specific circumstances (eg clear and present danger.)

The current answers seem to be Yes, Yes, and No.

I'm not sure why you think that The West Wing and others "fall under current Presidential Regulations that permit it's [sic] use". I have not seen anything indicating such. It could be, but then you end up with the situation where you have to justify giving them an exception but not The Onion. Particularly if SNL and The Daily Show have exceptions.

And it may be that an exception will be granted and this will all be over nothing -- which I think would be the smart move by the administration.

Satire is protected only under copyright and trademark law as "Fair Use". Since the seals are protected under separate laws, the Satire defense is likely to not hold water.

Yes, but then that goes up against the 1st Ammendment, which doesn't care if the speech in question is regarding IP or not (and at least the IP rules have a basis in Article I, Section 7; the regulation on the Seals do not, except through interpretation of the same (particularly regarding "To regulate commerce with foreign nations" or "To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States" -- both are stretches).

As you say, it's not cut and dried. But the Supreme Court has a long history of protecting satire and political satire -- c.f. FCC v. Pacifica, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Hustler v. Falwell, and others.

From the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case (thanks Findlaw), Judge Souter's opinion (for an unanimous ruling) included the following: "[p]arody's humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to 'conjure up' at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable."

And note that the law does not just prevent identical copies of the Seal, but of any likeness.

It's illegal to burn or otherwise desecrate a flag too, did you know that?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_700.html

So why do we let them flag burners get away with it then?

The answer is that it's protected speech, as is political satire. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution trumps everything in that "US Code" you have there.

As to whether the Onion's work can be considered protected or not, well, that's really up to the courts to decide. But my point is that "it's the law" doesn't mean shit, really. Laws can be wrong too.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated
    by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly
    manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either
    separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any
    likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any
    substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the
    article for the official use of the Government of the United
    States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
    six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated
        by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly
        manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either
        separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any
        likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any
        substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the
        article for the official use of the Government of the United
        States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
        six months, or both.

(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated
      by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures,
      reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either
      separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any
      likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any
      substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the
      article for the official use of the Government of the United
      States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
      six months, or both.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html

Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of
        the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the
        President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal
        of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House
        of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or
        any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any
        advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other
        publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or
        other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for
        the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to
        convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the
        Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or
        instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or
        imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Doesn't say a thing about "so long as a reasonabl person won't confuse it with official endorsement". Not sure where you got that.

Wrong.

Here's a link to the law:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html

Actually, you're incorrect:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html

Actually, no, that's not the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html

Now, don't get me wrong; I don't get this law AT ALL. I think it's kinda goofy. Then again, there are goofy laws all over the world.

Anyway, satire doesn't overrule everything; if it did then people would use that as an excuse for dang near everything they do.

Some people do hide behind satire as a way of expressing their political opinions. Frankly, I think that's pretty cowardly, because it's not satire. It's just plain old libel, hiding behind a satire label. Go check out the spine of various "political" books, and you'll see what I mean.

To be clear, I *DO NOT* think The Onion falls into this category. They're in it for the humor of the situation, no matter who or what they're writing about.

What's new about this? This law has been on the books for years:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html

"You can't live without exploiting animals.
A classic argument. "I can't be perfect, so I might as well not even try to be better." I've never been a fan of it, personally."

If something is impossible I would argue that trying to legislate and force people to do it is kinda, well, stupid since it can not be done. But I suppose to some that might be OK, though I can not see how. Nor did I ever say or imply "not try" - you are making a straw man argument at the last part. More "Since it can not be perfect do not try and force perfection".

"True - mostly. There are no plant sources of B12. Luckily, you can get it from fungi and bacteria. Beer is a pretty decent source."

So, if it's single celled you can kill and torture all you want, what about 10 cells, 15, 100 - where are you going to draw the line? And is it logical or just arbitrary? If arbitrary why do you want to force it on me (and, if so, do you complain about other people trying to enforce arbitrary ideas)?

"PETA runs kill animal shelters.
True, yes. Sad, yes. I'm not aware of them lying about it."

They denied it for quite a while and thier shelters - especially the one in the recent lawsuit, commercialed themselfs as such. If I say "No-kill shelter" but, well, kill them in a few weeks time I would call that a lie.

"Fact of the matter is, the idea of a "no-kill" animal shelter is a bit of a myth."

Fact is, they exist all over the place. Several in where I live (and it is by no means a rich area) have had several for decades. A group that takes in the money PETA does can do much better than a local Podunct Tennessee shelter. But, again, you make excuses for when you (or in this case PETA - I do not know if you are a member) do things that you protest others doing.

