Slashdot Mirror

Sorry, I disagree. Yes, the cop was totally out of line about the cellphone. But if, in fact, the woman was screaming and making a spectacle, then my opinion is that she should be subject to arrest in an environment like an airport. Even in a supermarket or a coffeehouse, people don't have the right to yell and scream and act in a broadly disruptive manner that interferes with conducting normal business, and similarly in an airport one cannot interfere with or interrupt the normal duties of the TSA officers. See e.g. Colton v. Kentucky 407 U.S. 104.

Also in this particular instance I would say the whole "civil disobedience" rule should hold sway: If the aim of this woman was to protest the TSA procedure as unjust, she should've been prepared to go all the way. Facing possible arrest is part of that -- otherwise, she's just going to carve out a one-time exception for herself in that one situation, instead of inciting public opinion and getting the entire law thrown out.

IOW, nothing to see here, move along. No seriously, MOVE ALONG.

We conclude that the Joint Resolution of June 5, 1933, in so far as it attempted to override the obligation created by the bond in suit, went beyond the congressional power.

The court ruled that the government didn't technically default on any of the loans, because they paid back the bonds according to the terms of the bonds.

Likewise today, if we see a stealth default, with inflation jumping massively due to the printing of extra dollars, then the people who own treasury bonds will be paid according to the terms of the bond. Unless they bought inflation protected TIPS, they will lose money. Those are the terms of the bond. (Note: even with TIPS, they may still lose money, since the inflation index is measured by the US and may not reflect the true inflation cost).

In other words, the US must honor the terms of its bonds, but they can be sneaky in the way the terms are honored. I know of no relevant court cases that happened during the Nixon shock; if you know of any, please let me know.

Most engineers know next to nothing about marketing and sales... to the degree that they actually despise interacting with customers.

Agree. Putting the engineers in charge would just lead to gold-plating, as the reward for engineers is a "job well done" rather than maximizing profits.

The problem with MBA's isn't that they maximize profits, it's that they maximize next quarter's profits. And that isn't the MBA's fault -- it's usually the fault of being a publicly traded corporation, which leads to separation of ownership and control.

Just as anti-corporatists bemoan the immortality and geographical reach of corporations, to add to that it is worth considering limiting the number of owners of a corporation and perhaps also setting a minimum period of ownership.

The role and purpose of the American public school system were well described by two historians, who stated: "[P]ublic education must prepare pupils for citizenship in the Republic. . . . It must inculcate the habits and manners of civility as values in themselves conducive to happiness and as indispensable to the practice of self-government in the community and the nation." C. Beard & M. Beard, New Basic History of the United States 228 (1968). In Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 76 -77 (1979), we echoed the essence of this statement of the objectives of public education as the "inculcat[ion of] fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system."

) the protection of speech in school simply is not an applicable example. You keep looking at this as a ruling on a child's right to purchase video games. That is not an example of speech. What is considered speech, as was supported by the Supreme Court, is the publication of a video game. If you could tell me why video games should not be considered speech in the way that literature, movies, music, or any other type of media are, I suppose I might agree that the government would be within its mandate to regulate them. However, as the Supreme Court ruled that video games fall under the umbrella of speech, they are protected by the first amendment. Pushing all of that aside, however, you are still a shitty conservative for wanting to cede the rights of citizens to choose what type of media to consume to the government.

"All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.
Read more: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/overview.html#ixzz1QVrlPM12
"
The states can regulate obscenity so long as it has no free speech to protect. If the kid had bought a hustler or playboy and not just a magazine full of naked women, they would have had a pretty solid case to work with as he could have claimed he was interested in the information in it, but since it was deemed as just obscene, they were allowed to to restrict it to minors.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=629
I skimmed through it, and they seem to be looking at it as pure obscenity, so the free speech issue never comes up.

Video games on the other hand have a much stronger case for free speech. And once you can prove that it is trying to convey ideas, than it is protected by first amendment

The Arizona law does not require probable cause. It lowers the bar to reasonable suspicion. They're different.

Really? What's this? http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/stages-sentencing/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html

You have "Unconstitutional" confused for "Inconvenient".

According to the summary and TFA, and the USAG, the changes are still constitutional. You may disagree with USAG, but you should doubt that the SCOTUS will.

It may not be common, but it does happen. There are two nuggets in this particular link. First, Alberto Gonzales claimed that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus -- just that, IF you already have the right, it can't be denied to you. Anyone familiar with the Constitution will understand that Gonzales' interpretation of the Constitution WRT habeas corpus is simply asinine. Second, in the linked article, Dean states that the Supreme Court has, in fact, rebuffed Gonzales' notion that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of habeas corpus (which, in all truth, I was not aware of until reading the article). I'm not saying that SCOTUS will always get it right when the AG gets it wrong, but sometimes SCOTUS does act as an effective brake on an otherwise out-of-control executive branch, fortunately. In this case, however, I'm not entirely sure I would count on SCOTUS to reign in the FBI. To my non-lawyer mind, some of these look sufficiently grey to possibly not trigger the "reasonableness" clause of the 4th Amendment (for example, searching through your trash, since, IIRC, there is precedent that once you put your trash on the curb, it's not an invasion of your privacy to search through it).

