Slashdot Mirror

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.

given their work on the Holocaust. See also here and here.

Last April, in MacIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission the US Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech. Anonymity, the court reasoned, helps speech stay free. Focusing on political speech - the sort of speech that lies at the core of the First Amendment - the MacIntyre ruling stipulated that restrictions on anonymous political speech must be narrowly tailored and serve an over-riding state interest.

Earlier cases had already guaranteed that the right to anonymity reaches beyond political speech. In Talley v. California, the Supreme Court shot down a Los Angeles ordinance banning all types of anonymous pamphlets - political, commercial, or otherwise. The court explained that the "identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression."

Above sources are from wired.
JOSEPH McINTYRE, executor of estate of MARGARET McINTYRE, deceased, PETITIONER v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
In Talley v. California



Quote from: JOSEPH McINTYRE, executor of estate of MARGARET McINTYRE, deceased, PETITIONER v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION
Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind." Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960). Great works of literature have frequently been produced by authors writing under assumed names. [n.4] Despite readers' curiosity and the public's interest in identifying the creator of a work of art, an author generally is free to decide whether or not to disclose her true identity. The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. [n.5] Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

Quotes from: Talley v. California
Pamphlets and leaflets, it was pointed out, "have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty" 3 and enforcement of the Griffin ordinance "would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form."

Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious [362 U.S. 60, 65] to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. 6 Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identi

You have to stop construing the First Amendment as granting you rights. That kind of thinking almost led to the rejection of the Bill of Rights in the first place. James Madison once said: ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against."

That guard is the Ninth Amendment. The correct interpretation of the Constitution, then, is that you have boatloads of natural rights, and the Constitution protects them all; certain rights explicitly protected just have greater weight when rights conflict. When a court recognizes a right, they're not being "judicial activists" at all, they're keeping well within the intent of the Framers.

Anyone want to explain for those of us that don't get it?

What they are essentially saying is: "We haven't done anything. We haven't made any changes on our side" Level 3 have terminated their connection to Cogent "Without cause". Now, that's probably legal speak on Cogent's side for we haven't got the letter in triplicate yet telling us what the reason is. Or otherwise whoever put up the notification about it doesn't know.

Now, Cogent may have tried to change the peering arrangement, or Level 3 may have too, one side probably didn't agree, or otherwise an agreement ran out and the switch got flipped. This has happened previously with Cogent in their peering arrangement with AOL.

What Cogent are trying to do is get business from Level 3 customers because Level 3 stopped the connection. Cogent is offering them connections to the Cogent network (And subsequently Cogent's customers) for a year with no fee on the amount of data they put through. That connection itself they will obviously have to pay for, but the customer can connect into (presumably) the closest of any of 1000 points across North America and Europe.

Now some people are already connected to both Cogent and Level 3. These people won't have any problems as they will be able to go direct into either ISP. These people would probably have never have used the interconnect between Cogent and Level 3 either, unless one of their connections into either Cogent or Level 3 went down.

I understand this is still rather technical, for a simpler version, take a look through the document that I linked to.

Copyright/patents/trademarks are not property. This is correct. However the content the Copyright/patents/trademarks is on, is Intellectual Property.

Actually you have it backwards, chuckle.

Perhapse the best and most direct ruling addressing the issue is SUNTRUST v HOUGHTON MIFFLIN October 10, 2001 ("Gone With The Wind" vs "The Wind Done Gone"):

Before our copyright jurisprudence developed, there were two separate theories of copyright in England - the natural law copyright, which was the right of first publication, and the statutory copyright, which was the right of continued publication. The natural law copyright, which is not a part of our system, implied an ownership in the work itself, and thus was preferred by the booksellers...

