Slashdot Mirror

First link

Second Link

Think about it: one of these lawsuits come out every year. Whether it's a band being sued, a movie, or a video game, these lawsuits NEVER win.

So if the lawsuits never win why are they filed? Because it's usually easier and cheaper for the game manufacture, movie studio or band to just pay out a million to settle the case, and that's why they file, in the hopes the defendant will just settle and they'll become instant millionaires.

I think that's crap, and the lawyers and courts should be held responsible for their negligence, otherwise we're just going to hear more of these frivolous lawsuits.

One that we know of. There were around 2,000 detentions of Muslims in the US immediately after 9/11. "Around" because the US government refused to say how many and WHO they were. Federal judges denied releasing names to the public. The names I heard about were because the familes screamed to the press. Ashcroft isn't going to make press releases saying he's breaking laws, so we don't know how many enemy combatants there are.

I'm against all terrorists and I want the book thrown at them. However, it worries me that the US government can arrest anybody in the US and secretly lock them up as an enemy combatant. It would be ok if you could call a laywer and prove your innocence and go free afterwards, but the US is prepared to use "Secret evidence" in certian cases. Moussaui or Sami Al-Arian come to mind, but there could be dozens of others that we just dont know about. You can't prove your innocence if you cant debate the evidence you cant see.

I don't like "secret" because it means there is no oversight. The folder of secret evidence that you can't look inside could be just blank pages for all you know. I know Bush wouldn't do this, but lets say he wanted his future opponent Howard Dean arrested. The arrest could be classified under "national security" as long as the President deems it "a clear and present danger." As long as nobody saw the FBI snatch him off the street, Dean would "disappear" indefinately and people would assume he became another Jimmy Hoffa.

I don't buy your "The government doesnt declare innocent people as enemy combatants" idea, because a few dozen people in Guantanamo have been set free about a year later, turns out they were nothing but civillians.

According to the latest "State of the first Amendment" those "basic" questions would disqualify 98% of Americans from voting. Only 80% would be disqualified if they only had to know 2 of the 5 clauses in the First Amendment, and a mere 42% would be disqualified if they only had to know about the freedom of speech.

Maybe he hates to say it because it reeks of the ways the fundamentalist Christians in the US try to 'discourage' abortion.

By posting their home addresses on web-sites.

Possibly in the hope that even more disturbed fanatics will take the hint and go after the 'devils' with a shotgun.

That's why we don't like vigilante action, because you never know if you'll be the next victim.

X.

I won't join the ACLU because they seem rather keen on taking away my freedoms, such as the freedoms of my children to practice their religion in public places.

You got proof that the ACLU has tried to do that? I'd like to see it. We ARE talking about the same ACLU that stood up for a website the federal government claims incited a murder, right? The same ACLU that defended the KKK? I can believe they campaigned against kids being LED in prayer in public schools, but I highly doubt they tried to ban how they choose to express their faith.

Triv

...enforce mandatory prayer several times a day...

How many political dissidents are in US prisons? I mean besides the people who are there because they ingested drugs or because they don't have the huge sum of money to pay bail even 'tho it's a good chance they are innocent. I mean actual dissidents - like someone who goes online at a widely read journal and calls the president a parasite.

Russia's only non-government controlled TV network has been dissolved by order of that government. In fact, Putin would like to have the head of the network "putin" jail despite the fact another court (outtside the jurisdiction of the kremlin) found he had commited no actual crime.

The other states are no longer part of the FSU, of course, but in other now "democratic" countries (like Ukraine) criticizng the government in the press may not even get you due process - instead you may be found hanging like a side of rotting beef. Or maybe even beaten to death in the street.

It's getting bad... but it's not nearly as bad here as it could get.

I would never discuss philosophy of civil liberties with an on-duty screener; it's not their job and I direct that to my congresscritter. But I see nothing wrong with asking to see a supervisor if a misguided screener tries to take away a non-prohibited item. If that's grounds for detention and an orange suit, so be it. (At least in the pre-TSA days, it may have been. A reporter was detained in LA for taking photographs.)

