Slashdot Mirror

when the Steamboat Willy copyright expires ...

Someone could make a derivative work of the Disney short and call the title character something other than Mickey Mouse, but if they tried to call him Mickey Mouse, Disney could take action against them for using their trademark without permission.

Wrong, because the instant the copyright expires, a large part of the trademark lapses. Disney no longer has any rights to base a cause of action on. The reason for this is that because copyright law no longer prevents anyone from making copies or derivatives and putting them into commerce, the MICKEY MOUSE mark changes from being descriptive (of the character named Mickey Mouse) with secondary meaning (which can only originate from Disney) to being merely descriptive, without secondary meaning.

It looks to me as though you're putting the cart before the horse, incorrectly believing that the trademark survives the entry of the work into the public domain. But it does not; only a few fragments of the trademark survive.

Ultimately, copyright and Trademark are two wholly different pieces of intellectual property that govern entirely different things, handled almost entirely orthogonally to eachother, and in practically all cases, one has absolutely no effect on the other.

Sure. But this is one of those exceptional cases.

The only way that trademark could possibly be affected by Steamboat Willie falling into public domain is if that would or might cause the public to not realize who Mickey Mouse belongs to, but since the copied work is still a *COPY* of the work, and so would still be clear who owns the intellectual property that is still very much alive.

Actually that is exactly what happens; when everyone and his dog can legally create new, derivative, Mickey Mouse cartoons, because the underlying copyright has expired, the public is assumed to no longer associate the MICKEY MOUSE mark, to the extent it pertains to goods including creative works, only with such goods made by Disney. This is SHREDDED WHEAT, which I'll get to in a moment.

Also, note that trademark doesn't care about whether a work is a reproduction of something or not. It cares about the origin of a specific, tangible copy, not of the underlying work. If you start Mark-T Press, and print up copies of Romeo and Juliet, I am not allowed to start Kangarooski Press and print up copies that bear your mark. OTOH, I am perfectly entitled to print up copies of Romeo and Juliet under my own mark. In fact, so long as you're just reprinting the play (and not making such substantial changes as to amount to a new work, which is a bit more difficult than you'd think), I'm even entitled to make copies of your version, so long as I take care to not use your mark and to only use my own, thanks to Dastar, which eliminated reverse passing-off for works (and hopefully is the beginning of a trend of eliminating reverse passing-off altogether).

Be aware that the copyright status on the short has already expired in several countries that do not practice the copyright durations the US currently has in place, and the cartoon can be freely distributed or copied in said jurisdictions, while the trademark status has remained entirely unaffected.

I'm only familiar with US law, and that's all I've been discussing the entire time. I have no knowledge or interest in how other countries handle this, except as how it might provide us with good ideas or cautionary examples in our own legal reform efforts.

I am not directly familiar with the Shredded Wheat case you mentioned

It is Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938).

The relevant language:

The plaintiff [Nabisco] has no exclusive right to the use of the term 'Shredded Wheat' as

You're actually flat out wrong.

The President, after all, is the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." U.S. Const., Art. II, 2. His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position in the Executive Branch that will give that person access to such information flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant. See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, 890 (1961). This Court has recognized the Government's "compelling interest" in withholding national security information from unauthorized persons in the course of executive business. Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 509 , n. 3 (1980). See also United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258, 267 (1967); United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105, 106 (1876). The authority to protect such information falls on the President as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/484/518.html

It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". All citizens have the RIGHT to travel in and through all of the US states, the District, territories and possessions. If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.

It's just wikipedia - but any intelligent person can read the content, then search out arguments, both pro and con.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Gubbermint says the same thing on this page: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/...

"Citizens are also allowed to re-enter the U.S. repeatedly without being required to re-establish proof of admissibility."

If a US citizen IS denied entry into the United States, he has this to fall back on:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
        intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
        Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
        right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
        the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
        or
            If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
        premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
        exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
            They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
        ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
        violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
        attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
        aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
        under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
        or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.

