Slashdot Mirror

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

I wonder if some of the anti-Wikipedia fervor evident among US lawmakers will also be brought to bear against the AP and other mainstream media sources.

Please lets not conflate Wikipedia and Wikileaks. That is not good for anyone.

Once again the US Congress is grandstanding, pounding their chests, and proposing another redundant law. We already have several laws that make the disclosure of US Defense information illegal. For non-govt employees Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code apply.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794 [findlaw.com]
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793 [findlaw.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

These are others that apply if you work for or contract to the government, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, 952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Where does this notion about them not having a security clearance making them immune to prosecution come from? It doesn't matter if anyone at Wikileaks has/had a security clearance. The dissemination of classified US Defense information is STILL ILLEGAL under US law. Please see Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Where does this notion about them not having a security clearance making them immune to prosecution come from? It doesn't matter if anyone at Wikileaks has/had a security clearance. The dissemination of classified US Defense information is STILL ILLEGAL under US law. Please see Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?

No one gave Wikileaks a security clearance; they are incapable of leaking anything. They are merely publishing information that was leaked by someone else. So how are all these attacks on Wikileaks' right to publish justified vs. those of the NY Times or the Associated Press?

Where does this notion about them not having a security clearance making them immune to prosecution come from? It doesn't matter if anyone at Wikileaks has/had a security clearance. The dissemination of classified US Defense information is STILL ILLEGAL under US law. Please see Sections 793, 794, 798, Title 18, United States Code.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/794
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

Obama advanced Elizabeth Warren for the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and she has railed against this problem for years: "Today, the big banks churn out page after page of incomprehensible fine print to obscure the cost and risks of checking accounts, credit cards, mortgages and other financial products. The result is that consumers can't make direct product comparisons, markets aren't competitive, and costs are higher."

It's not hard to see the tie between confusopoly and the mortgage meltdown that wrecked the economy, either - and here I include not only under-educated sub-prime borrowers, but bankers creating and selling complex derivatives that were not well understood by ratings agencies, regulators, nor even the bankers themselves.

However, Republicans slammed the bill creating the CFPB as "a government takeover of the economy. The President and Democrats today gave financial regulators the power to create years worth of financial uncertainty, which will only lead to more struggling businesses and fewer jobs." Just as with the Credit Card Reform Act of 2009.

I notice that our government officials are very good at making laws that "appear" to kosher with the constitution when they actually are NOT. Lets make it simple. If you don't like the first Amendment and its freedom of the press then you just make a law that says possession of "classified/government/secrect" information is illegal as heck. This way, you can maintain your image of supporting the Constitution while not having to fear it. You can classify the fact that they take a crap each morning as a security precaution and make it a capital offense if that information is given to the press!

This is being worked on. Give it some time.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/12/shield/
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030926.html

I am under the impression that the public domain portion of copyrighted materials stopped growing in 1999 and will not resume growing until 2019 because of the copyright date on Mickey Mouse. In 1997-1998, Disney and associates spent $6.3 million on campaign donations and got the 20 year extension.

I'll bet they will start spending in 2017 and this time they'll spend 5x as much.

If this happens, I wish the congress would just grant Disney a 1,000 year copyright on cartoon characters and leave everything else alone so the public domain can resume growing.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html

Here’s what the email has told us: “Unauthorized use of a person’s name and/or likeness constitutes a violation of California Civil Code Section 3344, which prohibits the use of any person’s name, photograph or likeness in a product without that person’s prior consent”

Thus http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

a)Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.

More importantly for our purposes, assuming that the radiation in a backscatter X-ray is about a hundredth the dose of a dental X-ray, we find that a backscatter X-ray increases the odds of dying from cancer by about 16 ten millionths of one percent. That suggests that for every billion passengers screened with backscatter radiation, about 16 will die from cancer as a result. ... Globally, about 2 billion passengers fly each year, so screening all passengers with backscatter X-ray scans could reasonably be expected to result in about 32 excess cancer deaths per year.