This bifurcated system was carried over into our copyright law. As of the 1909 Act, an author had "state common law protection [that] persisted until the moment of general publication." Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr. v. CBS, Inc., 194 F.3d 1211, 1214 (11th Cir. 1999). After the work was published, the author was entitled to federal statutory copyright protection if she had complied with certain federal requirements (i.e. publication with notice). If not, the work was released into the public domain. Id. The system illustrates that the author's ownership is in the copyright, and not in the work itself...

the distinction between ownership of the work, which an author does not possess, and ownership of the copyright, which an author enjoys for a limited time. In a society oriented toward property ownership, it is not surprising to find many that erroneously equate the work with the copyright in the work and conclude that if one owns the copyright, they must also own the work. However, the fallacy of that understanding is exposed by the simple fact that the work continues to exist after the term of copyright associated with the work has expired. "The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking would be obnoxious."

I heartily reccoment reading the entire ruling if you have the time and interest. It is an important case in itself, and it gives excellent coverage of the history, theory, purpose, and function of US copyright law.

-

Yeah, you're right. Oh, wait, you're not.

That argument is a complete non-sequitor.

As is much of law. The part of patent law in many jurisdictions that allows a mathematical formula to be the subject matter of a patent is just as much a non-sequitur to many critics.

It's like saying ... "used DVDs should not be sold because DVD decryption takes place in RAM."

The difference is the amount and substantiality of what is copied. The amount of a DVD Video title that is copied into RAM at any one time is de minimis, unlike with a computer program. But with computer programs, the argument is that you're often able to make a copy of substantial amounts of the program from the running copy in RAM by niceing the program up to maximum (to freeze it) and then taking a snapshot of the program's memory state. There exists 17 USC 117, allowing the owner of a copy of a computer program to copy a program into RAM in order to run it, but MAI Systems v. Peak Computing has already rendered that section moot in substantially many cases.

One does not need technology to "perceive a computer program." For example, I am aware of the game City of Heroes. I saw it on store shelves and saw print ads for it.

Two different works. You're perceiving a box or a print ad, not the program itself. Works of authorship in the form of packaging and print ads are Pictorial, Graphic, Or Sculptural works under the law. Games themselves are Audiovisual works or Computer Program works.

The law is an ass, and I am not a donkey-wrangler. For legal advice, find an attorney.

Thank you, Findlaw. :) Here is a list of Supreme Court justices with no prior judicial experience.

No. But there is something wrong with implying that there's any sort of connection between the American government and the Michigan government. You do realize the Michigan government is headed by a Canadian, right?

The United States is a Federal Republic. There's a very strong separation of power between the states and the nation. The USA doesn't even have a law against murder -- it has about 54 of them (50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands). Congress doesn't have the right to make laws like that. They BARELY have the right to make drugs illegal, and only then by a very stretched reading of the interstate commerce clause. (see GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al. (2005))

P.S. - If anyone is surprised to see Scalia, but not O'Connor, siding with Ginsburg, then you're not alone.

RICO is indeed a criminal statute, but it has a provision that allows civil actions, too.

Specifically, section 1964(c) of the act allows private parties to sue for injuries arising from any RICO violation.

If she wins, she recovers triple damages plus reasonable attorney's fees. However, in the 1990s, the Supreme Court made RICO cases a plaintiff's nightmare. It's a really complex and uncertain area of law, but that could work to our advantage: the legal complexity of RICO issues will tie up RIAA lawyers.

IANAL, but I am a law student.

The government has established that police can collect evidence against people without a warrant (or other due process) when they "mistakenly" violate the security of people's persons, houses, papers and effects, if the police make the mistake "in good faith". Here in NYC, the cops go to apartment buildings where known offenders (like drug dealers) live, then break in neighbors' doors (on different floors, sometimes), look around, and score a bust without a warrant when they find something. Fourth Amendment? That's as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

How will Chief Justice Roberts rule on torture of "mistakenly" captured people? The Supreme Court Chief Justice controls the secret FISA court which governs domestic spying. Not to mention the Chief Justice's control of whether foreign rulings have legal standing in American courts. When the government tortures to death Harry Buttle instead of Harry Tuttle, will Mrs. Buttle even be entitled to a refund?