In many countries there is no statutory limitation for certain crimes such as murder or rape. Although there is for all other crimes.
In the US it depends on the state.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

In sweden I have no idea. In the UK it is generally 7 years but some crime can never be absolved

I don't know about other states, but this page claims that the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor in Indiana is two years.

if you are in business and you deny someone on the basis of sexual orientation race religious affiliation etc you are denying someone the liberty of doing as they please in general society. you are standing against freedom. this is simple fucking common sense, nevermind the actual law of the land:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

this is different than denying someone in your own house, or a church: those are private places. a mosque can deny you the right to draw muhammad on those premises, but no muslim can deny you the right to walk around in public with muhammad on your t shirt

they may of course scream "religious liberty" but what they mean, like you, is that they are whining they don't get to limit someone else's freedoms in public. that's not liberty

i would ask if you understand the difference, but you obviously do not. your intent is clearly malicious and you clearly do not have the intellectual capacity to understand simple concepts like public and private.

you're a dimwitted bigot, and whether you admit it or not, your low intelligence "opinions" stand against freedom and liberty and the founding principles of this country

And you obviously do not even comprehend what I and others are saying - you cannot impose your right over someone else's equal right just because you want them to enter into a contract with you. You cannot force them to. It's that simple.

At no point did I make an argument for using a religious basis for that.

So until you can actually understand the argument at hand refrain from commenting further because you're not making any points that you have not already repeated, and not contributing to the conversation.

Please also look up reverse discrimination and think of how it applies.

the difference, moron, is that one is public and the other is private

http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

why don't you try respecting the founding principles of this country and stop trying to restrict the freedom and liberties of others. you are unamerican. genuinely

i doubt if you can find the ability to respect freedom and liberty though. you seem clearly malicious in your intent towards the basic rights of others and you obviously lack the intellectual capacity to understand simple concepts like public and private

you simply don't have the right to restrict people's freedoms in public you stupid asshole

if you whine "religious liberty" when you do that you are only announcing yourself as a dimwitted bigot who actually hates liberty

if you are in business and you deny someone on the basis of sexual orientation race religious affiliation etc you are denying someone the liberty of doing as they please in general society. you are standing against freedom. this is simple fucking common sense, nevermind the actual law of the land:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com...

this is different than denying someone in your own house, or a church: those are private places. a mosque can deny you the right to draw muhammad on those premises, but no muslim can deny you the right to walk around in public with muhammad on your t shirt

they may of course scream "religious liberty" but what they mean, like you, is that they are whining they don't get to limit someone else's freedoms in public. that's not liberty

i would ask if you understand the difference, but you obviously do not. your intent is clearly malicious and you clearly do not have the intellectual capacity to understand simple concepts like public and private.

you're a dimwitted bigot, and whether you admit it or not, your low intelligence "opinions" stand against freedom and liberty and the founding principles of this country

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.

If you don't like someone's viewpoint, explain why it is wrong, rather than trying to censor them.

> We have had publicized double jeopardy (supposed to be unconstitutional) since OJ

He faced a civil trail after the criminal one and the civil trial was brought by his dead wife's estate. Double jeopardy only protects you from two criminal trials, not from civil liability. The fact that they had inconsistent verdicts is because they had different standards of proof. Civil trials cannot put you in prison, which is why they have a lesser standard, so that we reward whoever is most likely to be right, even if we're not absolutely sure for one side or another. Because this is person vs. person, it doesn't make sense to favor either side, whereas in a criminal trial, we favor the accused with the presumption of innocence.

> If they face a hearing, it's usually a closed door Grand Jury who magically and consistently decides that they should not be charged.

A grand jury is the same as a normal jury (i.e. random people picked for jury duty). It's just bigger than normal (grand is French for 'large'). You don't get any representation in a grand jury, rather they have to decide whether evidence sufficient to prove the crime exists. This is to prevent people from being dragged in to answer for crimes without evidence, as a full trial is really expensive for the accused.

So if a grand jury doesn't charge someone, it means that the evidence wasn't good enough. The person accused and their lawyer don't get a say in this, so their money can't get them off the hook. See this article for an explanation.

So, the problem with your statements is that 'double jeopardy' only covers criminal liability (i.e. the state charging you twice for the same crime, where the punishment is prison), not civil responsibility (which is between you & another citizen where it's just a matter of money) and that no matter how fancy the person's lawyer is, they're not even in the room with the grand jury, they don't get to talk to the jury, and so they don't even get the chance to influence the grand jury process. They're not allowed to talk to jurors outside of court, either, so your fancy lawyer is stuck outside the room and not allowed to talk to anyone on the jury.