This is assuming of course that the backscatter x-ray works the same way. I'm not a physicist, but at least one professor at UCSF has raised the concern ( http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20022541-281.html#ixzz155dhfUQO ) that calculating the dosage by averaging over the whole body will give you a false low dose because the radiation is reflected off the skin and so is more concentrated there. Of course there are very intelligent people on both sides of the discussion, but I think it's a moot point regarding risk/benefit because the risks as stated above by experts (even though they may actually be higher) are already greater than the number of people who currently die to terrorism. So, our protective measure results in more deaths per year than does airline terrorism. Again, take all this with a grain of salt because of confounding variables like age and other idiosyncratic factors (will they live long enough to develop cancer? are they more susceptible to cancer due to youth/genetics?), but I'm going to opt for the pat-down to err on the side of caution, as it were.

The Wikipedia page has a good overview of the conflicting sources regarding the safety of the scanners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter_X-ray

Your original point is that the right to life is specifically guaranteed by the first amendment. The quote from Justice Jackson was part of a broader point about how fundamental rights should be beyond politics and does not support your argument. Here is the opinion: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

The Gobitis opinion reasoned that this is a field 'where courts possess no marked and certainly no controlling competence,' that it is committed to the legislatures as well as the courts to guard cherished liberties and that it is constitutionally appropriate to 'fight out the wise use of legislative authority in the forum of public opinion and before legislative assemblies rather than to transfer such a contest to the judicial arena,' since all the 'effective means of inducing political changes are left free.' Id., 310 U.S. at page 597, 598, 600, 60 S.Ct. at pages 1014, 1016, 127 A.L.R. 1493.

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. [319 U.S. 624, 639] In weighing arguments of the parties it is important to distinguish between the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as an instrument for transmitting the principles of the First Amendment and those cases in which it is applied for its own sake. The test of legislation which collides with the Fourteenth Amendment, because it also collides with the principles of the First, is much more definite than the test when only the Fourteenth is involved. Much of the vagueness of the due process clause disappears when the specific prohibitions of the First become its standard. The right of a State to regulate, for example, a public utility may well include, so far as the due process test is concerned, power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a 'rational basis' for adopting. But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect. It is important to note that while it is the Fourteenth Amendment which bears directly upon the State it is the more specific limiting principles of the First Amendment that finally govern this case.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette wasn't a fifth amendment case, and as such did not mention it except in the broader point as quoted above. The right to life is specifically protected by the fifth amendment, not the first.

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

The constitution only protects against "unreasonable" search an seizures, with unreasonable being up to the interpretation of the courts. Border searches have long had a broader definition of reasonable (since the very first session of congress), and are not limited to safety and contraband. FindLaw has additional commentary on the issue.

I had the same thought... wouldn't bottom ash be essentially "distillate of everything toxic left behind by the burn process"...??

As to the other fillers... what makes concrete strong isn't just the binder, it's also (perhaps mostly) the character of the filler. Organics decompose over time. Now what.. you've got binder and decomposition products, but no filler. Explain to me how that retains its structural strength and integrity? Not only that, but with varied fillers, how do you achieve predictable structural strength?

As to the case you cite, how about this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1175891.html

Reusing waste products is great, but let's not kid ourselves that they're suitable substitutes for everything else.

Except in patent law, there is a distinction between discovery and creation, at least in theory.

No there isn't. "The term "invention" means invention or discovery." 35 USC 100(a) (emphasis added). "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 USC 101 (emphasis added).

The line is drawn at the laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980). Note, however, that those limitations are judge-made, and are not present in the statute.

As in Chakrabarty, the isolated genes claimed here are "a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity having a distinctive name, character use." Isolated, purified genes do not occur in nature, and they have a distinctive character and use separate from the naturally occurring gene (e.g. performing genetic tests, as opposed to being by cells in vivo).

SCOTUS already denied certiorari in the case of HUCKABY v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF TAX APPEALS http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1191744.html.

"[T]he State's power to tax *** activities is justified by the 'protection, opportunities and benefits' the State confers on those activities'" (Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768, 778, 112 S.Ct. 2251, 119 L.Ed.2d 533 [1992], quoting Wisconsin v. J.C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444, 61 S.Ct. 246, 85 L.Ed. 267 [1940]).