That said, I've had a number of positive experiences with screeners. Even a few lighthearted chats about me winning some sort of award for "most electronics." Apparently, she thought a laptop, spare battery, power brick, floppy drive, wireless card, cell phone, alarm clock, walkman, and gps constituded "a lot." Who knew? :) But to her credit, she thoroughly screened my bag by hand while keeping it in my line of sight in less than 2 minutes, and she had me on my way. Competence is a great thing when it happens!

mdp

Here
But what about this?

Oh BTW, Pajonet's Hot or Not News Site has been totally redone

Personally I feel that Ashcroft would love to test that envelope.

On the otherhand this does present a case for placing a real value on domain names as company assets.

More troublesome would be to confiscate domains like http://whitehouse.org and gwbush.com which has been critical of the present monarchy. Allege a 'drug' or 'terrorism' charge and seize the domain pending outcome of the trial. This would allow them to shut down that site without looking like they were attacking the FIRST AMENDMENT.

The regular cops do this all the time with assets like cars and land. Local Governments even use that to aid in their finances. Budgeting against predicted seizure quotas Sure they will give back it's 'Value' years later after a civil suit which is even more longer. Or let it 'expire'

If this happens expect Whitehouse.org to be seized under eminent domain.

Block access to public records? The US has a FOI act just like most civilized countries. Admittedly it is abused, but by both parties here in the US. This, by the way, is nothing new.

True, the struggle to get public access to records is nothing new. However, the current administration's policy seems to be that the public should never have access to most of their records.

Look at 2002 FOI update: Bush administration and access - excerpts:

The Bush Administration is mounting the most sustained assault on open government since the early Reagan administration, or perhaps even since President Gerald Ford vetoed the Freedom of Information Act amendments in 1974.

That attitude -- open government laws are "as bad as possible" -- permeates the Bush administration, up to and including the president himself.

Bush refused to make a clarion call for openness, and instead complained that he couldn't use "e-mail anymore, out of concern for freedom-of-information laws but also concern for my privacy."

Cheney says his refusal to give the General Accounting Office any details on his energy task force meetings is not a cover-up but a principled attempt to restore presidential powers that have been eroded "because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 or 35 years."

Attorney General John Ashcroft told government agencies in an Oct. 12, 2001, memo to stop any discretionary releases under the Freedom of Information Act and to take advantage of any legal technicality for withholding records.

The White House Counsel's office held up release for a year of 68,000 pages of old Reagan-era documents, and issued a November 2001 executive order that turns on its head the Presidential Records Act -- giving to former presidents and even their heirs the indefinite ability to stall release of records

Honestly people, please look this stuff up. IN the US Constitution, there is a difference between free speech and protected speech.

Actually, that's not correct. The US Constitution has no specific reference to protected speech. Protected speech is a term that is synonymous with free speech, in the sense that all speech which is protected from restriction by the government is free speech. In particular, political speech is not the only form of protected speech.

Some forms of speech (obscenity or threats) have no right to protection at all. Corporations have the right to free, protected speech, but in a more limited form. In the case of this article and lawsuit, what the spammer puts in his ad might be unprotected speech because of false content, but the case seems to be based on misleading email recipients about the opt-in nature of the email. The following links offer some insight on free speech and protected speech.

Free Speech the First Amendment and Censorship
FreedomForum.org - The First Amendment

that someone that criticizes the government is "anti-American"

Yeah. "Americans had better watch what they say, watch what they do...." "Ammunition for the enemy..." and so on.

You forgot liberals. They all hate America, too. Which is why I started flying a flag as soon as 9/11 gave me the opportunity not to look jingoistic. Ha-ha, right-wing, we got the flag back.

A minor law point, it is illegal (since Watergate?) for corporations to make direct political contributions. This doesn't mean there aren't workarounds or complications, of course, but we do have *some* sensible federal campaign finance laws.

It will be very interesting to watch the legal challenges to the lastest round of campaign finance reform. I do believe some provisions are unconstitutional (1st A. grounds), but hope it succeeds in cutting back soft money. The unconstitutional parts can be rewritten, also -- if Congress ever gets back to the Q. I am grateful to Sen. McCain for being such a noodge over this issue, for little apparent political benefit in the near term. I don't know if he'll run again for president, but most of the presidential contenders in Congress don't have the same backbone.