BTW, these are all things that the agents can do, physically, at any time, and any abuse of that ability is still unconstitutional. It's just that now they don't have to go through red tape to get legitimate actions approved administratively. It wasn't a matter of getting a warrant before, and it isn't now. So it allows lower-level cops to abuse your rights, instead of requiring an executive decision to abuse your rights, if anyone's going to use these tools illegally.

Sobriety checkpoints are legal because the Supreme Court says they are, unless your state constitution gives you additional protections. See Michigan vs. Sitz.

Wikileaks, the press, Anonymous, the whole internet, etc are not to blame for coming into possession of them through legal means.

I'd like to point out that according to appendix B of 18 U.S.C. 793 - they are indeed guilty. But that's just an example of a law that despite (or because of) best efforts is ridiculously broad in scope.

"Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense"

Source.

It doesn't need to involve extradition. There are plenty of people worldwide (I'd say millions, easy), who break U.S. law and that could be, according to law, subject to prosecution in the U.S. for breaking Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2423(b). .

2423(f) refers to Chapter 109A as its bright line for defining "illicit sexual conduct", as far as non-commercial sexual activity is concerned.(see here)

.

The FBI has been doing this for decades. That notorious threat to public safety, Lucille Ball, had an extensive FBI file.

Maybe they had a reason for looking?

America may have loved Lucy but she made the FBI suspicious when she registered with the Communist Party in 1936 at the insistence of her grandfather. Although the House Committee on Un-American Activities began their investigation in 1953, no evidence was ever shown that she had supported the Communist Party and her registration appeared to be only for the sake of pleasing her grandfather. --- Lucille Ball

-----

Things I didn't know about American Communism: -- David Bernstein

I'm reviewing Martin Redish's book, The Logic of Persecution, for the Northwestern Law Review. The book is an interesting look at the so-called "McCarthy era" (which both pre and post-dated McCarthy) from a First Amendment perspective. I'll post a link to the review soon.......

Here are some of the facts I learned from doing research for my review, some of which are just "fun facts," and others of which affected my view of the era in question (if you want footnotes, you will have to wait until I circulate the paper):

(1) The first chairman of the House committee that was the predecessor to HUAC, Samuel Dickstein, was probably a Soviet agent.

(2) Hollywood scriptwriters who were members of the Communist Party (CPUSA) were expected to use their positions to promote Communist doctrine and the Party's agenda, or, if that was not possible, at least to work to exclude anti-Soviet sentiment. (And I already knew, but you might not have, that each of the Hollywood Ten was a member of the CPUSA.)

(3) The first federal prosecution under the Smith Act (later used to prosecute CPUSA leaders) was the prosecution of eighteen leaders of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party 1941. The CPUSA not only applauded this action; Party leaders assisted in the prosecution.

(4) The Smith Act prosecutions of CPUSA leaders were largely a result of the fact that top government officials had recently learned from decoded "Venona cables" between the Soviet Union and its agents and affiliates abroad that the Soviet Union used American Communists to engage in wide scale espionage against the United States. The CPUSA leaders were not prosecuted for espionage and related charges (conspiracy) because that would have involved revealing that the U.S. had deciphered the Soviets' code, and also much of the additional evidence the government had was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the government resurrected the Smith Act, and proceeded with prosecutions of highly dubious constitutionality (though upheld by the Supreme Court, which implicitly recognized that these prosecutions were "special").

(5) Not only did the CPUSA recruit spies for the Soviet Union through its "secret apparatus," it was prepared to engage in violence on behalf of the Soviet Union.

(6) The Smith Act prosecutions and other government and private anti-Communist activity destroyed the usefulness of the CPUSA to the Soviet Union for espionage.

(7) Many of the questionable tactics used by the government against domestic Communists in the late 1940s and 1950s, including Smith Act prosecutions, were previously used by the government against domestic Nazis and fascists in the late 1930s and early 1940s by the Roosevelt Administration.

(8) Alger Hiss was not prosecuted for spying because the statute of limitations had expired.

(9) During the "Red Decade" of the 1930s, Hollywood Communists ran their own blacklist againist their polit

Proper procedures were followed.

Bin Laden, as leader of the international terrorist and insurgent group Al Qaeda, declared war on the United States in 1996. After the many attacks that killed thousands of people and treating it as a police problem, the US Congress issued the Authorization for Use of Military Force (equivalent to a declaration of war) following the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans. Intelligence located Bin Laden, military leader of Al Qaeda, and he was killed by a commando raid. A similar fate occurred to Admiral Yamamoto in World War 2. All perfectly legitimate, and legal under the Law of War.

Interesting, so the US has ground troops in Pakistan, too? Shall we assume that they have both permission of the Pakistani government and the constitutional blessing of the US Congress for being at war in a FOURTH country...