Alaska statute 45.48.410 explicitly permits hospitals to ask, but I can't find a statute that requires it.

Disclaimer: I live in Alabama (which, alone, should explain posting as AC)

Only last week I discovered that a friend from my D&D group is a felon. He was convicted of sodomy for [backdoor delivery] to a girl who happened to be about year younger than him. ( see law: ALA Code 13A-6-64 compare with 13A-6-62)

Note: even as a consenting partner, the girl could not be charged with 'Sodomy in the second degree', ("deviate sexual intercourse with another person.") This very much pleased the girls parents who wanted to press charges. (He is unlikable -- I said D&D group, didn't I?)

Disclaimer: I live in Alabama (which, alone, should explain posting as AC)

Only last week I discovered that a friend from my D&D group is a felon. He was convicted of sodomy for [backdoor delivery] to a girl who happened to be about year younger than him. ( see law: ALA Code 13A-6-64 compare with 13A-6-62)

Note: even as a consenting partner, the girl could not be charged with 'Sodomy in the second degree', ("deviate sexual intercourse with another person.") This very much pleased the girls parents who wanted to press charges. (He is unlikable -- I said D&D group, didn't I?)

By that reasoning, the government can force you to become Christian to use public schools. "Nobody is required by law to become Christian; they just can't use the public schools."

The unconstitutional conditions doctrie prohibits the government from conditioning a benefit on giving up a constitutional right.

Actually, we did. Like most Americans, sadly, you know nothing of history beyond, say, 1980 or some such. If you did know some history, you would know ...

Like many people on Slashdot you seem to have a defective knowledge of history and the church.

If one were to look into the history they would find that you either grossly exagerate on these matters, or are simply wrong. Many of the early colonies were formed by religous sects coming from Europe. Once in America they adopted the European customs of institutionalizing the church with the government. Although in some colonies other sects were persecuted, few were killed. In any case it was nothing like the scale or severity of European persecution. Other colonies had different views. Rhode Island was formed with the ideal of religious tolerence, and other colonies were adopting laws for tolerance by 1650. Eventually all of the colonies adeopted the US Constitution, became states, and moved past that.

As to the "Christian justifications for the genocide against American Indians" I have to ask, what genocide are you referring to? There wasn't one.

Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans
Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide?

As to your claims about "lines of Christian preachers submitted tons of briefs, all saying that their Christian God had deemed that black people were inherently inferior and not worthy of any basic human rights" in the case of Loving vs Virginia, which briefs are you referring to? The only brief I see listed from an organization claiming church affiliation was against Virginia's law.

LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by William M. Lewers and William B. Ball for the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice et al.; [388 U.S. 1, 2] by Robert L. Carter and Andrew D. Weinberger for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III and Michael Meltsner for the N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.

T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of North Carolina, as amicus curiae, urging affirmance

So it looks to me that your disparagement of Christians is based on what is essentially one half-truth and two whole lies.

Now that would be bad in and of itself, but you also overlook the many positive contributions made by Christians.

The abolition of slavery - Christian and churches drove the abolisionist movement. Perhaps you could start with this man:
      William Wilberforce - the story told in this wonderful movie: Amazing Grace, released in 2007
Higher Education - Many of America's first colleges were formed by churches.
Health Care - Many hospitals have been founded by churches, or with church backing.
The Civil Right movement - Once again many churches were participants in the Civil Rights movement

There are many more that could be added to that.

Yeah, you Christians are really, really superior to other religions....

Moving past the half-truth and falsehoods you wrote certainly seems to make for a better record to reflect upon.

And what does freedom of speech have to do with trying to make sure an intelligence agency isn't hiring double agents?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://constitution.findlaw.co...

This is not a "yelling fire in a crowded theater" situation involving immediate clear harm. Rather, it's about freedom of the press in exposing polygraphy as a pseudoscience that is as valid as drowning women to find out if they are witches. The polygraphy book does this by showing exactly how polygraphy doesn't work.

The Government is using its substantial power to suppress this information contrary to the mandatory dictates of the First Amendment. When the US government ignores the Constitution, that is a far graver threat to America and its purported values than any terrorist or double agent could ever achieve, because it decouples the massive power the Feds have from any limitations at all -- it is in essence, the destruction of America from within.