I still think direct democracy would be fickle and emotion-driven. After I started to learn a little more about the country I realized I could hardly answer poll questions any more -- I'd be like, could you give me some more details? Couldn't we consider a third option? What's the history on this problem? Etc. Only a few Q's are slam-dunk for me, not out of wishy-washiness but out of inability to research them properly, as a congressperson staff can do. (I live next to DC and plan to be one of those researchers.) The devil is in the details.

On wealth, there's actually an argument that the less well off could all get together and rape the rich. Of course that's what the rich say is already happening with taxation, the top 1% do pay roughly 1/4 of the personal income taxes (which are in turn just part of federazl revenues, along with Medicare & SS taxes, corporate taxes, etc.). The curve of incomes shows 90% of the people below the $100k mark. What is particularly surprising is that the middle class puts up with the disproportionate benefits going to the wealthy.

Commercial speech had no protection until a Supreme Court decision 30 years ago. Here is a helpful timeline. The theory is that corporations are not real people, and there is a compelling public interest in regulating commercial speech to protect the health and welfare of the public -- such as the FDA requirement that drug makers as least briefly disclose side effects in those uplifting TV ads for their products. With individuals, you would not be able to compel additional speech like that. (There are doubtlessly better examples. :)

If you look at the cases in the timeline -- esp. Hudson -- it may make better sense.

There is a vast difference between the right to speak (which you have) and the right to be heard (which you do not have).

It's not so simple. At the logical extreme, this would mean the only free speech would be that never heard by people who didn;t want to hear it. Sounds nice, but then you've written the 1st A. out of the Constitution. What protection does speech people want to hear really need? The framers has more upsetting speech in mind, and it is the most hateful and disturbing kind that makes up the most significant cases -- KKK, burning flags, pornography, etc. (If you like all these, there are still some you might not.)

So the "no right to be heard" line can't be right. You do have a right to be heard free of gov't interference. A state-enforced DNC list is state interference. Or so I would reason it; I haven't thought about it and 1st A. law is not my strength by a long shot.

Now, when it come to calling people at home, I don't know how the balance will be struck. The most similar cases I can think of offhand is the recent Supreme Court 8-1 decision on door-to-door solicitations, which it held to be protected though annoying.

True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.

Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.

The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.

Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)

True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.

Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.

The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.

Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)

True, and there's the tension. Neither side gets everything they want.

Every 1st amendment case is a struggle between the side that wants the speech and the side that doesn't. Compromise is inevitable.

The total intrusion is (time to pick up phone) + (time to hang up). I *think* a court would say this was insufficient to justify barring or "chilling" the speech.

Here is a court that signed off on a blanket ban. Also, there is a Supreme Court case pending that may have implications for telemarketers. There is much up in the air, and I offer only an educated guess. (more to read)

Ever since I heard about Digita, the OS for digital cameras, I wanted to program something like this...

When the prosecutor subpoena'd photos from reporters, to identify people involved in the MSU Riots, the reporters obviously cried foul: Their independence is critical to the accurate gathering of news. If people see reporters as an arm of the law, coverage becomes skewed.

What if the camera could be loaded with a public key, and encrypt photos as they're taken, so that only the private key (back at the Editor's desk) could decrypt them? Perhaps keep a plaintext thumbnail in RAM for convenience, but make sure it vanishes if the card is removed or the camera's powered off.

It still doesn't prevent the judge from throwing the editor in jail for failing to turn over the private keys, but it adds a layer of complication, where the editor could simply lose the keys. Would that be destroying evidence? The encrypted photos still exist -- they're just unreadable.

Ever since I heard about Digita, the OS for digital cameras, I wanted to program something like this...

When the prosecutor subpoena'd photos from reporters, to identify people involved in the MSU Riots, the reporters obviously cried foul: Their independence is critical to the accurate gathering of news. If people see reporters as an arm of the law, coverage becomes skewed.

What if the camera could be loaded with a public key, and encrypt photos as they're taken, so that only the private key (back at the Editor's desk) could decrypt them? Perhaps keep a plaintext thumbnail in RAM for convenience, but make sure it vanishes if the card is removed or the camera's powered off.

It still doesn't prevent the judge from throwing the editor in jail for failing to turn over the private keys, but it adds a layer of complication, where the editor could simply lose the keys. Would that be destroying evidence? The encrypted photos still exist -- they're just unreadable.

