Slashdot Mirror

We already have something like this

I do not understand why so many USians can't muster the courage to acknowledge their own flaws.

It's true. China is in many ways, totally fucked, but at least the Chinese are trying to improve their situation.

On the other hand, so many USians are so eager to pointing fingers at China that they somehow have become oblivious to what their own country is doing.

We already have something like this

Just because you're not obliged by international treaty doesn't mean you shouldn't do something.

I did, I voted. You should get some help on your TDS and also read up on how Treaties work under the Constitution.

You are incorrect. There are certain phrases in the constitution that most definitely apply to literally anyone within the US, most notably those which reflect on "any person". In fact a large portion of the constitution falls into these categories.

There are, however, other wordings where things are less clear. This is especially the case regarding the travel ban and wording around freedom of religion; It's even most likely the reason the Supreme Court reinstatement had the requirement of not applying if the person has "credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States." This has to do with the accepted definition of "The People" in the constitution, see: https://harvardlawreview.org/w...

As you can see it gets rather murky around that point, but just to say that the constitution only applies to citizens is not at all accurate.

Define an "exclusive right" over something as the tradable right to exclude others from its use, and "property" as the subject of an exclusive right. (If you object to this definition, let me know, and we can refine it. I just like to get definitions out of the way to separate debate over terms from debate over substance.)

Under the legal theory that a term rollback is a taking, each year of the term of a subsisting exclusive right that the Congress has granted is a thing of value. Then by cutting back the "limited Times" for which the Congress has granted an exclusive right in a particular work or invention, the Congress takes "private property for public use". This would obligate the Congress to provide "just compensation", which courts have interpreted as the fair market value of the property, for each year of the remaining term. Public-to-private wealth transfers are constitutionally acceptable windfalls, but private-to-public wealth transfers are takings.

A Harvard Law Review analysis of takings case law concludes that the reality probably lies somewhere in the middle.

"Social Media Is Killing Discourse Because It's Too Much Like TV" ?

Don't think so. Faceboook, Twitter and Google murdered discourse by silencing opinion that disagreed with their agenda, which was to get Hillary elected as POTUS.
http://harvardlawreview.org/20...

"Censorship
How "terms of service" abridge free speech ...
Professor Ammori tells us that Facebook lawyers have created “a set of rules that hundreds of employees can apply consistently without having to make judgment calls.”9 The details of these rules, however, we do not know. Unlike censorship decisions by government agencies, the process in the private world of social media is secret."

So, when Facebook, Twitter and Google collaborate to demonetize videos, while stealing their ad revenues, shadow ban posts, or outright delete accounts to censor non-Marxist views, Joe NoOne claims they became too much like TV? Like when MASH denigrated conservative views by having Frank Burns behave like an idiot, or Archie Bunker is portrayed as the typical representative of Conservatives, and Hollywood blacklists Conservative actors while claiming to be the victim of a blacklist? No, it's not like TV at all. Conservatives rarely had a voice in the Leftist Hollywood productions which flooded TV in the late 60's and onward. Facebook, Twitter and Google, while supposedly representing the public commons, puts a fence around it instead. That's why I canceled my accounts. I may not agree with someone's POV but everyone has the right to express them.

Municipalities Profit from poverty through excessive court fees

Texas judge blows lid on speeding ticket racket

Policing and Profit

It's a modern day debtors penal system. If you're poor, the cops and courts keep fucking you over so that you never get off the court fee/fine merry-go-round. That's the system you're supporting and the "fools" complain about.

It's almost like free speech is more of a social justice value than a meathead one.

*snort*

http://thoughtcatalog.com/andr... :

God help us if we have to rely on conservatives to defend free speech.