Why, yes, as a matter of fact they do. And I'm glad to see that you are clear that they are fighting against the same enemy in Pakistan, not against Pakistan.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.--- Authorization for Use of Military Force

The coverage was pretty clear, this Navy Seal strike was carried out without warning to Pakistan or any allies. It was "considered to sensitive". That said, CIA ops tend to fall into a civilian category, and don't implicitly create a fourth military front. The CIA has been killing Al-Queda and Taliban leaders inside of Pakistan for years now, primarily (but not exclusively) via the much publicized Predator Drones.

That said, I can't see any Pakistani leaders taking a public stance against this particular operation; it's a major embarrassment for them at best. In Afghanistan, Karzai has already praised the action, painting it as a warning for all remaining Taliban to put down their arms and stop killing their brothers. Perhaps more interesting is the idea that, as a figurehead for a war against the west (where everyone in the cause is counted as a soldier), I find it hard to believe that Bin Laden's death was seen as anything other than an eventuality. Considering their already effective recruiting techniques, I would bet his death hurts Al-Queda's cause a lot more than it will help.

Interesting, so the US has ground troops in Pakistan, too? Shall we assume that they have both permission of the Pakistani government and the constitutional blessing of the US Congress for being at war in a FOURTH country...

Why, yes, as a matter of fact they do. And I'm glad to see that you are clear that they are fighting against the same enemy in Pakistan, not against Pakistan.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.--- Authorization for Use of Military Force

Did you even read my post? I said qualified immunity requires the plaintiff show bad faith. It's very rare that a court finds this, and holds an officer liable.

As for the second part, stop impersonating a lawyer. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Nothing in that section precludes a state or city from indemnifying a police officer (stop saying "department," cities pay lawsuits, not departments), and California law requires the city defend the police officer, and most local codes require the city to do so as well. And the city even has the discretion to pay punitive damages where bad faith has been found, and this authority has been upheld by the 9th Circuit.

Again, lawyer impersonator, I've worked both sides of the bar in police civil rights cases. Your comments about LA are silly. The LA Muni Code requires the city pay damages of police officers, as do most cities, and this has been tested by federal courts, even in punitive damages (bad faith) cases.

Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.

Would this be the case in question re Amstrad v Western Digital? Also, the WP article on Amstrad talks about them suing Seagate, which sounds like it might stand correction.

The answer to this is no, not all states demand emissions inspections. State Emissions Standards and Testing Plus the problem is if I live in Area A (lets say Gary, IN) but spend all of my time commuting in Area B(lets say Chicago, IL), Area B has no way to get taxes for your use of the infrastructure. Usually people will fill up gas where they drive though, so there is a good chance that Area B will get tax money when you fill up.

Any facts in header files are simply not eligible for copyright protection, even when embedded in a copyrighted header file.

Facts are such things as POSIX identifiers, various data structures, etc. Bionic strips out the stuff eligible for protection, and leaves "just the facts" and other non-copyrighted entities.

And no, we've pretty much demolished your claims of being a lawyer. You have continually claimed that Feist vs Rural says that copyright extends to both the layout and presentation PLUS the underlying facts, despite the the judgment saying the exact opposite, as anyone who follows the above link will see.

please just go read feist. and avoid reading excerpts. an author’s original compilation, arrangement or selection of facts can be protected by copyright wtf does this mean ? IT MEANS YOU ARE AN IDIOT. are they going to award damages based on only the infringing potions or the whole work ? YOU DUMB SHIT BAG. THE WHOLE WORK IS PROTECTED. read the fucking text and interpret it you moron.

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

The original court, and the appeals court, agreed with your stand. The Supreme Court reversed it - the "collections copyright" doctrine was overthrown. You could no longer claim a copyright on both the layout and the underlying facts, as the Supreme Court ruled that facts are not subject to copyright in Feist vs Rural.

Exerpts.

Although Feist altered many of Rural's listings, several were identical to listings in Rural's white pages. The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural in its copyright infringement suit, holding that telephone directories are copyrightable. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

Rural's white pages are not entitled to copyright, and therefore Feist's use of them does not constitute infringement. Pp. 344-364.

(a) Article I, 8, cl. 8, of the Constitution mandates originality as a prerequisite for copyright protection. The constitutional requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Since facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship, they are not original, and thus are not copyrightable. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author, not to the facts themselves. This fact/expression dichotomy severely limits the scope of protection in fact-based works. Pp. 344-351.

So, the Supreme Court didn't affirm the Appeals Court decision. They explained where past courts had gone wrong in awarding copyright to compilations of mere facts.

Lower courts that adopted a "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" test - which extended a compilation's copyright protection beyond selection and arrangement to the facts themselves - misconstrued the 1909 Act and eschewed the fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or ideas. Pp. 351-361.