• Barry Trotter harry potter parody article.
  
• gone with the wind judgment on parody.
  
• peta parody judgment
  
• copyright article
  

One example

Of course, many people find the Witnesses annoying.

Interesting, though, are the free speech rights they have helped enforce not only here in the U.S. (recently here USA Today and here
Freedom Forum web site), but also around the world.

Of course, many people find the Witnesses annoying.

Interesting, though, are the free speech rights they have helped enforce not only here in the U.S. (recently here USA Today and here
Freedom Forum web site), but also around the world.

Of course, many people find the Witnesses annoying.

Interesting, though, are the free speech rights they have helped enforce not only here in the U.S. (recently here USA Today and here
Freedom Forum web site), but also around the world.

First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.

The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.

Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.

I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.

Enjoy! HTH.

P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.

If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.

Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.

First Amendment law is tough, largely because it deals with fuzzy questions framed in an endless variety of fact patterns. There is a lot of balancing going on, and few hard rules.

The distinction between commercial and political speech is one such compromise. (Remember there is also plain old expressive speech that covers expressive activity such as books and movies and nude dancing. And there's also speech that's unprotected, such as obscenity, criminal conspiracy, fighting words, libel, copyright violations....) Some conservative would have only political speech protected, leaving a hot debate over what kind of speech is political. If you want to get really strict, go back to WWI or earlier, when sedition laws were broadly interpreted and war protesters jailed for criticizing the government. Others would take the all-or-nothing approach you suggest, such as some left-wingers or libertarians. Then there an infinite number of shadings between the extremes.

Here is an overview of the legal doctrine of commercial speech, including a timeline -- I simply googled this journalist-oriented site and can't vouch for its accuracy, although my skim of it suggests it is quite objective. It has a general 1st A. resource as well, very readable. The ACLU and EFF certainly have a lot to say about speech, but are more partisan.

I won't defend the state of the law nor reject it wholesale, but I acknowledge is it complicated. I'm fairly confident that the commercial speech distinction is not going away, and that it is a useful accommodation in dealing with a difficult problem -- peruse the case law and see, and perhaps you'll agree.

Enjoy! HTH.

P.S. Ah yes, one more thing -- the thing that the 1st A. doesn't entitle you to a printing press, i.e., subsidies, is true but not perfect. The fact is that unsolicited political email costs us very little (yes, I realize we pay for it through ISP fees -- pennies), what a court might label "de minimis." And even if it collectively amounts to a lot, that doesn't matter for 1st A. analysis because you can only blame a given politician for the 8 emails she sent personally, not for the cumulative effect of 1000 politicians and political groups, and not at all for typical commericial spam which is an entirely separate analytical Q.

If you still think of political UBE as an unbearable invasion, or complain about the waste of your time, consider that it is 100% legal for that same politician to call you on the phone or come to your door. (No, they don't have a right to drive you crazy if you tell them to go away, nor to keep sending emails after you ask them to stop.) Personally, I would prefer the email.

Practically, political email is likely self-limiting because the last thing a politician or political group wants to do is alienate voters.

I'd be awfully surprised if there were such a treaty -- here's a reference that there's not There's still a pretty big difference in each's concept of justice, and they were bitter enemies until a few minutes ago.

There's no problem with deceptive law enforcement so long as it is not entrapment or go so far as to violate the constitution. For many types of crime it is the only practical way to get a collar. It depend son the circumstances. One of my favorites were a bunch of guys who owed child support; the cops had arrest warrants and called them all to tell them they'd won the lottery and all they had to do was claim the prize. It was a slaughter....

Interestingly, some countries are unwilling to extradite to the U.S., Russia, or other countries that practice capital punishment. This is a background issue re 9/11 prosecutions.

i wouldn't know of any names off the top of my head, but you got to realize that they can bust that guy for some absurd reason.. at my college (SUNY Stony Brook) a writer for the Stony Brook Press got busted for writing a satirical letter to Jesus asking him to "smite" George W. Bush.. in return he got a visit from the secret service..

click here for more info..

From what I've read about the hearing, it seems that Lessig's approach to go back to the copyright clause and not focus on the first amendment issues was not the right approach. However, IANAL, especially a scholarly constitutional one, so my opinion means squat.

This was an interesting analysis that summed this up.