A list of such censorship is basically endless, so I will have to suffice with a not-so-brief list of some of the more egregious examples:

• A student at Purdue was found guilty of "racial harassment" for reading a book called Notre Dame Vs the Klan. (The Klan is the bad guy in the book.)
• A candidate in the European elections was arrested in Britain for quoting a passage from Winston Churchill about Islam.
• Gert Wilders, a politician in the Netherlands, was tried on five counts including "criminally insulting Muslims because of their religion."
• Both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were dragged in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for being Islamophobic.
• Conservative radio host Michael Savage was banned in Britain.
• The group Women, Action and Media convinced Twitter to allow them help report and censor harassment and hate speech. Twitter subsequently suspended the accounts of the anti-feminist Youtubers Thunderfoot and Mykeru (they were later reinstated). Both of them are liberals, by the way.
• Adam Weinstein at Gawker wants to "Arrest Climate-Change Deniers."
• Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for opposing gay marriage. Another guy was fired because someone eaves dropped on his joke about dongles.
• A group called Color of Change was able to get Patrick Buchanan fired from MSNBC for expressing his incorrect opinions (that have been pretty consistent for the last 50 years) in his book Suicide of a Superpower.
• Allegedly, a man was banned from an Oregon college campus for "resembling a rapist."
• The "Pickup Artist" Julien Blanc was barred from entering the UK for making sexist comments.
• The mayor of Massachusetts banned the word "illegal" when referring to, umm, immigrants who came into the United States without going through the proper, legal channels. The Associated Press did

http://harvardlawreview.org/20...

Why you should worry about surveillance: http://www.harvardlawreview.org/symposium/papers2012/richards.pdf

Direct link to pdf: richards.pdf.

Statistics can ONLY show the degree of correlation. Statistics can never show causation. So, all you're ever going to get from statistics is correlation.

That reality escapes many.

References:
1) Although [statistical] regression cannot prove causation, no statistical method can do that,

2) Epidemiological studies can never prove causation; that is, it cannot prove that a specific risk factor actually causes the disease being studied. Epidemiological evidence can only show that this risk factor is associated (correlated) with a higher incidence of disease in the population exposed to that risk factor. The higher the correlation the more certain the association, but it cannot prove the causation.

The reality is that statistics can ONLY show you whether there is a correlation or not, and how strong it is. Then it requires other methods to suggest whether there is a causative relationship.

Funny, I don't see any cited numbers there. Meanwhile, here are some real numbers from the Harvard Law Review (see the couple pages, which contain total number of cases seen by the Supreme Court from each of the circuits, along with number of cases reversed, vacated, etc) (alas, the document itself doesn't cite its sources, but I'll fall back on argument by authority and assume they've done their homework properly):

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/118/Nov04/Nine_Justices_Ten_YearsFTX.pdf

Now, I took those numbers and I made a couple CSV files, then did a little crunching (yes, I'm bored... what can I say, I'm waiting for the oven to preheat :). So, let's compare the percentages of reversed cases for each of the courts. A little Perl magic, and we get this:

1st - 0.00, 25.00, 100.00, 40.00, 0.00, 0.00, 100.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
2nd - 66.67, 50.00, 100.00, 33.33, 50.00, 100.00, 37.50, 100.00, 100.00, 100.00
3rd - 60.00, 0.00, 33.33, 25.00, 50.00, 0.00, 60.00, 0.00, 0.00, 50.00
4th - 66.67, 50.00, 33.33, 50.00, 0.00, 55.56, 40.00, 54.55, 100.00, 0.00
5th - 62.50, 100.00, 60.00, 33.33, 60.00, 66.67, 33.33, 100.00, 100.00, 83.33
6th - 42.86, 50.00, 33.33, 33.33, 50.00, 75.00, 71.43, 0.00, 71.43, 75.00
7th - 28.57, 42.86, 100.00, 14.29, 50.00, 75.00, 50.00, 0.00, 66.67, 50.00
8th - 80.00, 50.00, 37.50, 46.15, 33.33, 20.00, 33.33, 60.00, 0.00, 75.00
9th - 70.59, 76.92, 71.43, 76.47, 55.56, 80.00, 64.71, 61.11, 56.52, 64.00
10th - 50.00, 20.00, 0.00, 0.00, 25.00, 50.00, 75.00, 75.00, 100.00, 100.00
11th - 33.33, 40.00, 33.33, 100.00, 75.00, 40.00, 100.00, 100.00, 50.00, 50.00
DC - 66.67, 40.00, 0.00, 22.22, 0.00, 0.00, 100.00, 66.67, 0.00, 33.33
Fed - 66.67, 0.00, 100.00, 50.00, 50.00, 100.00, 50.00, 20.00, 50.00, 100.00

Notice, there are plenty of years where the 9th's reversal rate is lower than other circuits, and the numbers certainly aren't wildly out of whack (I really don't see where the "95%" number comes from). But, why don't we look at the total percentage of reversals for each of the courts?