The government has established that police can collect evidence against people without a warrant (or other due process) when they "mistakenly" violate the security of people's persons, houses, papers and effects, if the police make the mistake "in good faith". Here in NYC, the cops go to apartment buildings where known offenders (like drug dealers) live, then break in neighbors' doors (on different floors, sometimes), look around, and score a bust without a warrant when they find something. Fourth Amendment? That's as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

How will Chief Justice Roberts rule on torture of "mistakenly" captured people? The Supreme Court Chief Justice controls the secret FISA court which governs domestic spying. Not to mention the Chief Justice's control of whether foreign rulings have legal standing in American courts. When the government tortures to death Harry Buttle instead of Harry Tuttle, will Mrs. Buttle even be entitled to a refund?

Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

Wiretaps are only given with permission of a court to a specific person (or specific people). Being permitted by a judge to wiretap a suspected bomb plotter and then accidentily tapping the wrong line and overhearing someone doing a drug deal is not a "good faith" effort. You were not making an effort to tap the WRONG phone (how can it be a "good faith" effort to admit into evidence of a phone line you didn't mean to tap?). You were not given permission to tap that phone so the evidence is not admissable in any court. Anything less would mean that the police would have carte blanche to use the order to wiretap one person's phone lines as an excuse to tap EVERYONE's phone lines and then finding whatever illegal information they can and using that to arrest totally unrelated people.

See the exclusionary rule.

Incorrect. While many states do have anti-athiest clauses in their constitutions and/or bills of rights, these phrases are historical relics, left over from earlier times. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution supersedes any applicable statutory laws and sections of state constitutions. It thus nullifies the effect of the above clauses.

In Maryland in 1961 the SC unanimously struck down a provision of Maryland's constitution stating public office holders had to state a belief in God.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Well, technically speaking, in the federal court system, a judge CAN impose the defendant's legal fees for an obviously frivolous action.

See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 11(b)(2), which specifies that claims must be based in law or in a nonfrivolous extension of law. Rule 11(c) covers possible sanctions.

Now, Rule 11 isn't designed as a cost shifting device (this is an actual quote from memory, but I can't remember the actual case), but will be used as one in obviously frivolous cases. Read all of Rule 11, which has to do with proper representation of a claim. FRCP can be found here: http://classaction.findlaw.com/research/frcp.pdf

I'm a first year law student, so don't take my claims as actual legal advice!

"...Eminent Domain and other Constitution-defying laws!"

Let's take a look at the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall we?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

We may not like it, but eminent domain *is* in the Constitution. Certain high courts have construed it's true meaning, but it is by no means "Constitution-defying".

Relax...Take the tinfoil hat off. Everything will be okay.

The part that always concerned me about the do-not-call exemption was the allowance of getting calls from a business that you had a pre-existing relationship with.

I don't see that's it's that big an issue in practice or hypothetically. Nor do most other people.

What constitutes a pre-exiting relationship? I get calls from a local suto dealerchip's service center "reminding" me to get my car serviced.

What's wrong with that? You chose to give them your real phone number. Hopefully they've done a great job in the past & you'd like to keep doing business with them.

What if they get bought by a corporation that owns credit card companies? Does this mean the credit card company would be able to solicit me?

If you're that concerned, please see the below linked federal case where the telemarketers get smacked down pretty hard.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ftc/mmsvftc0217 04opn.html

Read Center for Creative Non-violence v. Reid. IANAL, but this is highly apropos.

"Work for hire" is *very* specific. Under US copyright law, for a work to be a "work for hire" it must meet a long list of conditions, and the contract that specifically transfers copyright must include the phrase "work for hire". Simply being hired as a programmer doesn't mean that the company you work for owns the copyright to your work under some sort of "work for hire" clause in the law.

The OPs work is almost certainly not a "work for hire" under US copyright law.

And always remember without a contract that specifically and clearly transfers ownership of copyrights, they're not transferred.

I know. That fact got me a 5-figure sum of cash. Of course, I was working out of my home on my machines with no supervision, which all matters.

Oh, I also retained one of the best IP lawyers in the country. That's definitely one thing the OP needs to do: get a lawyer.

Sample IP Contract
Large List of IP Contracts Between Companies
Another sample IP contract

I'm not sure where "here" is

I thought I said it was Florida.

but in most states, it is necessary for a security guard / store employee / whatever to have _proof_ of theft before any detention takes place.

