Slashdot Mirror

You are close. Brand they don't give a shit about. But trademarks? That's a whole nother story.

https://law.justia.com/cases/c... Isn't there a Roger Brian Abbott, CEO of BIZX?

https://law.justia.com/cases/c...

Most - if not all - states have a FOIA equivalent at the state level. In Tennessee, it's 10-7-503, for instance:

https://law.justia.com/codes/t...

You might want to brush up on the concept of personal jurisdiction before proceeding further.

Is there any authority as to how this applies to internet publication?

Wouldn't a corporation, behaving as outlined in squiggleslash's example, fall under the jurisdiction of the Californian courts following the principal in International Shoe (as discussed in your linked to wikipedia entry)? [Honest question, IANAUSL, but in the jurisdiction where IAAL, publication to a resident clearly enlivens the jurisdiction of our courts.]

A publication on the internet is surely a deliberate publication to the world, which necessarily encompasses a deliberate publication to the residents of California, which in this example would constitute an invitation to treat. In the case of BK, a company (from what I can tell) incorporated in Florida, but which clearly has a corporate presence and conducts business in California, the International Shoe principal seems especially compelling, no? More interesting would be the case of an out-of-state business which has only an online presence, in which case they may still be subject to the law of the state into which they deliver products (or perhaps even merely advertise said products), following Quill Corp. vs Nth Dakota 504 US 289. (again cited in the entry above):

... to the extent that this Court's decisions have indicated that the Clause requires a physical presence in a State, they are overruled. In this case, Quill has purposefully directed its activities at North Dakota residents, the magnitude of those contacts are more than sufficient for due process purposes ...

United States v. Joyce, 2008

United States v. Penny Pincher, Inc., 2011

A related suit, claiming that using predominantly white-skinned models in advertisements constituted discrimination by presenting the appearance that the market was assumed to be predominantly white... And it seems to have been dismissed, apparently on technical grounds, like standing and such.

By the late 80s it was well known, to landlords at least, that trying to advertise with illegal restrictions would not be tolerated by mainstream newspapers, and soon after even the 'little' specialty papers had to police their classifieds. This has, predictably, also been the rule in new media, as Craigslist etc had to also police their listings.

If you cared to read the Act, you would see it is sufficiently specific to make it clear, you cannot advertise housing with illegal restrictions.

Because Washington state's AG Ferguson is trying to establish his bona fides for a gubernatorial run.

Well, then, he should be congratulated on shooting off his own foot. If he ever runs for anything broader than his state, we'll remember him as the Democrat who thought that defeating a purely theoretical bogeyman was more important than defending freedom of speech, and will absolutely not vote for him under any circumstances.

I'm in favor of reasonable gun control. Bans on descriptions of guns is not reasonable — particularly in a state whose own supreme court noted in JJR Inc. v. City of Seattle that prior restraint is per se unconstitutional. (They were slightly overzealous with that pronouncement, of course, but there is a very strong presumption of unconstitutionality.)

Freedom of speech is very nearly absolute in this country, and for good reason: it is the single most important right granted by the bill of rights. That's why the founding fathers saw fit to put it first on the list. Without it, the other freedoms cannot possibly stand. If you cannot talk about the government taking your guns, then no one will know until it is too late. If you cannot talk about being forced to testify against yourself, you cannot hope to regain your unjustly stolen freedom. If you cannot talk about illegal searches and seizures, you cannot prevent them from becoming commonplace. In short, if you cannot talk about what is wrong in the world, you cannot possibly hope to correct it.

If there is one thing that is always absolutely true in politics, it is this: absolute bans on any form of speech are per se wrong, and anyone in favor of such laws should not be elected to dog-catcher, much less governor of a state. It is every single American's god-given duty to make sure of it by voting for someone else.

PUBLIC IS PUBLIC. Where you go has *always* been public information, just the tracking has gotten more automatic.

From a legal perspective, that's not true. Article IV of the Constitution is considered to protect your right to travel freely, and you can't have a right to travel freely if you are being tracked, because there are places that would inherently be embarrassing if you were widely known to have traveled there.

The law has always recognized a difference between merely seeing that someone is in a place and tracking that person for a year to see where he or she goes. The latter, if surveillance is on an ongoing basis, is likely to cross the "reasonable" line and require a warrant (United States v. Jones). A license tracking system appears to be a prima facie attempt to sidestep that warrant requirement, and as such, is legally problematic.

am I infringing on the use of their Snow White trademark if my Snow White looks nothing like the Disney Snow White?

No. Disney does not have a universal trademark on the phrase "Snow White", since it was already in the public domain long before Walt was even born. They have a narrow trademark on a particular depiction and use of the phrase and character.