We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy"-does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.

There is much legalese so maybe someone who is well versed in reading legal opinions could comment.

ah George. How we loved thee.

    His quote, as recorded on the SCOTUS decision on FCC vs All Citizens of the United States:

    "A guy who used to be in Washington knew that his phone was tapped, used to answer, Fuck Hoover, yes, go ahead."

(a)Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof.

(1)A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

That being said, the entire area of Right of Privacy law is fascinating. I was reading through this website and there's some really good meat there for discussion.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Here's an illegal checkpoint based on that law. here (warning: pdf) is a whole slew of them. This article tells of one specific victim. So does this one. Here's a dragnet for you folks in the UK. This case is the one where they stretched it to include all mail sent anywhere in America. But wait! There's more!

linky
linky
linky

While not specific to the case of searches inside borders based on these laws you may find this link enlightening, it's what our congresscritters are reading about these things.

Warrentless stops and searches inside our borders are being done and it needs to stop.

Not so long as they get paid per patent accepted they won't.

This statement ignores a ton of history and implies corruption where there is none. The Patent Office has historically fought tooth and nail to oppose the expansion of patentable subject matter. It opposed patents on genetically modified organisms all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (the 'Diamond' in that case was Sidney Diamond, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks). It repeatedly opposed patents on software all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978) (Parker was the acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (again, Gottschalk was the acting Commissioner). In Bilski v. Kappos, the Patent Office was fighting against the patentability of business methods, again, all the way to the Supreme Court.

In most of these cases (all except Bilski, in fact) it was actually the Patent Office that appealed to the Supreme Court rather than acquiesce to the lower court's ruling, so the Patent Office has for decades consistently fought quite hard against the expansion of patentable subject matter despite being reliant on application and maintenance fees for its budget.

Not so long as they get paid per patent accepted they won't.

This statement ignores a ton of history and implies corruption where there is none. The Patent Office has historically fought tooth and nail to oppose the expansion of patentable subject matter. It opposed patents on genetically modified organisms all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (the 'Diamond' in that case was Sidney Diamond, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks). It repeatedly opposed patents on software all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978) (Parker was the acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (again, Gottschalk was the acting Commissioner). In Bilski v. Kappos, the Patent Office was fighting against the patentability of business methods, again, all the way to the Supreme Court.

In most of these cases (all except Bilski, in fact) it was actually the Patent Office that appealed to the Supreme Court rather than acquiesce to the lower court's ruling, so the Patent Office has for decades consistently fought quite hard against the expansion of patentable subject matter despite being reliant on application and maintenance fees for its budget.

One of the more amusing camera issues has been red light cameras photographing cops running red lights. The processing of the images is usually outsourced and automated, and the company doing the work handles the process. The cops have to either pay up or go to court. There is much whining about this.

Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw writes to other police departments: "Please advise your members if they are captured on camera in their vehicles running the red light at these intersections, they will be cited. The only remedy for relief will be through the traffic court system. All law enforcement personnel must understand the high standard of conduct is applied to them in order for the public to have confidence in their departments and the officers."

Somebody gets it.

The OP may not have been railing against Amerocentrism so much as expressing his displeasure that you obviously didn't bother looking any of this up, since you're mostly wrong:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting.html

Basically, paraphrase it and you're fine.

---linuxrocks123

And they are required to by law.

http://library.findlaw.com/2002/Dec/19/132442.html

The high-frequency ballasts that run these bulbs have been around for 20 years at least.

What all this ignores is that publishers' attempts to put restrictions on books was what CAUSED the creation of the "first sale doctrine" in the first place.

I don't know what it is with some of these court decisions lately, but it's almost like in the last few years the judges have turned into a bunch of morons who ignore precedent and have never picked up a history book.

To be fair, you're wrong that this case is exactly like Bobbs-Merill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the case that created the first-sale doctrine.