(c) Rural's white pages do not meet the constitutional or statutory requirements for copyright protection. While Rural has a valid copyright in the directory as a whole because it contains some forward text and some original material in the yellow pages, there is nothing original in Rural's white page
...
916 F.2d 718, reversed.

So, while Rural had a copyright on parts of their work, they didn't have a copyright on the facts themselves. As tghe supremes pointed out above, it is a fundamental axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or idea

Further on,

The District Court granted summary judgment to Rural, explaining that "[c]ourts have consistently held that telephone directories are copyrightable" and citing a string of lower court decisions. 663 F.Supp. 214, 218 (1987). In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed "for substantially the reasons given by the district court." App. to Pet. for Cert. 4a, judgt. order reported at 916 F.2d 718 (1990). We granted certiorari, 498 U.S. 808 (1990), to determine whether the copyright in Rural's directory protects the names, towns, and telephone numbers copied by Feist.
...
This protection is subject to an important limitation. The mere fact that a work is co

Massachusetts is the other.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1330122.html

"...gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/904

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1942 that an enemy doesn't have to be in uniform and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 further defines it.

He is going to rot in prison.

Here is Art. 104 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47/X/904

Any person who - (1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or (2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to, or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.

Looks like the procecution will need to prove intent to assist those against whom we are at war.

Oh, see also the Ninth Circuit's actual ruling.

  In addition to trademark and unfair competition issues the complaint includes: "(t)he Estate claims that it holds the rights of publicity to exclude others from the use of the name and personality of J.R.R. Tolkien in a fictional novel, and those rights include the right to preclude Hillard from authoring and Cruel Rune from publishing Mirkwood."

California has an unusually strong statute for "deceased personalities": California Civil Code Section 990 Deceased Personality's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Likeness in Advertising or Soliciting

Although it prohibits some commercial uses of a "deceased personality" there's an exception for "(a) play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, film, radio or television program, other than an advertisement or commercial announcement ... " [emphasis added] From the complaint it's not clear what their argument is then re. "the rights of publicity" referred to in the complaint ...

IANAL

How would you define "ex post facto law"? As it turns out, my definition seems to match Calder v. Bull, which is apparently the relevant precedent in the U.S.:

I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and the intent of the prohibition. 1st. Every law that makes an action , done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2nd. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3rd. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

-- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798)

Has [a claim of slander of title] been used in the past against a patent holder??

Have you asked Google? The first result is a Groklaw article from the SCO v. IBM era. It cites an article on FindLaw; the link there is broken, but I found it with Google. Slander of title is the malicious publication of false and disparaging words by which special damages were sustained, causing a plaintiff who owns the property disparaged to lose a sale. FindLaw's article cites Prosser and Keeton (apparently Prosser and Keeton on Torts) that patents or other intangible property may be the subject of such a claim.

The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries[.]

The Constitution does not say that Congress shall have power to provide for patents to the first to file; instead, the plain language limits the grant to the inventor. And the Patent Clause "is both a grant of power and a limitation . ... The Congress in the exercise of the patent power may not overreach the restraints imposed by the stated constitutional purpose. " Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 5 (1966) . What's done outside the U.S. is not particularly persuasive if it clashes with the Constitution.Look for a constitutional challenge if Congress adopts first-to-file. Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

Wait a minute, lawyers are upset about systematic over-billing?

There have been cases where lawyers have been cited for billing more than 24 hours per day...

http://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/2010/08/lawyer-bills-more-than-24-hours-a-day-gets-suspended.html

The problem was people were told this was to go after assets of high level drug dealers..the fancy cars, houses, etc. And who is in favor of drug dealers and mafia keeping ill-gotten gains? As usual, with unintentional consequences, it has turned into: If the police find a joint in your car (and especially if it's a NICE car) whether it's really your car or you're driving your girl/boy friends, they will seize it. Anything that can bring a tidy sum. Even if you're never charged with an actual crime.

The same shakedown has been used with cash. If you carry a large amount of cash police can seize it, without even proof that it was used for illegal business. And being that the majority of paper money in circulation contains traces of drugs already, it's not too unlikely a DEA drug sniffing canine is going indicated a hit.

I hate to be blunt, but the authorities have long since seized the right to abscond with *actual* property - cars, homes, et al based on the mere accusation of a drug related crime. Unfortunately everyone save the Libertarians (and some Liberals, including the ACLU.) went "Well, that's drug stuff - I'm sure they did *something* to deserve it".

From Findlaw

"As detailed in a Frontline report from 2000, federal and local practices regarding property seizure in drug cases shifted in 1984, when federal law created forfeiture funds for property seized by the DEA and FBI, and allowed local law enforcement to share proceeds from the sale of property seized."

You've waited about 25 years too long to suddenly realise "Oh . . . this could apply to *me*?!?" (Good old Saint Reagan - Who'da thunk it? I mean - not counting people actually familiar with his record.). If people don't like this, they're going to have to go back to stopping the actual real property seizures and start pushing back from there.

Pug

Oh really?