Here in Florida, they need probable cause. "If you should enter a retail establishment where goods are placed on display and for sale, the merchant or the employees may detain you on the premises for a reasonable time for questioning if they have probable cause to believe that you have stolen or have attempted to steal goods for sale." http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Sep/1/130723.html

Just as it is not necessary to let the guy at Best Buy check your receipt.

Unless the guy at Best Buy has probable cause that you stole something. Otherwise, it's false imprisonment and you can sue.

Oops, looks like it was struck down by the VASC this year in January. Here's a Findlaw article.

This Google search helps.

Yes, here is a good summary. http://library.findlaw.com/2000/Aug/1/131067.html Basically, officers are immune from civil suit only if they are acting reasonably. (They will probably get off if they are wrong, but only negligent.) If they do something that's unreasonable (such as a warrantless arrest in a home when there are no exigent circumstances), they lose their immunity. I'm not claiming the tort system is adequate compensation; it's got plenty of problems. But it /is/ a part of the protections the US systems gives to enforce the Constitution.

Oh yes they are.

More specifically, though, a patent is a contract, between you and government. It has value. It is certainly property.

Actually, the unemployment rate has been pretty good lately. You've been hearing wrong - an indication that you've been listening to all the wrong sources. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9172417/ http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/09-02-2005/8ee1000 5800e6936.html

The Betamax decision merely stated that companies that sell technology that can be used to violate copyright laws are not responsible for those violations - as long as that is not the intention of said technology. It did not make it legal to violate copyrights, however.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0317323 P.pdf

The "time shifting" court precendent was set up by "Universal Studios v. Sony Corp." in 1984, by the SCOTUS. It was termed "fair use" and is governed under the USC section that I quoted to you earlier.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=464&invol=417

Backup copies are allowed under section 117 of the Copyright Act.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/us c_sec_17_00000117----000-.html

I seem to have sent you to the wrong section for the specific part of the US Code. Title 17, Chapter 1 does have everything, save for the court precendent.

Imagine if the laws the media industry 'buy' were appplied to other products. Knife manufacturers would face life imprisonment (or the death penalty) incase someone buying one of their knives killed someone with it, Ford and Honda executives would be locked up on the off chance that one of their cars was used as a getaway car, and makers of mobile phones would face a free holiday in Gitmo because a nutter could use one of their phones to remotely detonate a bomb.

What he said is true. It remains beyond me that courts have said "yes, the kidnapping of the defendant was illegal" and yet, because the defendant is in court, the court can proceed because physical presence gives them jurisdiction. At least, this is how it works in the US when foreigners are involved. US Citizens have protections.

Linky goodness.

There are no federal laws against murder. There are no federal laws against kidnapping.

Try 18 USC 1111 (murder, punishable by death or by imprisonment for life) and 18 USC 1201 (kidnapping, punishable by imprisonment for any number of years or for life, or by death if someone dies). These are federal laws.

(Still, you are kind of right; these laws only apply within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but your statement that there are no federal laws against murder or kidnapping are a little misleading.)

There are no federal laws against murder. There are no federal laws against kidnapping.

Try 18 USC 1111 (murder, punishable by death or by imprisonment for life) and 18 USC 1201 (kidnapping, punishable by imprisonment for any number of years or for life, or by death if someone dies). These are federal laws.

(Still, you are kind of right; these laws only apply within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but your statement that there are no federal laws against murder or kidnapping are a little misleading.)

There are no federal laws against murder. There are no federal laws against kidnapping.

Try 18 USC 1111 (murder, punishable by death or by imprisonment for life) and 18 USC 1201 (kidnapping, punishable by imprisonment for any number of years or for life, or by death if someone dies). These are federal laws.

(Still, you are kind of right; these laws only apply within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but your statement that there are no federal laws against murder or kidnapping are a little misleading.)

Here is the briefing that Mr. Bush was given on August 6th, 2001. Mr. Bush was enjoying a month-long vacation at the time, though, and didn't take the threat seriously. I realize that hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but you can't say he wasn't warned.

And, IMHO, having a dead brain is better than being a robot with none.