In that case, Bobbs-Merill sold books to wholesalers their copyrighted book including a "shrinkwrap" license saying retailers shall not sell the book below a certain price. Wholesalers sold the books to retailers. Retailers sold the books below the certain price to consumers. The Court held that the license was not binding upon the retailers because there was no privity of contract between the retailers and Bobbs-Merill. This is true: there was only privity of contract between Bobbs-Merill and the wholesalers. And as the license only purported to bind retailers, the wholesalers did not violate the terms of the license either.

However, the case at hand is distinguishable. Here, CTA initially installed the Autodesk software. However, as part of the installation process, CTA agreed not to resale the software. As the sale was from Autodesk to CTA initially, there was privity of contract. Thus, the license is enforceable against CTA.

CTA later resold the software in violation of this agreement. This revokes CTA's license, which means the copies Vernor sold on eBay were unlicensed, infringing copies from the moment he purchased them. When he sold them, he also infringed. This is textbook copyright law. Read the first few sections of 17 USC to verify. I'm honestly too lazy to pull up a citation for something extremely uncontroversial in an otherwise engaging discussion on /.

This case would only be analogous to Bobbs-Merill if the license in that case had forbidden the wholesalers from doing something, and the wholesalers had violated the license. Had the wholesalers violated the license, any copies sold to the defendants subsequent to the violation would have been infringing, and the first-sale doctrine would not have applied.

If you have any questions, please respond. At first glance, the Autodesk case appears to be a rehash of the Bobbs-Merill case. However, Bobbs-Merill turned on privity of contract, while the Autodesk case turns on sales of unlicensed software. Privity is merely tangential to the Autodesk case.

Seeing as how it is very difficult to explain things and make legal arguments on /. in this tiny <TEXTAREA>, I've undoubtedly not been clear enough in my explanation. Hopefully I have, but if I have not, I hope someone points it out so I have the chance to clarify.

It also appears to ignore the issue of "shrink wrap" licensing, which violates the very basic principles of contract law, and which has never been found to be binding by any major court to date.

Well, it ignores the shrinkwrap issue because it's wholly irrelevant to the case.

To explicate by way of analogy: If you buy an infringing CD (illegal copy made by Son May in Asia, for example) and sell it to someone else, you have committed copyright infringement even if you did not know the CD was infringing. Similarly, Vernor (the Autodesk defendant) bought an already infringing copy and resold it. He therefore did commit copyright infringement, regardless of his knowledge of infringement.

We can argue the merits of mens rea-less infringement on moral/ethical grounds, but the law is clear on that issue right now: you don't have to know you're infringing to infringe.

This was a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, specifically. With any luck whatsoever, this unacceptable ruling will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Each year the Supreme Court receives 7,000 writs of certiorari - petitions for appeal.

Perhaps 150 cases will make it to oral argument and 110 will end with the kind of fully expressed opinions that clearly establish precedents for future decisions. A History of the Supreme Court

The 9th Circuit is apparently the most overturned court in the country

The ninth circuit covers nine western states including California and Washington and two Pacific island territories. Court Locator.

4,000 civil appeals are filed here each year - and this is where all but a bare handful will end.

Your very unclear assertions aside ("How's that ambiguous?" and "How would you misinterpret that one?" imply that you think the statement is straightforward and clear, but "Are you really so myopic to assert that it couldn't be more clear?" clearly states that you think it could be phrased in a less ambiguous manner, so I will proceed on the assumption you think it is a clear and straightforward statement):

The text of the second amendment is (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ ):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thus, it can be easily interpreted that the people have the right to weapons, but the State is duty-bound to regulate those who do so, as those people are granted the right to carry arms in furtherance of maintaining a Militia. With this interpretation you have a clear mandate for government gun control (at the least by way of registration) and guidelines that anyone who owns a weapon can be called for military duty in defence of the nation. It also does not specify what arms except via way of linking it to said militia, so anything from a derringer to an ICBM would be acceptable for personal ownership, except that at the time of writing, a gun capable of launching hundreds of rounds a minute was not possible, so that's when we start getting in to social context and scientific advances.