In three states, there is a provision called the "Cold Weather Rule." In Minnesota, Missouri, and Kansas, the power company cannot turn off the heat to a home under certain circumstances. For instance, in Minnesota, homeowners are protected from heat shut off from October 15-April 15 each year. In Missouri, the heat can not be turned off if the temperature is forecasted to drop below 32 degrees. In 2009, the Kansas Cold Weather Rule when into effect for the period of November 1-March 31. There are also some regulations in New York City that may prohibit shut off of heating during the cold weather months.

http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2010/01/what-to-do-when-the-cold-snap-is-on-but-heat-is-off.html

Care to hazard a guess what happens if the power co. shuts off an elderly shut-in's heat during the winter and they freeze to death?

A Findlaw article suggests that Falling Asleep, is much more prevalent than most people know. NHTSA estimates that as many as 100,000 accidents each year are caused by fatigued drivers, resulting in 1550 deaths, more than 40,000 injuries.

Yet this pales in comparison to distracted driving. In 2008, distracted driving accidents resulted in 6000 deaths and more than 500,000 injuries. (Not all distractions are cell phone related, but you would never learn that from the press).

That, in turn, is nothing compared to an estimated 10,839 people who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2009. (32% of all traffic deaths).

So I hate to see solutions like skin alcohol sensors proposed when they are so easily defeated by gloves or simply wiping ones hands. Especially when it won't detect the "one for the road" drivers, where alcohol has not yet even reached their fingertips. It trivializes the problem. I firmly believe that People who are not "OK to drive" always know it, or always suspect it. A device that guesses alcohol content simply provides an excuse for people who marginally should not drive, and provides no deterrent to those who intend to drive anyway.

You believe a falsehood. Evidence unlawfully obtained by a private person is admissible, and Kernell wasn't a government employee. The Fourth Amendment protects against actions by government officials, not other private individuals. See BURDEAU v. MCDOWELL where a thief stole private papers which were nevertheless later used to prosecute the owner of the papers.

I think it's possible he's covered....

18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Except they were prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917 which was replaced by the Espionage and Sabotage Act of 1954 which permits the death penalty only when a foreign power identified and killed an individual acting as an agent of the US or where the espionage directly concerns nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794

While the leaked cables and war documents were embarrassing and affected diplomatic efforts, I don't see any direct violations of the requirements for the death penalty. The Rosenbergs did.

The actual charge is likely to be something along the lines of espionage.

That being said, the bigger problem I have is that Assange seems to be doing his level best to make as unsympathetic a defendant of himself as possible. If he had simply put things up with notes to the effect of "This was acquired and is now made public" or even "Look at this which shows what the US government/military does", he'd have an easier time claiming whatever immunities status as a journalist may offer.

Instead, he ruthlessly re-edited video and released only those things he felt like releasing, slanting the story as much as possible. His conduct and behavior - stating goals to "take down" various entities - don't make him sympathetic either.

Besides, when dictatorial, murdering thugs like Hugo Chavez are the primary people taking your side, that ought to be a not-so-subtle hint that you're not quite on the right side.

You seem to have forgotten the important keyword "unreasonable". Anyway, a breath test is not a search, any more than a speed camera is.

SCOTUS disagrees based on precedent, as Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion on SKINNER v. RAILWAY LABOR EXECUTIVES' ASSN., 489 U.S. 602 (1989):

"We have long recognized that a 'compelled intrusio[n] into the body for blood to be analyzed for alcohol content' must be deemed a Fourth Amendment search. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 767 -768 (1966). See also Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 760 (1985). In light of our society's concern for the security of one's person, see, e. g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9 (1968), it is obvious that this physical intrusion, penetrating beneath the skin, infringes an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. The ensuing chemical analysis of the sample to obtain physiological data is a further invasion of the tested employee's privacy interests. Cf. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324 -325 (1987). Much the same is true of the breath-testing procedures required under Subpart D of the regulations. Subjecting a person to a breathalyzer test, which generally requires the production of alveolar or "deep lung" breath for chemical analysis, see, e. g., California v. [489 U.S. 602, 617] Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 481 (1984), implicates similar concerns about bodily integrity and, like the blood-alcohol test we considered in Schmerber, should also be deemed a search, see 1 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 2.6(a), p. 463 (1987). See also Burnett v. Anchorage, 806 F.2d 1447, 1449 (CA9 1986); Shoemaker v. Handel, 795 F.2d 1136, 1141 (CA3), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 986 (1986)."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=489&invol=602

Actually, my $20 bill would still be worth the same thing: "20 US dollars". Sure, the arbitrary value of the unit the bill is based upon has depreciated significantly

“Value” isn’t something that can be expressed in a fixed number of US dollars. The value of the US dollar changes.

However, in true Socratic method, how am I to define the limits of my own beliefs unless I am willing to entertain what seems like the most absurd comedy?

You may, but your extension of the notion wasn’t any less silly as the original notion.

Can you find any case law on incidental or unintended damage to marital property?