Ooh, good one! I bet you won every playground debate in elementary school.

It has nothing to do with me being "a bit behind the news" and everything to do with what eyewitnesses -- people who actually saw the incident -- said they saw *immediately* after it occured. I'm aware that several of these folks have revised their statements but the power of suggestion can be incredible, especially after weeks of massive 24/7 media coverage of the event and a rabid anti-Blair faction clammoring to blame him for just about everything. Do you really think that some of them weren't eventually pressured into saying whatever the press wanted them to say?

I'd just note that eye witnesses are known to be unreliable. Nothing to do with lying or pressure, merely that our memories aren't half as good as we think they are. FindLaw reference.

Anecdotal evidence: I was eating in a glass-walled restaurant a couple of weeks ago. There was a fight in the street outside. All of the restaurant staff and about half the patrons had a pretty much unobstructed view. Afterwards, we couldn't agree whether or not the two guys who piled out of the pub opposite were trying to break up the fight or just joining in. Nor did anybody remember which direction two of the four had left in by the time the cops showed up.

Ibix

The brain may still be evolving, but the direction it's evolving in depends not on available mutations, but on selection.

Welcome to the future of the human race.

So violating the warrantry is a crime now?

Under the "Maganson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act" use of a consumable produced by a 3rd party does NOT automaticly void a warranty. Now if you were to replace your toner with toothpaste... and it was established that use of toothpaste caused damage then I imagine they would likely not honor the warranty. This assures that you don't have to buy ford motor oil for your ford, you don't have to buy crest toothpast for your toothbrush, and you don't have to buy HP toner for your HP printer for any of these companies to honor the warranty.

Drilling a hole in a toner cartridge "might" void the warranty on the toner cartridge but not the printer.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/15/ chapters/50/sections/section_2302.html

Yes - according to precedent I've read - Kelo was decided correctly. From my point of view the Institute for Justice lawyers weren't should have also challenged the three incorrectly decided decisions the Kelo loss was based on. I've heard that they were repeatedly asked - if this is what they wanted to do - but that they declined.

The real question we need to ask ourselves, is if you read the US Constitution as it is written and extended how would Kelo be decided. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but it would seem to be that the phase "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." would require the public to be able to use the seized area (ie a park, road, etc) or at least be for some government function that is "necessary". I have trouble accepting that an increase in government taxes or that taking private property from one to give to another private group was what most of the framers had in mind. To me this sounds like what a king would do to gain approval from a noble.

A FindLaw discussion on eminent domain:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment05/14.html

And Castle Coalition : http://www.castlecoalition.org/

A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.

Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison

..."the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Dr. Benjamin Rush, Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800. (Emphasis added, because the quote fucking rocks. )

For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)

As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.

Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.

Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.

"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"

A point I will conceed. Alas, George Bush isn't even close to being a John Adams, as a study of their mutual efforts pre-presidency will reveal. Adams at least had a height to fall from, to make his failures more tragic than farce.

Gee, it seems that Jefferson and Madison were religion neutral as well.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
--James Madison

..."the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity thro' the U.S.; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians & Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Dr. Benjamin Rush, Monticello, Sep. 23, 1800. (Emphasis added, because the quote fucking rocks. )

For some reason, Fundamentalist Evangelicals seldom cite Jefferson, and never do so referring to the full source. =)

As for the other issues which you don't address, again the 10th Amendment covers it very nicely. If it ain't in the Constitution, a document I swore a long time ago to preserve, protect and defend and still hold to that oath despite my country breaking faith from me, it is left to the states or the people.

Article V: Amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution". Which means you're still stuck (as I noted) with Amendment 14, not to mention assorted loons empowered by Article III until and unless they quit or keel over dead.

Sorry, but try another shot at my bows.

"Mister Christian! Man the Canons!"

JUSTICE O'CONNOR, JUSTICE KENNEDY, and JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, concluding that consideration of the fundamental constitutional question resolved by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained.