"I don't have any access to veterinary research journals or journal indexes,"

Sure you do. Not only do you have the internet but I bet there is at least a junior college near you that has one. Plus it doesn't take a genious to figure out that a CARNIVORE doesn't do so well on a vegan diet. But you may even like PETA's "research" as it is "I asked my friends and they said "much more healthy than regular dogs and cats"".

"I've googled for this, too, and I'll keep googling, but I'm turning up a blank."

Well, I can be of help! At least one was easy to find, "peta" and "fraud" had it in the top 10 results. Since it only takes one to show they are willing and capable of doing it I'm stopping there.

here, here is the settlement. Of course, you can claim (as they do) that the settlement doesn't prove it and they would have won, they just didn't feel like it (even they realised that winning this in a court of law would have been great and they have plenty of donations to pay for it).

A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties. The core of most contracts is a set of mutual promises (in legal terminology, "consideration"). The promises made by the parties define the rights and obligations of the parties.

It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.

It has to be before the fact.

Which is why you can see the various agreements before you sign up for my game, Meridian 59:
End User License Agreement
The Rules of Play (in-game rules)
Terms of Service

All these are freely available for you to read before you buy our game or join our service.

If you take a moment to read our EULA, you'll see that at the top it says, "WARNING: YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT." That was written by the lawyer that drafted our EULA.

It has to be mutually agreed upon.

That's what "I agree" means, and it's written button you click on. At the very least I figure this is equivalent to a verbal contract; verbal contracts are usually valid, but usually not used because it can be hard to prove consent of both parties without a written records (which is why signatures are usually preferred). If you don't agree, then you shouldn't use the software. Clicking "I agree" then claiming it wasn't a valid agreement is the worst option, really.

Along those lines, it has to be open to negoation.

What are you doing to that goat for the contract? *shiver* Oh, wait, negotiation. Right....

Have you ever tried to negotiate? For my company, we have contact info posted on our website. You could revise any of our agreements and send it to us before you sign up and play the game. Of course, many companies will probably reject any revisions, but that's their prerogative as with any contract negotiations. And, nobody is forcing you to agree to the EULA. In most cases you can send the software back and get a refund. At the end of our EULA, we state:

If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, promptly return or, if received electronically, certify destruction of the Game Software within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the Game Software and receive a full refund of any license fee paid if you: (a) Do not use the Game Software, and (B) return it with proof of payment to the location from which it was obtained.

Given my counters to your objections, it looks like our EULA is a valid contract, hmm?

It comes down to this: companies use the EULA to cover their liabilities and to assert their rights. If you don't like the EULA, you have the ultimate recourse: don't use the software. There's not much software out there that is essential, so whining about how the unfairness of the EULA solves nothing. Unless you're willing to not use the software nothing will change. Think Microsoft's OS EULAs are crap? There's a few alternatives out there, I've heard. Don't like the EULA on my game? Don't play. I promise not to be too hurt by your rejection, personally. Of course, I think our EULAs

"Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target"

"2 Brits nabbed with $3 trillion in fake US fed notes"

Robert

No, it's not.

Almost every single defendant in criminal cases refuses to testify. It's dangerous to testify if the state is pressing a case against you. If the case fails, and they think are guilty, they might comb over your testimony for perjury out of spite, and try you for that.

It's even more dangerous when there isn't an actual case against you, just a hearing about your suitablity for a job. At worse, all refusing to testify can do is make you lose your job, whereas testifing and trying to hide something can get you arrested, which happened, if you recall, to Lattimore. (And, actually they might have recourse under the law if dimissed. See here, although that ruling was two decades later.)

If you think that refusing to testify is limited to guilty people, you must be one of those people who thinks every defendant is guilty.

Almost the only defendants who take the stand are ones who lied at some point earlier about something, and were called on it, and know the only way they'll be believed now is if they personally get up there and explain why they lied earlier. (Well, and sometimes people in misdemeanors, and obviously some people who don't listen their lawyer.)

As for the legal justification? Read the fifth. It doesn't say you can't be compelled to incriminate yourself, despite that being the phrasing people say to use it.

It says, quite clearly, that, 'No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself'.

Legally, you're a 'witness against yourself' if you're testifying WRT to yourself, regardless of what you say. Yes, that sounds odd, but that's been what that's meant since before the US existed.

Before the Supreme Court decided Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 309 (1967), law enforcement officers could not obtain search warrants to search for and seize "mere evidence" of crime. Warrants were permitted only to seize contraband, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).