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1312928.html:
“The specter of prosecution for the destruction of marital property through unintentional acts such as house cleaning, we believe, does not provide a sufficient justification for excusing intentional destruction of property. Prosecution for an accidental act of property destruction should be no more likely than an assault prosecution arising out of an accidental physical injury to one’s spouse. Both types of criminal act require intent, and we rely on the good judgment of prosecutors and fact finders at trial to sort out the intentional cases from the unintentional ones.”

Tautologically, property is already property... you just disagree with the current definition of "property".

That’s fairly obvious, yes. And, at least in my opinion (or I wouldn’t have it), my definition of property is more valid than the one expressed in the law, so unless my opinion puts me at odds with the law (which would leave me at a decision whether to violate the law and possibly suffer consequences, or temporarily suspend my opinion to avoid that), I’ll continue to hold it.

But I'm curious... what then do you intend that [intellectual property] should be defined as?

A secret is a secret, and what isn’t is not; the entire business model based on selling the same information repeatedly to multiple people is thus fundamentally flawed. The claim that “I’ll tell you because you paid me, but I own this information and you can’t tell anyone else” is patently ridiculous. If you don’t trust them to keep it a secret, you don’t tell them.

But if hyper-inflation occurred tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter a bit what you think that $20 under your mattress is worth. So no, your own opinion of the value of your assets is fairly irrelevant. They only have actual value when someone else ascribes value to them.

Actually, my $20 bill would still be worth the same thing: "20 US dollars". Sure, the arbitrary value of the unit the bill is based upon has depreciated significantly, but the bill still maintains a fixed value in relation to the arbitrarily established fiat.

After all, the "dollar" has special pseudo-objective value precisely because we have all bought in to it having an "objective" value. Thus, a $20 bill has a value attached to it even when maintained in secret, because said value has been pre-ascribed and pre-accepted by others.

Don’t humour the notion. It was ridiculous and meant to sound ridiculous... and the contortions and gymnastics you’re trying to do to make it sound logical just reinforce the point that it isn’t logical.

I'm aware that you attempted to concoct a ridiculous analogy in an attempt to sway my opinion. However, in true Socratic method, how am I to define the limits of my own beliefs unless I am willing to entertain what seems like the most absurd comedy?

I also don't think I've had to do any particularly strenuous mental gymnastics to project the notion of contracts upon the field of property. If you think that my single somersault is a dazzling display of magical mental gymnastics, then please for the love of god do not get into programming...

But w.r.t. destruction of jointly-owned property – actual property – there is precedent: the answer is most certainly yes, you can.

In Iowa, the appellate court held that “the wording of [its] statute, as well as public policies of preventing domestic violence and damage to property generally, suggests that the statute should apply to marital property as well as any other.”[cite]. The court in People v. Kheyfets, [cite: N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997], stated that holding individuals liable for destruction of property they own jointly with another “would be in tune with the spirit of the recent Federal and State domestic violence legislation.” ... Our conclusion, that D.C.Code SS22-303 applies to individuals who destroy jointly owned property, is certainly consistent with the intent of those legislative initiatives.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1076345.html

Interestingly, it holds that destroying martial property is a violation of Domestic Violence law, not the general "Malicious Mischief" form of property destruction that destroying, or vandalizing another person's property would qualify as. In as such, it is declared to be a criminal violation of marital conduct.

I'm aware that the difference holds little substantive meaning... a crime is still a crime even if it is covered under a different section of law... but it is still abstractly a crime because it is a show of marital violence, rather than simply damage of property.

Can you find any case law on incidental or unintended damage to marital property? (Of course, this would have to apply only to civil matters, as negligent damage to property is hardly on the level of criminal liability.)

I suspect that any civil court hearing about damages that were not intentionally caused by one party of the marriage upon martial property would be ruled as a jointly held loss. Namely, if the marriage is to accept incidental and intentional gains as joint property, then they must accept incidental damage.

It might even be possible to argue affirmatively against the domestic violence interpretation of destruction of property that no violence to other individual was ever intended. Such as taking

"Value" is not just the value that others ascribe to my property, but also the value that I ascribe to my property.

But if hyper-inflation occurred tomorrow, it wouldn’t matter a bit what you think that $20 under your mattress is worth. So no, your own opinion of the value of your assets is fairly irrelevant. They only have actual value when someone else ascribes value to them.

Humoring the notion of "a marriage is property", the woman owned the marriage as much as the man... can I be charged for destruction of property for damaging some piece of property that I myself own? Can I be charged with destruction of property for something that is community property of my marriage? The answer is no.

Don’t humour the notion. It was ridiculous and meant to sound ridiculous... and the contortions and gymnastics you’re trying to do to make it sound logical just reinforce the point that it isn’t logical.

But w.r.t. destruction of jointly-owned property – actual property – there is precedent: the answer is most certainly yes, you can.