Disclaimer: If you are actually planning to make such a book/play/movie, you might want to get a second opinion before proceeding.

No, he wants to see the third party doctrine totally done away with, and attacks this ruling as being too narrow: https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

The full text of Gorsuch's dissent is here: https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

To summarize, he wants a case that would allow the court to definitively nuke the third party doctrine. He does not feel that this was the right case. He wanted to concur in the broad, brightline ruling that this decision was not.

I enjoy pointing out your stupidity

Early judicial interpretation of the meaning of treason in terms of levying war was conditioned by the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century, which involved the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman,1479 which involved two of Burr’s confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. “However agitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war.” Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. “On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”

Wikileaks has clearly not taken up arms or declared war on America, you're full of shit as usual.

Early judicial interpretation of the meaning of treason in terms of levying war was conditioned by the partisan struggles of the early nineteenth century, which involved the treason trials of Aaron Burr and his associates. In Ex parte Bollman,1479 which involved two of Burr’s confederates, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for himself and three other Justices, confined the meaning of levying war to the actual waging of war. “However agitious may be the crime of conspiring to subvert by force the government of our country, such conspiracy is not treason. To conspire to levy war, and actually to levy war, are distinct offences. The first must be brought into open action by the assemblage of men for a purpose treasonable in itself, or the fact of levying war cannot have been committed. So far has this principle been carried, that . . . it has been determined that the actual enlistment of men to serve against the government does not amount to levying war.” Chief Justice Marshall was careful, however, to state that the Court did not mean that no person could be guilty of this crime who had not appeared in arms against the country. “On the contrary, if war be actually levied, that is, if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors. But there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.”

Wikileaks has clearly not taken up arms or declared war on America, you're full of shit as usual.

And no, boards does not have a profit responsibility to shareholders. I don't know where this myth comes from

It comes from US case law Dodge vs. Ford and whilst there has been some calls to stop teaching it, it was cited in 1983 in Dirks v. SEC and as recently in a whole set of cases in 2016, so it is very real.

What you are arguing is referred to as "Improper Altruism", which are the findings of the court that reflect what you are advocating.

Assuming you are not trying to be a dumb ass, where in the Constitution is the Internet discussed?

Article I Section 8. The Commerce Clause. Provides congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The legal cases showing how this addresses transactions over the mail, the internet, and other common carriers such as by telephone --- include ones such as Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue

Held: The Commerce Clause prohibits a State from imposing the duty of use tax collection and payment upon a seller whose only connection with customers in the State is by common carrier or by mail. Pp. 386 U. S. 756-760.

We need not rest on the broad foundation of all that was said in the Miller Bros. opinion, for here there was neither local advertising nor local household deliveries, upon which the dissenters in Miller Bros. so largely relied. 347 U.S. at 347 U. S. 358. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of commercial transactions more exclusively interstate in character than the mail order transactions here involved. And if the power of Illinois to impose use tax burdens upon National were upheld, the resulting impediments upon the free conduct of its interstate business would be neither imaginary nor remote. For if Illinois can impose such burdens, so can every other State, and so, indeed, can every municipality, every school district, and every other political subdivision throughout the Nation with power to impose sales and use taxes. [Footnote 12] The many variations in rates of tax, [Footnote 13] in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and recordkeeping requirements [Footnote 14] could entangle National's interstate
Page 386 U. S. 760

business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions with no legitimate claim to impose "a fair share of the cost of the local government."

The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control. [Footnote 15]

I just don't see the point here. There's already a bunch of plant-based alternatives that don't involved roaches (rice, soy, almond, quinoa, coconut, ect.).

Rice: Not nutrient dense, and getting less dense due to CO2 increase.
Soy: I can't digest soy. If I eat a burrito with TVP in it, for example, it destroys my digestion. If my lady (who worked as a chef for Christina on Orcas Island, among her other culinary chops) puts tofu into a meal I won't taste it, but it will make me urpy and pukey (yes, those are technical terms) before I even finish the meal. Eating large amounts of soy may increase cancer risk in men due to phytoestrogen. Most soy produced is now GMO, which I have mixed feelings about scientifically, and specifically Monsanto's IP, which I have very clear feelings about politically. Their competition is Dupont and BASF. Dupont has a long history of being shit (They and BP together have a company which has an obvious, partially-paid-for-by-tax-money patent on efficiently producing Butanol, a 1:1 carbon-neutral replacement for gasoline, and have been suing GE to prevent them from selling the stuff, which THE WORLD NEEDS) and BASF is a major polluter (So's Dupont, and always has been) so even if Monsanto's dominance wanes, the slack will only be taken up by other shitlords.
Almonds: It takes about a gallon of water to grow a single almond. They consume literally ten percent of California's water every year, and water is becoming scarcer. Avocados have been removed from southern Caifornia en masse because there is simply not enough water to irrigate them. Almonds are next.
Quinoa: We're eating so much of it that the people who historically ate it are going hungry, because as usual only a small percentage of the population profits from exporting what the majority of people used to eat. Yay capitalism! Isn't it just the best?
Coconut: Coconut shortage!
Insects: Many of them can literally be raised on compost and most require little water. At least some can be raised in almost any climate.
Yeast: Can be raised anywhere on very little, and this is what they're actually trying to do.