Think about it like this: There is USA, the place, and America the vision as embodied by our Constitution. Given the US Federal Gov's all-out assault on the Bill of Rights, it's fair to say that _it_ is the greatest threat to the freedoms we as Americans are said to hold dear, in favor of protection of USA the place. It is of course a totally dubious assertion that the pseudoscience of polygraphy is even effective at protection of USA the place, but even if it was a valid technique, we should be asking if we want to have a Federal Government that is totally unrestrained in its exercise of power. If that is where we are heading, we should just acknowledge that post-constitutional USA is just another authoritarian dictatorship, and quit giving lip service to being a constitutional republic that values freedom and justice. It would save a lot of people a lot of prison time to know we are just another China, and to keep their mouths shut.

IHBT. Sigh. I hope you're trolling anyway, because I'd hate to think that an adult could pack that much accidental ignorance into a single sentence. No courts have ruled that way, and atheism cannot be a religion (any more than my lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy establishes me as an "aTooth-Fairyist").

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY, 7th Circuit, rules Atheism is a Religion.
But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

Id. at 52-53, 105 S.Ct. 2479. In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.



So tell me about this "aTooth-Fairyist" religion of yours. Are you sure you're not the ignorant one here?

I don't know why it should be easier to get a conviction, the laws were either broken and there is proof of it or there isn't. I would hate to be in a court system that decides you were warned 3 times by means outside the court so you are more likely guilty on the same evidence.

Now I can see where the modus operandi is used to determine Mes Rea but I'm not sure the type of copyright laws being addressed need that level of detail. Displaying the willingness to subvert a blocking mechanism would show intent to violate the copyright.

>If they were interested, they'd have voted without it being mandatory Nope. A lot of those people would have voted were it not for voter disenfranchisement, having to work (yeah, your employer has to let you vote, but they don't have to pay you while you're gone, and they don't have to give you any extra hours to make up the time missed while voting), not having an address (you didn't forget about the homeless who can't vote absentee and usually can't even register because they don't have an address, did you?).

This assertion above is incorrect. Here in Hawaii, you are guaranteed two hours away from work. Furthermore, you will be paid for those hours upon furnishing the receipt from the polls to your employer. Rights vary by state. My cursory glance at the first list shows that blue states tend to offer the same, with Texas being a noteworthy addition. However, most 'red' states that permit such reserve the right to determine the hours that the employee may go.

Source: http://www.findlaw.com/voting-...
Source: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/... (Hawaii Revised Statutes, 11-95 Employees entitled to leave on election day for voting.)

Here in the land of the free, you could be sentenced to up to 6 months in jail and an unlimited fine for making a "Five Dollar Bill Murray"... http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

You. It's someone with your email in their address book that signed up for linked in. They literally were hijacking user's email contacts lists to send spam out. qucik google returns this

Ah car analogies. They're so tempting and easy to obliquely use on any argument, aren't they?

If she was coerced or tricked into driving drunk then yeah, she might not be legally responsible for her actions: http://dui.findlaw.com/dui-cas...

The real problem that both you and the other AC are tuning out is that instances where men are maliciously coercing or tricking women into having sex with them when they KNOW she wouldn't while sober, are ludicrously more common than instances where women maliciously ruined a guy's life with false rape accusations when he genuinely thought it was consensual.

It's a state-level law in the US. And despite the minimum age being 21 in every state, a majority of states have exemptions for parents and children in a private setting. Only 11 states allow it with parental consent in public places.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_a...

No, we already have a ruling, Kyllo vs U.S. where the court quite clearly stated the limits of extra-sensory detection equipment:

"Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."

Don't know. Don't care. If your state is screwed up, that's your problem. Why don't you go vote on that issue? Too worried about gay marriage, gun rights, and abortion to ask about the other issues? There's a reason why the two parties focus on the divisive issues. Othewise, people would find out they don't represent the people.

Hell, if it's a big enough issue to you, move to Texas. It's not like the system that's more like you assert as "ideal" runs any better in practice. By law, the unions in Texas have no power. Yet the education is no better or worse than anywhere else in the US. Seems unions are unrelated to the education problems. But if you don't have the unions to complain about, what would you do? Nah, you'll still complain about unions. Oh, and I did find out if it applies elsewhere. http://education.findlaw.com/t... But you'll note, the unions don't correlate with school performance. But don't let reality interfere with your irrational hatred of unions.