She had had her first love-affair when she was sixteen, with a Party member of sixty who later committed suicide to avoid arrest. 'And a good job too,' said Julia, 'otherwise they'd have had my name out of him when he confessed.' Since then there had been various others. Life as she saw it was quite simple. You wanted a good time; 'they', meaning the Party, wanted to stop you having it; you broke the rules as best you couId. She seemed to think it just as natural that 'they' should want to rob you of your pleasures as that you should want to avoid being caught. She hated the Party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. Except where it touched upon her own life she had no interest in Party doctrine. He noticed that she never used Newspeak words except the ones that had passed into everyday use. She had never heard of the Brotherhood, and refused to believe in its existence. Any kind of organized revolt against the Party, which was bound to be a failure, struck her as stupid. The clever thing was to break the rules and stay alive all the same. He wondered vaguely how many others like her there might be in the younger generation people who had grown up in the world of the Revolution, knowing nothing else, accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog. -- George Orwell "1984"

Before the Supreme Court decided Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 309 (1967), law enforcement officers could not obtain search warrants to search for and seize "mere evidence" of crime. Warrants were permitted only to seize contraband, instrumentalities, or fruits of crime. See Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886).

She had had her first love-affair when she was sixteen, with a Party member of sixty who later committed suicide to avoid arrest. 'And a good job too,' said Julia, 'otherwise they'd have had my name out of him when he confessed.' Since then there had been various others. Life as she saw it was quite simple. You wanted a good time; 'they', meaning the Party, wanted to stop you having it; you broke the rules as best you couId. She seemed to think it just as natural that 'they' should want to rob you of your pleasures as that you should want to avoid being caught. She hated the Party, and said so in the crudest words, but she made no general criticism of it. Except where it touched upon her own life she had no interest in Party doctrine. He noticed that she never used Newspeak words except the ones that had passed into everyday use. She had never heard of the Brotherhood, and refused to believe in its existence. Any kind of organized revolt against the Party, which was bound to be a failure, struck her as stupid. The clever thing was to break the rules and stay alive all the same. He wondered vaguely how many others like her there might be in the younger generation people who had grown up in the world of the Revolution, knowing nothing else, accepting the Party as something unalterable, like the sky, not rebelling against its authority but simply evading it, as a rabbit dodges a dog. -- George Orwell "1984"

Nobody's freedom of speech is being abridged, it's just their anonymity in doing it.

And anonymity is part of free speech. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled that part of free speech is anonymity. A more recent case is from 2002 when Supremes OK Anonymous Free Speech. Here's EPIC's webpage on Anonymity. I found this page from MIT also on USSC upholding anonymity in political speech. And this is EFF's page. Fact is is that the "Federalist Papers" written under the pseudonym "Publius" was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John James, all Founding Fathers of the USA. They knew how important anonymous political speech was. You enjoy your freedom because they fought for those rights. If you live in the USA that is, but I don't know this. Thomas Jefferson, who did write the DOI, Declaration of Independence, also write pseudonymously

Here's a search of Findlaw on court ruling on privacy anonymous "free speech" "supreme court". Fact is is there's a long history of anonymous political speech in the USA with some of the Founding Fathers exercising it.

Nobody's freedom of speech is being abridged, it's just their anonymity in doing it.

And anonymity is part of free speech. As early as the early 1800s the USSC, US Supreme Court, has ruled that part of free speech is anonymity. A more recent case is from 2002 when Supremes OK Anonymous Free Speech. Here's EPIC's webpage on Anonymity. I found this page from MIT also on USSC upholding anonymity in political speech. And this is EFF's page. Fact is is that the "Federalist Papers" written under the pseudonym "Publius" was written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John James, all Founding Fathers of the USA. They knew how important anonymous political speech was. You enjoy your freedom because they fought for those rights. If you live in the USA that is, but I don't know this. Thomas Jefferson, who did write the DOI, Declaration of Independence, also write pseudonymously

Here's a search of Findlaw on court ruling on privacy anonymous "free speech" "supreme court". Fact is is there's a long history of anonymous political speech in the USA with some of the Founding Fathers exercising it.

consider this ... say a joe schmo opens a coffee shop named google in timbuktu. even if google comes to know that there has been a "trademark" violation its simply not worth it for them to go after such "google"s

Even if Google wanted to sue there's nothing they could do about trademark infringement as a coffee shop is in a totally different business. Now if he were to start a search engine name "google in timbuku" then Google would have grounds to sue. In the first example there is no dilution of a trademark, in the second there is. See Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Or see The Blue Note.

consider this ... say a joe schmo opens a coffee shop named google in timbuktu. even if google comes to know that there has been a "trademark" violation its simply not worth it for them to go after such "google"s

Even if Google wanted to sue there's nothing they could do about trademark infringement as a coffee shop is in a totally different business. Now if he were to start a search engine name "google in timbuku" then Google would have grounds to sue. In the first example there is no dilution of a trademark, in the second there is. See Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. Or see The Blue Note.