In Iowa, the appellate court held that “the wording of [its] statute, as well as public policies of preventing domestic violence and damage to property generally, suggests that the statute should apply to marital property as well as any other.”[cite]. The court in People v. Kheyfets, [cite: N.Y.Sup.Ct.1997], stated that holding individuals liable for destruction of property they own jointly with another “would be in tune with the spirit of the recent Federal and State domestic violence legislation.” ... Our conclusion, that D.C.Code SS22-303 applies to individuals who destroy jointly owned property, is certainly consistent with the intent of those legislative initiatives.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/dc-court-of-appeals/1076345.html

So, what do you expect to win from this argument? I am correct that the law you quoted was violated because he acquired property, and it is unlikely that I will ever be wrong in this argument.

Nothing, really, but eventually hopefully the law will agree that property is property, and “intellectual property” (though it has value) is not property.

Once upon a time it would have been unheard of to have fines for swearing on TV yet they are common place today.

What the fuck fantasy world are you living in? The Radio Act of 1927 specifically stated that programming aired by licensed broadcasters could not include "obscene, indecent, or profane language". Broadcast of such material could result in the broadcaster's license not being renewed. The Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, continued this tradition, stating:

SEC. 303. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall- ...

(m) Have authority to suspend the license of any operator for a period not exceeding two years upon proof sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the licensee ... (4) has transmitted superfluous radio communications or signals or radio communications containing profane or obscene words or language

Thus further empowering the FCC to actively revoke the license of those violating decency standards.

In 1978, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation explicitly empowered the FCC to prohibit the broadcast of material deemed obscene during hours when children might be among the audience.

Finally, in 2005, that fine Republican Mr. George Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 which further stiffened the penalties levied by the FCC who violate decency standards.

In short, the FCC has *always* been empowered to punish those who broadcast "obscene" material over public airwaves. This tradition is nearly 80 years old, and the current powers wielded by the FCC are hardly anything new, nor were they granted by any one party or political affiliation.

The law can say anything is anything. That doesn't mean it is. But in this case, it doesn't even say what you think it says. Dowling v. United States, in which a prosecution was attempted for "trafficking stolen property" because a person was in possession of bootleg records, established that copyright violation is not equivalent to theft, as far as the law is concerned.

That aside, the rest of your examples are not problematic because of copying, but because of fraud. If I build a car myself and offer to sell it to you telling you I built it myself, that's fine. If I claim that Toyota or Ford built it, that's fraud. Same with your Gibson/Les Paul example—the sellers in your example are representing that the guitars are something that they're not. If Xingxao Factory makes a Les Paul knockoff and sells them as a Xingxao Special, there's no trouble at all. If they claim Les Paul/Gibson made it and that's not true, they're defrauding the buyer.

The same is true of identity theft. If someone knows my name, there's no problem. If someone tries to claim they're me, they're committing fraud. I know of no cases where someone putting something up on a torrent site or what have you claims they wrote/made it, so your example is inapplicable.

As to YouTube, they fully comply with the DMCA's safe harbor and takedown provisions, which is the relevant law. I'm not sure how you think they're "illegal" given that, since they actually fully comply with the applicable law. The DMCA, in one of the few things it did right, released service providers from liability provided they do exactly that. It would be a poor choice indeed to say "Well, the law says you get immunity if you do foo, bar, and baz, and you did foo, bar, and baz, but we're going to hold you liable anyway."

Given that. I'm not sure on what grounds you base your "illegal business" argument, nor on the grounds that such protection would not be available to you or I. Any site admin can put up the required OCILLA notice, comply with notices received as required, and take advantage of the immunity provisions, and quite a few do. YouTube isn't getting some kind of special treatment here.

But the bigger issue I see is that of a law that's ultimately unenforceable, given new technology. A few people might get hit with lawsuits, but the odds are so astronomically low that everyone else doesn't really care, and the activity just gets driven underground and behind heavier encryption/anonymization. That tends to show that both the law and the business model it protects are unworkable, and both need to be changed or scrapped. That's a problem, and saying "People should just refrain from doing this" or "This should be illegal" obviously hasn't worked—as you know well yourself. We need an approach that acknowledges and integrates current technology, current reality, and the clear will of a very large number of people, not one that attempts to ignore all of those.

For your final bit, you say buying a DVD and copying it is stealing. Stealing from whom, exactly? Stealing requires that I unlawfully deprive someone of something they had, not that they theoretically might have had. If deprivation of profits one might otherwise have had is theft, me riding my bicycle instead of driving my car "steals" from the oil and gas companies every day. Such an assertion is ludicrous. Finding a better way to do something is not theft, even if it means someone else doesn't profit where they otherwise would have.

The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.

Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.

Not quite.

18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;....

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

This also looks interesting: 18 U.S.C. 798 (disclosing classified information)

As does this: 18 U.S.C. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited

The Pentagon Papers case does not have the expansive application that many assume.