So no, your example, while not horribly worded, is still an example of something open to interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Nevermind, I got it. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1497005.html

Welcome to the land of "jury selection."

Essentially, each side only gets so many challenges. They can try to challenge for cause, but they get only a few "peremptory challenges" (removing someone they are worried about without saying why). Further, the peremptory challenges are restricted because you have to be extremely careful about striking certain people lest someone scream about "racism", "sexism", "ageism", etc.

Most likely, since the woman was not a "direct employee of Blagojevich", the judge ruled that she couldn't be struck from the jury with cause even though she was one of his former campaign workers, since campaign work is often a paid position and they could argue that it was "just a job." That would have meant that it would burn a peremptory challenge to get her removed, and there were probably some people the prosecution wanted on the jury even less that they'd already used all their peremptories on.

The other thing that potential tampered/"ringer" jurors trying to slip into a case like this will pull is trying to put themselves at the back of the line. Remember, voir dire works in sequential order, either one juror at a time or banks-of-twelve at a time. If the prosecution had already used up all their peremptories by the time she came up in the process, they were stuck with her.

The first issue is that the Sullivan Act isn't a ban on handguns. It requires a license to carry them.

Which directly infringes on your right to carry, which the 2nd amendment explicitly denies the federal government the ability to do. And then there's incorporation to consider. There's no way around it: if I don't have a license, and the feds say I can't carry, there's the infringement, plain as day. This isn't a power that has ever been granted the feds. It is a power they have taken in an unauthorized and tyrannical mode, and which they enforce by coercion and/or violence.

the question isn't whether the constitution supersedes local regulation, but rather what exactly the constitution means.

In the case of the second amendment, there are two clauses. The first is prefatory, and contains no instructions to the government. This phrase is of historical interest, but it does not enable, or disable, any power or right.

The second is explicit: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The meaning of the words here have not changed in any significant way since the amendment was penned. To "infringe" means to affect in any way, even at the meanest boundaries; "shall not" still means "no"; "keep" and "carry" still mean exactly the same things; "Arms", while somewhat broader today, certainly included an extremely wide range of weapons and weapons platforms, and by standing alone, obviously allows for invention, as invention and improvement was the perfectly normal order of business at the time; and the phrase itself can be parsed by anyone who knows what those words mean, or can look them up and successfully take in a dictionary definition.

Even a moderately intelligent reader will realize that the meaning of the second phrase does not change one whit when one fiddles with the objects in the prefatory phrase; in other words, even if the prefatory phrase stated "in order that teddy bears may not be abducted by native Americans", the second phrase would still constrain the government from infringing in any way upon the keeping and carrying of arms - swords, caltrops, firearms, cannon, brass knuckles, etc. So the prefatory phrase is entirely irrelevant as to the powers of the federal government. In this way, it resembles the preamble to the constitution itself, which is also prefatory / explicatory, but embodies no allocation or restriction of powers.

Things only began to get foggy when legislators decided they wanted to do things the constitution forbids, but were too lazy and/or cowardly to attempt the appropriate procedure, which is defined in article five: amendment. Then we began to see idiot arguments like the shotgun argument in Miller; the attempt to incorporate the explicatory or prefatory phrase as if it was a filter (not to mention the complete misinterpretation of what "militia" means in this context); and then of course there is the painfully naive "living document" mental meltdown.

The question is truly "What rights does the constitution grant, and where do the lines of those rights get drawn?"

That's not how it works in the case of the 2nd. The second amendment consists of two explicit restrictions on the government from infringing upon keeping and carrying arms (not just guns, mind you, which are a single category of arms, but arms in general.) These rights are not granted - they are defined as pre-existing and entirely insulated from any interference from the government.

There is only one way that the government can legitimately create any infringing law (including licenses, etc.), and that is to instantiate the amendment process, and further, to succeed at it. Since they hav

Here, let me help answer your question, since you are obviously too stupid to understand..."

I never said that I didn't know what the legal requirements were for an arrest. I was just pointing out that you didn't know. When I asked you what you thought constituted a valid arrest, you started talking about anything but that.