How does that Benjamin Franklin quote go?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Indeed.

And for those of you who have never heard of The Freedom Forum, please take a moment and take a look around. This foundation is certainly a group of good folk doing good work.

--
Custom Computer Systems for Discerning Tastes

So this one time my MIT professor told me, "Sir, you should run Linux." So I do. Every day. I love KDE/QT and XMMS. I still boot into M$ Winblows for gaming though. :( Fortunately I wear my tin-foil hat while I do it to avoid the black helicopters reading my thoughts. :) I mean, I'm really worried about this being taken away from me! Ever since I lost my job at a dotcom (mostly just throwing foam darts at each other ;) ) when the bubble burst I've been very concerned about my freedoms and M$ invading them. Do you know what I mean?!? I've been out of work for months, but I'm not going to ask for money like a certain 'Lazlo' character. 'Nuff said!

Oops! Forgot the Franklin quote!

(note to parent: Another method for obtaining karma is starting the post with something like, "Mod me down if you will, it's only karma". Please update.)

How is removing the "under god" part curtailing ALL relgious expression? It is, in fact, supporting the original idea which is to curtail religious oppression. Forcing athiests and buddhists to recite what is effectively a christian prayer every morning is opression.

Strangely enough, removing "under God" from the p.o.a. is more of a cultural problem than a religious one; the idea being that even one annoyed non-christian can now block what had been a cherished tradition for decades... this falls squarely into my complaint that our culture, as pushed by the schools, is going to the lowest common denominator: what can we do that will annoy no one. This is the "clearing house" idea I mentioned earlier. Being buddhist and reciting the p.o.a. ... is that much worse than being christian and being indoctrinated with the views being pushed by Health Ed classes these days?

Point being, no matter what you have in the schools, there is always a cultural or religious force behind it being there. There is a valid disagreement here (despite what AC thinks, whew! ;) about which cultural/religious forces to favor, and how much is the majority allowed to impose on the rest. Right now, I think, we are swinging too far in favor of minority opinions; the government should not be compel us to deny our heritage in order to make immigrants more comfortable.

Right now, by law, secular philosophies are favored, and religious expression is being forced, bit-by-bit, from any public scene, hidden away like an embarrassing relative in the attic. I would as soon we still had nativity scenes on public lands .

I note with special interest that in Hawaii, Christian notices are bad, but Hawai'ian religious symbols are "culture".

Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If you have to TEACH it, then you are doing something wrong.

Hey, when you're born you don't know much. Someone has to teach you patriotism (let's hope it's your folks). The government should also encourage people to love America; it's in their own best interest.

If this were Wisconsin I'd be worried. Who gives a rats ass about other countries. Hell if we gave a shit we wouldn't have the death penalty, Europe doesn't. Just one more case of irrelevent news for the average US reader.

If for no other reason, it makes a difference because the internet is more global than any other medium. If an ISP stops hosting some sort of content, or starts clamping down on content in general, because Germany (or France) wants them to, then no one in Wisconsin gets special privelages unless the site wants to make an exception (...but then, the exceptions might be accessed from anywhere, so it's only a matter of time before the foreign obscene content is brought up in court locally for being displayed locally.)

Be worried, give a rats ass, because the internet does not only exist in your country. Because those rulings in other countries will begin to affect the content you have access to and the freedom you have to publish whatever you'd like online.

If it's within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election, the new Campaign Finance Reform law stops you.

(Sorry for the hijack--actually I think a "GeekPAC" would be a good idea--but this hit on one of my pet peeves. The good news is that First Amendment challenges to the law are already being mounted.)

Observation: Minors do not enjoy the full rights that adults have.
Non sequitur: Therefore, minors have no rights at all.

There's been a few comments which ask, basically, why one can make filthy pictures but not good clean code. The difference is in the reason for the law. DeCSS and others are basically under property law. Whereas this case was about general goverment prohibitions for personal harm.

One might just as well ask why it's legal to swear, but one could conceivably get into trouble for copyright infringement if the choice of swearing duplicated a comedy routine.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

While Indiana's curfew law was struck down on by a Federal Judge on July 3, 2000, the ruling did not say a Constituional curfew law could not be passed with narrower language.

On Nov. 6, the same Judge preliminarily upheld a modified Curfew statute.