When you're carrying something upstairs or downstairs with both hands, how do you carry the phone as well?

Well, my family doesn't lounge around the house in the nude. In many circumstances I am carrying my phone in a pocket. Pockets are an ideal solution for carrying keys, wallets, phones, etc, and they also allow you to free your hands for necessary tasks. I would be more likely to miss a phone call on a landline because I would have to hear the ring on the other side of the house, travel to another room to answer it before the person hangs up, etc. Conversely, I am rarely more than 2 meters from my smartphone at any point during the day... I reach down into my pocket, look at the number, and decide whether to answer or to send the caller to "fuck you voicemail" (i.e. voicemail that picks up in under 4 rings, implicitly letting the caller know you have rejected their call).

To preempt your next predictable objection: if your phone falls out of your pocket on a regular basis or your pants lack pockets, then get different pants. If your family lounges in the nude, then change that policy for sanity's sake.

I have a flip phone that I use for occasional calls out of the house. I tried texting with T9 and found it slower and more painful than voice.

Yes, that is painful. Don't do that. Get a smartphone... typing is far better on a smartphone. It's not like smartphones are expensive if you are willing to take a hand-me-down from a friend, buy a used phone off eBay, or pick up a previous generation phone from Walmart or something like that.

Until you're away from home and public Wi-Fi. Or until you need to call your ISP to troubleshoot why the Internet is not working.

Now I'm trying to decide if you're trolling. Go to ting.com and look at the rates they charge. Our family's total monthly bill from Ting for three smartphones with data plans is $44 plus tax. What is your family paying for your landline and your flip phone plans?

Phone calls or Skyping are scheduled affairs.

Unless you're, say, trying to get a ride from a family member on Sunday, when public transit has the day off.

No, even then. We send each other a text message or an IM. You send them a text, IM, or email because they have their phones with them or within earshot. They are more likely to respond to a text, IM, or email because you can do that even when they can't speak on the phone and would otherwise send you to voicemail they might not listen to for hours or a day. Conversely, they will receive a notification of these text-based messages' delivery within seconds.

And trouble calls to your ISP aren't scheduled; prepare to pay dearly to your carrier to hear "Your call is important to us and will be answered in the order it was received" for half an hour.

Um, okay? I refer you once again to ting.com for an example of what competitive cell phone rates are these days. Other providers offer similar rates if you are savvy enough not to be exploited. It's not 1995 anymore.

If your kid is old enough to be home alone, they are old enough to have an inexpensive cell phone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inexpensive", and I don't know anything about the law where you live, but where I live, there are a few years between the age at which a child is old enough to be home alone and the age at which a child is old enough to have a job to earn the money to pay for a cell phone. I must be missing something fundamental.

$6/month is the marginal cost for a kid's cell line on Ting... I said this in my last post. The fundamental aspect you

Dropping the landline involves some paradigm shifts. Please help me work through understanding this.

*I* never have this problem because not only do I keep my phone with me

When you're carrying something upstairs or downstairs with both hands, how do you carry the phone as well?

We communicate via text

I have a flip phone that I use for occasional calls out of the house. I tried texting with T9 and found it slower and more painful than voice. Besides, one can often fit well over 160 characters' worth of information into the amount of voice airtime that has the same price as one text message. And that's without mumbling.

email, IM, whatever.

Until you're away from home and public Wi-Fi. Or until you need to call your ISP to troubleshoot why the Internet is not working.

Phone calls or Skyping are scheduled affairs.

Unless you're, say, trying to get a ride from a family member on Sunday, when public transit has the day off. And trouble calls to your ISP aren't scheduled; prepare to pay dearly to your carrier to hear "Your call is important to us and will be answered in the order it was received" for half an hour.

If your kid is old enough to be home alone, they are old enough to have an inexpensive cell phone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "inexpensive", and I don't know anything about the law where you live, but where I live, there are a few years between the age at which a child is old enough to be home alone and the age at which a child is old enough to have a job to earn the money to pay for a cell phone. I must be missing something fundamental.

Besides, if your kids *don't* have a cell phone then how will they call 911 in an emergency while they are traveling home from school and aren't at home yet?

From the school district's code of conduct: "Use of all cellular (cell) phones or electronic devices during school hours or on the bus is not allowed without [district] administrative permission." I imagine that the school bus driver is responsible for contacting emergency services should a genuine emergency occur.