As for Roberts, neither of the two most popular quotes of his are relevant. Quote #1 of "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled" was made when he was solicitor general and charged to represent the views of President Reagan. Apparently contradictory quote #2 "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," was made when he was being confirmed for a lower court -- what else could he have said? No, the most important quote is "I don't think it's appropriate for me to criticize [Roe] as judicial activism. ... My definition of judicial activism is when the court departs from applying the rule of law and undertakes legislative or executive decisions." That indicates he sees nothing glaringly wrong with Roe v. Wade and thus will not vote to overturn.

The scary part about Roberts, though, is his close ties to Bush and support for his policies such as Guantanamo Bay. With the Chief Justice gone, my fear is that Bush may make Roberts Chief Justice rather than the earlier favorites of Thomas or Scalia.

Thomas, at least, voted for medical marijuana (along with Rehnquist) as a vote for states rights and constitutionality. Thomas would be the strict Constitutionalist ideological heir of Rehnquist for the Chief Justice seat, but we're likely to end up with a neocon like Roberts instead.

All this found in 5minutes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Public Domain Movies http://www.openflix.com/

The mouse that ate the public domain http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_s prigman.html

Moglen and Lessig in 2001 Conference on Public Domain http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/mpegcast.html

Quoth the Wikipedia: For example, U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. 105, releases all works created by the U.S. government into the public domain, patent applications as part of the terms of granting the patent to the invention are public domain, patent law excludes inventions that obviously follow from prior art, and agreements that Germany signed at the end of World War I released such trademarks as "aspirin" and "heroin" into the public domain in many areas.

See, some new Patent Applications just "fell into" PD while I was typing this.

I think you meant very little of interest to you personally, created in your lifetime, has fallen into the Public Domain. I think if you investigate a little harder that could be proven untrue as well.

The Supreme Court as The Court of the Constitution is neither impotent or a puppet.

I'm reading the Constitution, and no where do I see the right to control the distribution of copyrighted works. If you want to claim interstate commerce I direct you to the 9th Amendment

I don't need to point to the Commerce Clause. The federal government has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to enforce rights granted under the Constitution. Clause 18. Necessary and Proper Clause

The Communications Decency Act, sec. 230(c)(1) says,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

"The term ''information content provider'' means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

The trade secret claim is a little harder. It's probably the case that Congress didn't have trade secrets in mind when it wrote sec. 230. On the other hand, if you read the full text of sec. 230 you will see that Congress intended fairly broad protection; in sec. 230(f)(3) it certainly wrote in very broad terms. In law there are few certainties until after a court rules, but I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable).

You show me a researcher that isn't biased in some way, small or large, that is human and I will contend that you've actually found a robot. Does the name Freud ring a bell? They've only recently (10-20 years) stopped teaching Freudian theories. If I remember correctly, he had a beef or two with women... It's true, men do also suffer from unfair media portrayal. I think a lot of people forget this. It's a good point. You talk of unfair treatment in FL. Are you aware of the notification provision of the Florida Adoption Act? I suggest you look into it: "The provision applies to a mother who is putting her child up for adoption, and is uncertain of the father's identity or where he lives. It requires her to publish a newspaper ad in order to try to find the father.... "In the ad, the mother must disclose her name, age, height, hair and eye color, race and weight; her child's name, date and place of birth; and - if it is the address that is unknown - the father's name. Moreover, she must also publish her sexual history - a description of every potential father and the dates of their sexual encounters. The ad must run once a week for four weeks in a newspaper in each city or county in which conception might have taken place in the year before the child's birth." Source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020829_h odes.html "Many women's groups lie." I don't even know how to react to this. With such a broad, vague statement, what are you trying to achieve? Which women's groups are you LISTENING to? If you've set foot into a honest intelligent women's group discussion about REAL topics (not the superbowl), you'll realize how amazingly foolish your statement is. I'd like to remind you that of all our populations, women were the LAST to gain the right to vote (LESS than 100 years ago). Although, I will admit that once women obtained this right, it was much easier for them than African Americans to show up at the polls and not be lynched. Perhaps Seine IS blind to many things negatively affecting the American male culture. But from your post, it's clear that you yourself are blind to what can and does negatively affect American female culture. Let's trade spots some day so we can both see what it's like to be each other. I'm sure we'd change our minds about many things.