II. There is no Clarity in Current Constitutional Doctrine Over Whether The First Amendment Permits the Criminal Prosecution of Reporters for the Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material. There is, however, Substantial Reason to Doubt that Current First Amendment Doctrine Does Bar the Making of Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material Criminal. Testimony of Dean Rodney A. Smolla, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

There is plenty of reason to believe that the investigation against Assange is motivated by his behavior, not by some government conspiracy.
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth

Contrary to some people's ideas, Interpol does get involved in rape cases.

Since when does the CIA investigate crime?

The CIA has its own Inspector General, and no doubt other investigators. There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.

I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime.

Assange was/is allegedly?/apparently? involved in a conspiracy to procure and publish hundreds of thousands of stolen classified US Government documents on the web so that any enemy of the United States can access them and hunt down named info

Ugh, I know I'm late on the reply, but I was out of town!

I will agree with you and the many others that agree that 180F is far too hot to serve a beverage that, at McDonald's, is served in a flimsy cup, and (was, they now add them) handed to the customer in a car. In fact, I'm one of those boneheads, having never owned a car with proper cupholders, that holds cups between the legs. And I drive stick.

However, courts since the Stella case have, on appeal, conceded that 180F is the proper temperature at which coffee is to be served. The National Coffee Association of the USA, Inc. indicates that coffee should be brewed with water in the range of 195-205 degrees for proper extraction, and should be served immediately. If it is not, it should be served within a temperature range of 180-185F. See their website.

As per your link, Stella and McDonald's ended up settling out of court. What the link does not indicate is that McDonald's had already begun the appeals process, and the parties settled out of court to end the appeal. It does seem odd that they left that fact out, otherwise, why would Stella have taken a settlement deal after she already had a jury verdict?

I have not intensely researched the subject, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a coffee maker manufacturer was not liable for burns suffered by consumers of the machine's product. Here is the link to that. The first half is jurisdictional nonsense, the meat starts about halfway down.

The Court here didn't even use the National Coffee Association's recommended temperatures (because neither side of the case presented any sort of evidence about the proper temperature), but the Court did their own homework and came up with ANSI CM-1-1986, Standard 5.2.1 that says 170-205F, 2 minutes after brewing is the standard. Standard 5.2.3.2 states that the brew shall not be allowed to go beneath 170F while the carafe heater is still on.

Took 5 seconds of googling. Here is an analysis of why he should have recused himself rather than writing a poorly reasoned "excuse" to stay on the bench:

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia should be commended for writing an extraordinarily detailed memorandum explaining his reasons for refusing to recuse himself from a case in which his duck hunting partner, Vice President Richard Cheney, is a named party. The Sierra Club alleges in the litigation that energy industry officials were de facto members of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), a federal energy task force chaired by Cheney, and that NEPDG’s records and minutes therefore must be made public pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The statutory basis for recusal is 28 U.S.C. sec. 455(a), which provides that any judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Indeed. It's an "old trick" that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The aggregation of the start and end points of a conversation, but not the content of a conversation, constitutes what is known as a "pen register". Such collection was judged to be legal without a warrant or court oversight in Smith v. Maryland 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Courts have subsequently found that pen register statutes apply similarly to IP addresses, logs of web sites visited, and the "envelope" of an email message — its To: and From: addresses, dates, and related information.

There's more to this story...the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 — passed by a supermajority of both houses of Congress — allows for the signals intelligence collection without a warrant via equipment and capabilities within the United States, provided the target is not a US Person. This requires determining which traffic content can be lawfully collected without a warrant, sometimes with the assistance of telecom operators in the US. In order to determine which traffic can be lawfully collected without a warrant, basic information about the traffic, such as its source and destination, must also be examined. Such examination of metadata — a "pen register" — does not require a warrant. If you don't like what you're hearing, don't complain to me: the Supreme Court decided this over three decades ago, and the decision has held with modern technologies as well.

The hallmark of the FISA amendments are judiciously protecting US Persons, while removing restrictions on where and how foreign intelligence on non-US Persons can be collected simply because it's traveling through a glass pipe in San Francisco instead of over the air on the streets of Yemen — and that includes warrantless monitoring of identified foreign intelligence targets, and the technical mechanisms via which their communications can be located, targeted, and extracted from data streams within the US. The cornerstone of the current law and the FISC decision is the protection of the privacy and rights of United States Persons. The current law is even more stringent with respect to US Persons than previous law: an individualized warrant from FISC is required to target a US Person anywhere on the globe; before, US Persons did not enjoy the same explicit protections under the law outside of the US.

So there's a bit more going on here that's not directly related to this story.

Please see the case of NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES which examines this section and the surrounding ones, and found that the New York Times was not guilty under it for publishing classified documents:

  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713

There is *no* explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, or any other doctrine that the USA was founded on. There is a limitation on unreasonable search and seizure, but no explicit right to privacy.

Check out Caroline Kennedy's "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.

Correct, there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Luckily, there doesn't have to be. Read the Ninth Amendment. Also, check out Warren and Brandeis' "The Right to Privacy". A bit dated, but still relevant.