Further, given Dish's offer of ESPN via internet

And Internet via what? Satellite Internet has harsh monthly caps, and DSL from the phone company in many areas often isn't fast enough for multiple HD streams. Cable companies have been offering bundle discounts that make Internet + pay TV cheaper than Internet + Netflix + Hulu Plus + Amazon + Dish ESPN.

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this

That's all you have? One source, acknowledging the question as "tricky to answer", but offering its opinion nonetheless?

would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia

I contend, they would be even more flabbergasted to learn, that producing and selling pornography is protected by the right to petition the government for redress of grievances...

which is at odds with gun lovers

Gun lovers? Simple swords are illegal in most of the country — as are brass-knuckles.

for some insane lack of simple intelligence

Ah, yes, whoever disagrees with you must simply be lacking intelligence. Founding fathers were still alive, when Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this sort of argument. Feel free to educate yourself...

think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death

Chicago, where even a museum can not showcase a WW2 rifle, and Washington D.C., where one can get imprisoned for using an empty shell-case as ashtray, have more violent crime, than Texas' cities, where guns are relatively easy to obtain.

But my argument is not that arms "help" — it is that, for better or worse, it is our right to keep and bear them. And that any laws and regulations infringing that right are unconstitutional and thus it is the citizens' moral duty to ignore or sabotage them.

Historians are often asked what the Founders would think about various aspects of contemporary life. Such questions can be tricky to answer. But as historians of the Revolutionary era we are confident at least of this

That's all you have? One source, acknowledging the question as "tricky to answer", but offering its opinion nonetheless?

would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia

I contend, they would be even more flabbergasted to learn, that producing and selling pornography is protected by the right to petition the government for redress of grievances...

which is at odds with gun lovers

Gun lovers? Simple swords are illegal in most of the country — as are brass-knuckles.

for some insane lack of simple intelligence

Ah, yes, whoever disagrees with you must simply be lacking intelligence. Founding fathers were still alive, when Hans Christian Andersen dealt with this sort of argument. Feel free to educate yourself...

think that more guns somehow means more safety and somehow does not mean more death

Chicago, where even a museum can not showcase a WW2 rifle, and Washington D.C., where one can get imprisoned for using an empty shell-case as ashtray, have more violent crime, than Texas' cities, where guns are relatively easy to obtain.

But my argument is not that arms "help" — it is that, for better or worse, it is our right to keep and bear them. And that any laws and regulations infringing that right are unconstitutional and thus it is the citizens' moral duty to ignore or sabotage them.

tapping them requires (or used to require) a warrant.

Are we sure about that?

Yes, we are sure.

They certainly wouldn't want to tell us unless they had to.

That's true. But using information thus obtained in court would be impossible — under the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine. They would need to — and sometimes do — invent some other explanations as to how they learned, what they are presenting in court...

This is nothing new. Just because a new technologies exist does not mean we need to redefine our rights to explicitly deal with it.

Peaking in the windows of a home, using a drug dog to sniff around a house, using thermal imaging to inspect the contents of a home, using radar/x-ray vision/telekinetics/etc. to search inside of a home are ALL considered searches and should all require probable cause and a search warrant under the 4th Amendment.

[A]n individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home...The [Fourth] Amendment reflects the recognition of the Framers that certain enclaves should be free from arbitrary government interference. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

Homeowners possess a privacy interest that extends inside their homes and in the curtilage immediately surrounding the outside of their homes, but not in the "open fields" and "wooded areas" extending beyond the curtilage (see Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 [1924]). - http://criminal.findlaw.com/cr...

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___ (2013), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

According to a Ken Burns documentary. an amendment was used because the Temperance Movement thought a constitutional amendment would never be repealed. Amending the Constitution is difficult and the only way to repeal an Amendment is to make another Amendment. No Amendment had ever been repealed and it was thought that no Amendment ever would be. Federal laws, on the other hand, can be repealed by any sitting Congress. The Temperance Movement thought they had certainty with an Amendment. It was never tested as to whether a federal law would be shot down by the SCOTUS. Using a constitutional amendment was a choice not a requirement.