Most public records laws already have measures in place to safeguard personal privacy. Others, as in the article (I read it!) do need some work to account for personal privacy. A good example is, before records were finally given to APB news on judges' finances, personal information such as address, phone, etc., was redacted.

Records being available in the Internet is very important. Check out www.freedomforum.org to see how hard it is often to get public records in person, with demands to know why, see ID and attempted arrests (especially for public police records such as who's currently in jail). Internet access would allow people to get this information without fear of intimidation.

This treaty is called the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters.

The Hague Convention involves some 47+ member nations, including the U.S., EU and China. The object of the convention is twofold:

1. To make foreign judgements recognizable,

and 2. To make foreign judgements enforceable.

This is extremely significant to the techie community, and anyone concerned with the application of law over the internet. Remember the Godfrey v. Dolenga and related cases, where a British physicist sued foreign nationals under the UK's draconian libel laws (where the burden of proof is, paradoxically, on the defendent to prove his innocence)? Godfrey obtained several favorable verdicts against citizens in the US and Canada, but was (at the time) unable to have those verdicts enforced.

Under the Hague Convention, Godfrey might have been able to not only secure favorable verdicts in the UK, but able to enforce those verdicts on others not ordinarily subject to UK libel law.

That's just one example. The Hague Convention does have one loophole (a fundamental public policy exemption) that nations could use to escape the enforcement of onerous verdicts. Libel cases may be an extreme example.

However, factor in Intellectual Property -- such as the precendence laid down in Germany concerning ISPs and Copyright. The Hague Convention would make it much, much easier to corporations to take advantage of disparities between the intellectual property regimes of different nations, secure favorable verdicts by picking and choosing courts to their advantage, and then enforcing such verdicts in other nations.

Imagine what will happen if the Hague Convention is passed (it's in draft-stage negotiations now) and free-software developers in EU countries which don't currently recognize software/business method patents are suddenly liable for patent infringement due to crappy US-PTO issued patents.

I think it is time that the geek community sat up and started paying attention to international legal developments such as the Hague Convention -- the corporations and industry associations (RIAA, MPAA) sure are. If you want to see what they have to say, check these comments recently submitted to the USPTO about the intellectual property aspects of the Hague Convention.

Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell

It absolutely is. However, First amendment rights don't apply in schools. Whether or not this is a good thing is debateable, but it has been held in court that in a school, freedom of speech can be revoked if there is justifiable educational benenefit. More information along these lines can be found at http://www.freedomforum.org/FreedomForum/resources /hs_and_coll/Youth_Guide_to_1A.htm l. If the link doesn't work, copy the text, for some reason Slashdot is adding an extra space in html... I don't know why.

Another interesting reading can be found at:

http://www.yal e.e du/ynhti/curriculum/units/1992/1/92.01.08.x.html

Basically, the school can do whatever it wants. I personally disagree with what they have done in this case. I am opposed to the idea of a homecoming king and queen altogether. I support this kid, what he did was impressive. However, I think he's may find difficulty in the legal department. Granted, his case is less severe than the examples I've referenced, but there is a precendent that is not in his favor.

Captain_Frisk

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

But the times, they are a changin' Judge Upholds Video Game Ban

To quote the judge:

It would be an odd conception of the First Amendment ... that would allow a state to prevent a boy from purchasing a magazine containing pictures of topless women in provocative poses, but give that same boy a constitutional right to train to become a sniper at the local arcade without his parents' permission.

The law requires coin-operated games featuring graphic violence or strong sexual content to have warning labels and be kept at least 10 feet from nonviolent game machines. The machines must also be separated by a curtain or wall so minors cannot see them. The law bars people under age 18 from such games unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Businesses would be fined $200 per day for a violation; three violations in a year could lead to the revocation of a business's amusement location license.

No what's really happening here is the arcade industry is being deliberately targetted for destruction by the forces of ignorance.

America, a Free Country? Not anymore.

Vote Libertarian!

Where do you get your definition of "right" and "not a right?"

There are only two kinds of rights. Inalienable rights, which are rights which can't be taken away. For example, the government can't order you to commit suicide, without using the threat of death or a fate worse than death against you. This is why we call the Right to Life an inalienable right.