Actually according to different court ruleings including USSC, US Supreme Court, rulings anonymous speech is included in the First Amendment's free speech. "In Talley v. California the Court struck down an ordinance which banned all handbills that did not carry the name and address of the author, printer, and sponsor; conviction for violating the ordinance was set aside on behalf of one distributing leaflets urging boycotts against certain merchants because of their employment discrimination. The basis of the decision is not readily ascertainable. On the one hand, the Court celebrated anonymity. ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." More court rulings can be found on Findlaw. Falcon

Actually according to different court ruleings including USSC, US Supreme Court, rulings anonymous speech is included in the First Amendment's free speech. "In Talley v. California the Court struck down an ordinance which banned all handbills that did not carry the name and address of the author, printer, and sponsor; conviction for violating the ordinance was set aside on behalf of one distributing leaflets urging boycotts against certain merchants because of their employment discrimination. The basis of the decision is not readily ascertainable. On the one hand, the Court celebrated anonymity. ''Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." More court rulings can be found on Findlaw. Falcon

The Wikipedia seems to disagree with you. So does FindLaw according to this passage:


The jury has the ultimate power to decide whether a person is guilty of a crime. As the "conscience of the community," jurors can free a defendant even if they think the defendant actually committed the crime charged. The name for this power is "jury nullification." It has always been a part of our judicial system.

When jurors nullify a law by acquitting a defendant who has obviously broken that law, judges and prosecutors can do nothing about it. A jury's not guilty verdict is final. Jury nullification rarely occurs, but when it does, it most often involves cases that have a political component (such as the refusal to convict draft dodgers during the Vietnam War) or that have harsh punishments the jury does not want to impose on that particular defendant.

1. The plaintiff has to prove the statement is false.
2. The defendant has to know the statement is false.
3. The defendant made the statement without caring whether the statement is true or false.

Libel is the term used for written defamation of character (I hand you a note, or print in /., saying that your cat is an idiot), and slander is the verbal form (I tell people that your cat is an idiot). Defamation loosely means making false statements about someone that results in their losing reputation. If your cat really is an idiot, then it isn't defamation. Proving whether a statement is true or false is pretty easy. Proving malice, which is needed for public figure plaintiffs, is much harder to do.

According to Gamespot, the infamous fax to the Seattle Police has not been received by the Seattle Police (as of yesterday). My hypothesis as to why the fax was never sent to the police is that it would constitute filing a false police report which is a crime in every state in this country.

I am not a lawyer either, but I did go to a police academy.

Allow the states to exercise their Tenth Amendment right to penalize such businesses in bidding for state government contracts. Oh, wait...

Don't worry, I'm sure all those "strict constructionist" Republicans will save the cause of states' rights...

Allow the states to exercise their Tenth Amendment right to penalize such businesses in bidding for state government contracts. Oh, wait...

Don't worry, I'm sure all those "strict constructionist" Republicans will save the cause of states' rights...

"a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station [must] afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."

The law doesn't apply to cable, but they'd probably just prefer to play it safe than worry that the FCC, Congress, or the Judicial System changes their mind.

Good for this current bill. Let's bring back Free Speech to the citizenry.

Ruby Ridge was an FBI screw up, no doubt about it. But who do you rely on to enforce equal protection, if not the field agents themselves? Do you want a civil libertarian field observer on every field mission with command authority? Do you just want to abolish FBI field missions entirely? Provide me an alternative I can rationally debate. Don't change the subject into an attack on the government.

RFID tags have the potential to give [the government] a great deal of power.

So do UPC symbols. One of the biggest arguments against UPC symbols when they were introduced was precisely the argument you make against RFID. The first big privacy concern with RFID is purchase tracking, and by the time you've purchased the item, you're already in the Big Database. Whether you get in through RFID or UPC makes no difference. After the sale, the next big privacy concern is RFID giving away your location. Granted, UPC symbols aren't transmitters, but on that point, I suggest you read two Supreme Court cases: United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983), then United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984), and draw your own conclusions.

If you have any other privacy concerns with RFID, please let me know.