As evidence of this in 1914 the Federal government passed the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act which nationally regulated and taxed the production, importation, and distribution of opiates and coca products. That law was upheld by SCOTUS in United States v. Doremus, 249 u.s. 86. Regulating alcohol is quite similar to regulating narcotics but the Temperance Movement wanted the certainty, or at least what they thought was certainty, of a constitutional amendment.

Sorry but the evidence does not match the idea that Congress is now viewing the Constitution differently than they did in 1920.

The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it.

You asked me, what I think it meant. My friends would've meant the same thing as the founders did — I certainly think so.

Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation

How neat of you to completely skip everything else I wrote — about only petitioning the government being protected by the 1st Amendment, and only if the petition is for redress of grievances...

If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles and swords, but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles of any magazine-capacity...

He argues for less fidelity to it [the Constitution -mi].

Yea, sure. More like zero fidelity — the entire piece is titled: "Let's give up on the Constitution"...

The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.

What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.

Contrary to popular media, there's no insanity defense.

Contrary to your belief, the insanity defense is valid in U.S. federal court and all but 4 U.S. states.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

No, you are confusing two kinds of juries. A grand jury is more informal (jury members can ask questions, etc), one sided, and secret. Defense is not presented. The prosecutor is trying to get a group of people to agree that a crime was committed and that there is evidence for a conviction. The prosecutor can skip this step or ignore the grand jury, but it's a kind test trial. If you can't win a one sided case, you're unlikely to win in a regular trial.

If the grand jury hands down an indictment, then there is the regular jury trial you are familiar with from the movies (though much more boring and procedural).

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

By that theory, you should be able to hop into a plane without any training and just fly wherever you want, too.

As a matter of fact, yes, that is true. If you have a plane, you can fly it. Wright brothers didn't have a pilot license...

You have the right to travel: on foot.

So, not even on a bicycle, huh? BTW, did you know, walking on a highway is illegal today — as is hitchhiking? And, of course, you are simply wrong...

"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

There are more citations, where the above came from...

Here's a whole list of them. San Francisco even had racial quotas for elementary schools as late as 1997.

Court heeded the judgment of experts, including educators, business leaders and even military leaders, to decide that a public school, at least at the university level, may treat students differently based on race. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330-331. While its decision in Grutter is not before the Court in the instant case, the sad truth is that, until Grutter is overturned or limited, the clock has been turned back almost a century, to the days of Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, again giving school officials the power to discriminate against students solely because of their race

Apparently using quote .. quote will preview okay but break when actually submitted.

Here's a whole list of them. San Francisco even had racial quotas for elementary schools as late as 1997.

Court heeded the judgment of experts, including educators, business leaders and even military leaders, to decide that a public school, at least at the university level, may treat students differently based on race. See Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330-331. While its decision in Grutter is not before the Court in the instant case, the sad truth is that, until Grutter is overturned or limited, the clock has been turned back almost a century, to the days of Gong Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78, again giving school officials the power to discriminate against students solely because of their race

Nope. The distinction here is that one act is communicative, while the other is not.

Let's go back to the 1966 Supreme Court case that established case law on these sorts of issues. That case dealt with a person involved in a car accident who was suspected of drunk driving. A police officer could smell the alcohol on his breath, so when the man was in the hospital after the accident, he directed a doctor to take a blood sample over the suspect's objections. In other words, his own blood was being used to incriminate him.

Some relevant passages:

We hold that the privilege protects an accused only from being compelled to testify against himself, or otherwise provide the State with evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature

Basically, they're saying that the 5th Amendment only protects evidence of a "testimonial or communicative nature". More on that below.

"[T]he prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may be material. The objection in principle would forbid a jury to look at a prisoner and compare his features with a photograph in proof."

They're quoting an earlier case here, but basically they're saying that a person's body can be used to incriminate them, without it violating the Fifth Amendment. Without that being true, you'd get all sorts of nonsensical rules, like the one they cited, where the mere act of allowing the jury to see the defendant would mean violating his right against self-incrimination, since then they could compare him against a photo taken of the suspect at the crime scene. Hell, even witnesses wouldn't be able to see defendants, since they'd be able to recognize them, potentially. Clearly the Fifth was not intended to protect against such ridiculousness.