The Harrison Narcotics Act was replaced with the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

Dang, mixed up my html and php. The proper caselaw link is here.

Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are "indispensable to the 'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 (1948). And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection. A thermal imager scan of a private home at night without a warrant, which gathers information about activities and objects generating heat inside the home, violates those rights.

Further down in that document:

This constitutional right of privacy in the home does not depend on notions of trespass. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) (the existence of a violation "cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure"); United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972) (government interception of telephone conversations as violative of right of privacy as physical entry into the home). As this Court recognized over a hundred years ago: "It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. . . which underlies and constitutes the essence of"a Fourth Amendment violation. Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630.

The First Amendment Protects Privacy of Association

The "close nexus" between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly assures a freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas. See NAACP, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). Effective advocacy of both public and private viewpoints--central to the First Amendment--is "undeniably enhanced by group association." Id. Freedom of association is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1992). The freedom of association encompasses the right to privacy of that association, and therefore prevents compelled disclosure of membership in an organization. NAACP, 357 U.S. at 459. Such a right is necessary to the freedom of expression, which depends upon the unrestricted flow of ideas, because the "inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." Id. at 462.

The Court Only Seventeen Years Ago: Deeply Torn Over Anti-Gay Sex Criminal Laws

In 1986, the Supreme Court took up the famous -- indeed, notorious -- case of Bowers v. Hardwick. The case arose when Michael Hardwick was arrested for violating Georgia's criminal ban on sodomy after police entered his home and found him in bed with another man.

In defending himself against the criminal charge, Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's ban on sodomy. Specifically, he argued that his constitutional right to privacy included a right to engage in homosexual sex and, thus, meant that Georgia's sodomy law should be struck down.

As a legal matter, Hardwick's case involved one of the most difficult areas of constitutional law. The Constitution doe

Can you tell me in which article this "right to privacy" is? I seem to have missed it.

IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States

The Fourth Amendment protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The rights protected by the Fourth Amendment are "indispensable to the 'full enjoyment of personal security, personal liberty, and private property'; [and] they are to be regarded as of the very essence of constitutional liberty." Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 17 n.8 (1948). And these rights apply with particular force in the home, where the expectation of privacy is historically and legally entitled to the highest protection. A thermal imager scan of a private home at night without a warrant, which gathers information about activities and objects generating heat inside the home, violates those rights.

Further down in that document:

This constitutional right of privacy in the home does not depend on notions of trespass. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967) (the existence of a violation "cannot turn upon the presence or absence of a physical intrusion into any given enclosure"); United States v. United States Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297, 313 (1972) (government interception of telephone conversations as violative of right of privacy as physical entry into the home). As this Court recognized over a hundred years ago: "It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. . . which underlies and constitutes the essence of"a Fourth Amendment violation. Boyd, 116 U.S. at 630.

The First Amendment Protects Privacy of Association

The "close nexus" between the First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly assures a freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas. See NAACP, 357 U.S. 449, 460 (1958). Effective advocacy of both public and private viewpoints--central to the First Amendment--is "undeniably enhanced by group association." Id. Freedom of association is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., citing De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530 (1992). The freedom of association encompasses the right to privacy of that association, and therefore prevents compelled disclosure of membership in an organization. NAACP, 357 U.S. at 459. Such a right is necessary to the freedom of expression, which depends upon the unrestricted flow of ideas, because the "inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs." Id. at 462.

The Court Only Seventeen Years Ago: Deeply Torn Over Anti-Gay Sex Criminal Laws

In 1986, the Supreme Court took up the famous -- indeed, notorious -- case of Bowers v. Hardwick. The case arose when Michael Hardwick was arrested for violating Georgia's criminal ban on sodomy after police entered his home and found him in bed with another man.

In defending himself against the criminal charge, Hardwick challenged the constitutionality of Georgia's ban on sodomy. Specifically, he argued that his constitutional right to privacy included a right to engage in homosexual sex and, thus, meant that Georgia's sodomy law should be struck down.

As a legal matter, Hardwick's case involved one of the most difficult areas of constitutional law. The Constitution doe