You said:

If the cops arrest an innocent person, then the arrest wasn't valid.

From the search results that you provided http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/knowing-when-an-arrest-is-legal.html:

Put differently, an arrest is valid if it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent.

Well, gosh, it seems that I was right and you were wrong. You've just spent the last several posts trying to avoid admitting it.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

You might be able to get him for "Aid and Comfort" but that would be a stretch.

Section 502(c)(5):

Except as provided in subdivision (h), any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a public offense: ...Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

For completeness, subdivision (h) is:

(h)(1)Subdivision (c) does not apply to punish any acts which are committed by a person within the scope of his or her lawful employment. For purposes of this section, a person acts within the scope of his or her employment when he or she performs acts which are reasonably necessary to the performance of his or her work assignment.

The judge determined that Childs' actions were not "reasonably necessary" to the job. It might be necessary to have passwords, but it's not necessary to lock out everyone. That's a denial of service, which is against the law.

The case cited in the article deals with cable runs through an apartment in New York, in 1982.

One wonders if a case might be made that the internet isn't "new territory", freeing it to be handled in much the same way that the American continent was handled in regards to Native Americans, thereby sidestepping this ruling and handing rights over to the settlers.

Nope - whistleblower laws protect employees from their employers' retaliatory actions. As there was no employment relationship the whistleblower laws are inapplicable.

BRENNAV v US POSTAL SERVICE, 1978

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=439&invol=1345

You can marry your first cousin in several states . Genetically speaking, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Age of consent in NC is 18, 16 with parental permission . Younger than that can be licensed for reasons of pregnancy. This looks fairly standard amongst most states.

Your freedom of opinion does not INCLUDE the freedom to think I or anybody else is less than you. It ends before you can intrude on my right. Nobody has the right not to be offended, but you damn sure have the right not be a victim of racist behavior INCLUDING slurs.

How the hell is what I THINK or even for that matter SAY in any conceivable way an intrusion on your rights? I wholeheartedly agree that racist ACTIONS, real and tangible infractions on your human rights, should be restricted by law...but as you yourself say, freedom from offense isn't a right, and I entirely fail to see how thoughts and speech can almost ever rise to anything more than mere offense*.

* - cf. Brandenburg v. Ohio; "[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

That's exactly my point. I'm talking about ownership of copyright. The case was about who owned the physical object.

No, the case was about TWO things: ownership of the object AND ownership of the copyright. If you don't believe me, go read the text of the opinion yourself.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post since you are failing to understand even this simple point.

The militia is defined in the law -- US Code Title 10, section 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

California law is pretty straightforward about the fact that they don't play by "finders keepers, losers weepers" on the West Coast. Specifically, if you find someone's property, you're supposed to return it to them or turn it over to the police[1], you can't just do whatever you want with it. At the point at which the finder decided to sell it to the highest bidder, it becomes theft.

[1] - While not technically legit, nobody's gonna bust your chops if you just hand it over to the bartender or hostess and have the business hang onto it instead.

Yeah, rule 34 and all that. I bet if I search for "engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse" I can find some porn of that too...

Here, however, we're not dealing with hypothetical. That is the circumstance surrounding Hustler magazine v. Fallwell.

The jury found against respondent on his libel claim when it decided that the Hustler ad parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts about [respondent] or actual events in which [he] participated." App. to Pet. for Cert. C1. The Court of Appeals interpreted the jury's finding to be that the ad parody "was not reasonably believable," 797 F.2d, at 1278, and in accordance with our custom we accept this finding.

(link)

That's a pretty unequivocal statement. Speech can be either libelous or parody - not both, and the way to distinguish between them is through a "reasonable person" test.

Next time you set out to "educate someone" make sure you have your facts straight.

Doh! http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=297&invol=233 Its the same, but different.

Yeah, they are. I'm not sure about other countries, but in the US treaties are even higher than the constitution. Which I don't quite get, seeing as the power to participate in treaties comes from the constitution, at least for us.

No they aren't. This is the lie they want you to keep repeating until it becomes the truth.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

http://www.uhuh.com/control/contrump.htm

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1