In the present case, however, no such problem of application is presented. Not even a shadow of testimonial compulsion upon or enforced communication by the accused was involved either in the extraction or in the chemical analysis. Petitioner's testimonial capacities were in no way implicated; indeed, his participation, except as a donor, was irrelevant to the results of the test, which depend on chemical analysis and on that alone. 9 Since the blood test evidence, although an incriminating product of compulsion, was neither petitioner's testimony nor evidence relating to some communicative act or writing by the petitioner, it was not inadmissible on privilege grounds.

I.e. While compulsion was indeed involved, A) that it was compelled didn't change anything, B) there was no testimony or communication involved at all, C) the compulsion didn't relate to testimony or communication.

All of this ties back in with fingerprint locks, since your fingerprint is just another form of physical evidence, like any other that you may be asked to provide, and all three of those apply here as well. Whether it's compelled or not doesn't change anything, and it, in and of itself, does not communicate anything. By providing your fingerprint, you aren't acknowledging your guilt. You aren't testifying that you did it. You aren't indicating an awareness of anything at all. You're merely providing your fingerprint...in this case on a device they have in evidence, rather than on a piece of paper. That your fingerprint's ability to unlock the device can be used to incriminate you does not mean that your rights are being violated. It merely means that "the glove fit", so to speak.

The same is not true of something like a passcode, which is, by its very nature, communicative.

IANAL. I'm just a guy who responded with a knee-jerk reaction that of course this was wrong of them to do, gave it some more thought, found a contrary view that actually made a great deal of sense, and decided to go look up some of the case history on the subject to find out what the real answer was since I found the topic fascinating.

The law needs to track down that car if it is stolen but the person doing this is still an idiot.

A basic primer on contributory and comparative negligence

It's not exactly victim blaming if the victim could have acted in a more prudent manner.
But in this case, a user of online storage isn't being negligent in assuming their backed up files are secure.

Why is that a given?

With all the stories and movie plots about hacking computers, why would anyone assume their cloud drive is safe? Why should people whose livelihood is in making those movies assume their online storage is safe?

We aren't talking about Jane Derp in Iowa here. We are talking about someone whose image is worth millions, who has personal assistants and managers, and who makes movies about breaking into/out of secure storage locations. Having them presented as some uninformed suburban housewife is rather ridiculous.

The law needs to track down that car if it is stolen but the person doing this is still an idiot.

A basic primer on contributory and comparative negligence

It's not exactly victim blaming if the victim could have acted in a more prudent manner.
But in this case, a user of online storage isn't being negligent in assuming their backed up files are secure.

The next time, I wouldn't have a problem blaming the victims, as now everyone should know their nudes can get hacked.

Again,

"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."

Good question:

"Though their laws were created to protect minors from exploitation caused by others, states are prosecuting minors under child pornography statutes for sending nude or otherwise lurid self-portraits, even when the minors sent the selfies without coercion. The common quirk in the laws is that there is no exception for taking or distributing sexually explicit pictures of oneself. Thus, a high school student sending a racy seflie to a boyfriend or girlfriend could subject both themselves and the receiver to prosecution for child pornography. If the picture makes its way around other social circles through online or direct sharing, anyone who received or distributed the photo could also find themselves open to charges."

You talking about this?

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

An interesting case (I read the whole thing) but it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

And in any event I think it's likely that you don't really understand the Souza case or the issues that it does raise.

They might be able to negotiate a settlement.

Easements are only paid for once (usually prior to any building occurs) and the city/village gets the money. Courts generally assume easements are created to last forever, unless otherwise indicated in the document creating the easement. http://realestate.findlaw.com/land-use-laws/easement-basics.html

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

What makes you think that the second amendment can be used anywhere in the USA to overturn the militia? Try dreaming in technicolor.

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

What makes you think that the second amendment can be used anywhere in the USA to overturn the militia? Try dreaming in technicolor.

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

Get it through your thick paranoid skulls... Regulation IS NOT CONFISCATION.

But in the mind of libertarian nutball Cody Wilson

Instead of calling people names, why don't you and yours simply campaign to abolish the Second Amendment altogether? If we read the First the same way we are told to read the Second, our freedom of speech too would be limited to "petitioning the government" — and only for "redress of grievances". Oh, and only after a "cool-down" period.

"Assault firearms" my foot — you can't even carry a freaking sword or brass-knuckles in many parts of the country nowadays. If only the British kept those blades away from Patrick Henry and his "nutball" cohorts!

Get it through your thick paranoid skulls... Regulation IS NOT CONFISCATION.