All other rights are enshrined in law. In our society, rights are defined in the constitution and interpreted by the courts. The most recent interpretations by the courts on video games, Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers have been that video games are not responsible for murders committed by people who happened to play one once. This being the case, video games are supposed to fall, legally, well within the realm of our First Amendment Rights protection, even considering the Supreme Courts recent creation of the 'secondary effects' doctrine. Nude-dancing case threatens free speech. Not that I agree with this moronic ruling by our wonderful Reagan/Bush appointees, but even considering the Supreme Court has been willing to undermine the First Amendment, video games are still protected. Maybe not for much longer, with the Hell hole people like you are turning this country into. (I really must get around to building a bunker, one of these days.)

Oh, right, I keep forgetting the American mantra. If we Americans keep pretending really hard that we live in a free and enlightened country, it will be true no matter what the pesky facts say...

Where do you get your definition of "right" and "not a right?"

There are only two kinds of rights. Inalienable rights, which are rights which can't be taken away. For example, the government can't order you to commit suicide, without using the threat of death or a fate worse than death against you. This is why we call the Right to Life an inalienable right.

All other rights are enshrined in law. In our society, rights are defined in the constitution and interpreted by the courts. The most recent interpretations by the courts on video games, Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers have been that video games are not responsible for murders committed by people who happened to play one once. This being the case, video games are supposed to fall, legally, well within the realm of our First Amendment Rights protection, even considering the Supreme Courts recent creation of the 'secondary effects' doctrine. Nude-dancing case threatens free speech. Not that I agree with this moronic ruling by our wonderful Reagan/Bush appointees, but even considering the Supreme Court has been willing to undermine the First Amendment, video games are still protected. Maybe not for much longer, with the Hell hole people like you are turning this country into. (I really must get around to building a bunker, one of these days.)

Oh, right, I keep forgetting the American mantra. If we Americans keep pretending really hard that we live in a free and enlightened country, it will be true no matter what the pesky facts say...

Where do you get your definition of "right" and "not a right?"

There are only two kinds of rights. Inalienable rights, which are rights which can't be taken away. For example, the government can't order you to commit suicide, without using the threat of death or a fate worse than death against you. This is why we call the Right to Life an inalienable right.

All other rights are enshrined in law. In our society, rights are defined in the constitution and interpreted by the courts. The most recent interpretations by the courts on video games, Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers have been that video games are not responsible for murders committed by people who happened to play one once. This being the case, video games are supposed to fall, legally, well within the realm of our First Amendment Rights protection, even considering the Supreme Courts recent creation of the 'secondary effects' doctrine. Nude-dancing case threatens free speech. Not that I agree with this moronic ruling by our wonderful Reagan/Bush appointees, but even considering the Supreme Court has been willing to undermine the First Amendment, video games are still protected. Maybe not for much longer, with the Hell hole people like you are turning this country into. (I really must get around to building a bunker, one of these days.)

Oh, right, I keep forgetting the American mantra. If we Americans keep pretending really hard that we live in a free and enlightened country, it will be true no matter what the pesky facts say...

Out of curiousity, are you referring to the "Paladin Press" book? I don't recall much, but do remember what seemed to be a pretty hostile (to the publisher) story on, hrm, _60 Minutes_ early on.

For those that aren't aware of the case, here is an AP story. The case involved a lawsuit against relatives of the victims of one murderer who apparently used the book as an instruction manual.

According to the AP story, Paladin Press settled, and agreed to stop publishing it plus paid substantial damages.

Here's some reading:
This thread on SlashDot.
This article on Freedom Forum.

It's also been reported that the NSA requires U.S.-made communications satellites to be equipped with intercept devices that can be used to transmit copies of their traffic to the NSA for analysis. Don't have a link at present, but I'm sure you could find a source if you're interested enough.

Besides, Gore and Lieberman have been going on and on and on about how important it is to protect children from these things... but I haven't heard anything about that on this site. Oh, wait, didn't this site endorse Al Gore?

Why is it not considered newsworthy when there is a bipartisan witch hunt accross American culture going on, calling for regulation or at least threatening it, but the library in Holland, Michigan gets mentioned? Is it just snobbery (censoring movies and video games is ok, but censoring the Internet in Libraries isn't) or is it something else?