1st - 33.33
2nd - 69.23
3rd - 41.94
4th - 46.30
5th - 59.65
6th - 49.12
7th - 46.94
8th - 47.06
9th - 66.67
10th - 48.39
11th - 59.09
DC - 30.30
Fed - 46.15

As you can see, the 9th circuit, while up there, is beaten by the 2nd circuit, and it's really not that far off from the others.

Of course, it's possible there's something I don't understand in the data. Maybe I have to combine reversals with some of the other numbers... but certainly, at first glance, the 9th circuit doesn't look nearly as bad as its critics would have us believe.

I think I confused a few things somewhere along the way, but there are weird statutes concerning federal jurisdiction. I think I confused it with federal diversity jurisdiction (which has a different dollar figure and probably doesn't apply to this case). Too bad.

That said, the $20 clause (PDF) is quite interesting for a number of other reasons.

Sadly, this sort of thing holds often because the prosecution can spin it into a million ways you're trying to obstruct justice. Courts somehow manage to claim that you're not upholding your right not to self-incriminate but that you must know the keys and that by refusing to give them up you're resisting the execution of a warrant.

See Ohm's piece on the "Fourth Amendment Right to Delete" for more information on the search+seizure aspect of legal data forensics.

The majority of these names make no sense to me. I know what each name represents, but my question is why? Do the members of ICANN actually use the Internet? I thought for sure they would approve a .sex or a .xxx TLD, considering the sheer volume of pornography on the Internet, and how everyone seems to think we should do something about it. A .xxx TLD sure would help us admins with firewalling rules. Wouldn't even have to worry too much about enforcing compliance either, seems like anyone who runs a porn site would actually want to have a .xxx domain.

Penguins run around naked everyday! The Linux Pimp

1) This is not 'one of the few cases'! As far as straight (civil) libel goes, existing 'cyberlaw' goes back to the 80's, with mailing lists and BBSs and has definitely been upheld internationally. "international" is important, because you can be sued in jurisdiction where the 'damage' occurs or where the 'victim' resides. Here are some cases/sources:

• Here's a Richmond Law Review (Va.) article suggesting unified approaches to cyber-defamation.
• Here's a Harvard Law Review article on cyberlaw.
• Here's a Georgia State review article of Alabama cyber defamation law (for details and contrast with Utah)
• Blakeley v. Continental Airlines is a 1999 case involving a private company-only BBS
• Rindos v. Hardwick was a famous case where an American was successfully sued in Australian courts for defamation on a e-mail list. [Summary] [Judgement]
• A CyberLibel FAQ -- primarily non-US 'British tradition' (Australia, Canada) useful as a basis for further understanding.
• Here's a 1994 Australian review of Defamation laws in cyberspace.
• Here's a course reading list (with links to cases and other resources embedded in the course outline) for a comparison of in the US and Australia with references to other law (Roman, English, Dutch, etc.) It hits some very relevant points in vey few words.
• Here's a review of British cyber-defamation law (incl. BBS and e-mail)
• Similar US Criminal Libel cases against students have been reported widely in the media for years (names are not cited, because they are minors): [Colorado, 1997 (ACLU) and verdict, 1998]
• Nervous? maybe you should be Here's a (English language, published in Denmark) peer-reviewed law journal article on 'Defamation Havens' ('peer-review' is when articles are reviewed by experts before publication)

2) Do a websearch for "criminal libel" and you'll find that its primary use worldwide, historically and currently is against journalists . One of the 'Inciting Abuses' that contributed to the American Revolution was a (then British) court verdict that a newspaper was guilty of defaming the reputation of the Governer-General of New York by (accurately) revealing his corruption.

• Criminal Libel use.abuse is often cited in the annual US State Department Human Rights reports on each country. [Gabon, 1999]
• In Ireland, journalistic websites get away with a great deal that print journalism can't.

3) To address another of Katz's points, here are mini-case studies in dysfunctional human behaviour on the net

Katz was on my 'exclude list' for a few months, not because I dislike his writing, but because his loose use of facts and analogies leads to a sloppy, infuriating discussion. A profesional writer should investigate his facts and limit his speculation to what those facts support; If he doesn't, the readers will certainly go hogwild. This is the first Katz article I've read in a while. I am not pleased.