I'm not actually in a rush to eat bugs or bug products, but there are clear and compelling reasons why one might want to.

Right, the dominant purpose of A Hooter's waitress is forthrightly to titillate and entice male customers. Bringing the food is secondary. Nobody goes to Hooters for the food. On the other hand, people tend to fly to get places and the dominant purpose of the flight attendants is facilitate people flying places! https://law.justia.com/cases/f...

I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here.

This was specifically discussed during ratification. It is a right of the *people* and says so because otherwise, Congress could disarm the people simply by disbanding the militia. They were very cognizant of the difference between an unorganized militia (the people) and a "select" militia which is the National Guard.

Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.

I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here.

I used "active" and "inactive" when I should have used "organized" and "unorganized". Apologies for any confusion. The national guard remains only part of the militia, the organized part, the remaining able bodied males of military age with no existing connection to the armed forces whatsoever the unorganized part:

"10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(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."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

"32 U.S. Code 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...

States may have similar laws regarding the unorganized state militia.

Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.

I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here.

(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway. - https://law.justia.com/codes/g...

And of course the thousands of laws and ordinances stating that pedestrians have right of way on marked and unmarked crossings which would be pointless if pedestrians always had right of way.

In 1985? A Millenial?

With what, his DeLorean?

I think the point he is trying to make is that even if something becomes a meme it retains its copyright and you can't just use it in your products without licensing.

It's different to say a trademark where you have to defend it, for example.

Then he made the point very poorly because this case and the win was about defending this registered trademark.

By the way, my creepy Anonymous IP Lawyer "friend," if you're an IP lawyer then you surely know of Pearson Education, Inc., et al v. Ishayev et al from 2011 in which it was explicitly found that hyperlinks cannot constitute copyright infringement:

B. Infringement by Hyperlink
Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, as to three of the instructors’ solutions manuals, cannot be granted for a separate reason. Those manuals were accessed by Siewert through hyperlinks emailed to her by Ishayev, as opposed to Ishayev’s having attached digitally copies of those manuals to the emails he sent to Siewert. Such action, without more, is insufficient to establish an act of infringement. A question of fact remains as to whether Ishayev engaged in infringement by other means, i.e., by uploading the infringing material to filesonic.com.

While not a precedent-setting case on an appeals court or national level, the logic used is sound. But hey, as always, feel free to correct me with your own references to case law that says otherwise! I'm always open to learn, and you failed to provide that kind of information in your original creepypost.

Under felony murder laws, you can be charged with murder if you engage felony activity that is inherently dangerous, such as phoning in a hoax hostage situation, even if you're not the one who directly caused the death. Simply causing a dangerous situation is enough to make you responsible.

https://www.justia.com/crimina...

And it is my understanding that in Kansas, phoning in a hostage hoax is considered a felony. The police officer(s) involved in the fatality will legally be able to pin the blame on the caller, and the caller will face murder charges.

The swatter will likely be charged with felony murder being a death occurred in the act of a felony.

"Felony Murder" - in Kansas K.S.A. 21-3401 : "Homicide in the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from an inherently dangerous felony" K.S.A. 21-3436

They will not likely be able to use that charge, because the "felony" in the form of the fraudulent call would have occurred first and been done before the shooting that did not occur at the scene of the crime. The cause of death was a shooting that happened After the felony, so the death would not be in the commission of, attempt to commit, or "escape"

Also, there are Only specific felonies; mostly things like Kidnapping, Arson, Rape, Felony Theft, Treason, Child Abuse; the statute lists nothing about making a fraudulent report with intent for the police's SWAT team to be induced into harassing
  someone or maybe disrupting their affairs or damaging property or shooting people....

One could argue that the list isn't exhaustive, and swating could also fall under the felony-murder rule.

I'm not sure they're allowed to go fishing like that.

But didn't Andrew Finch have children? If swatting is known to be dangerous---and people have been shot before, just not killed---then it stands to reason that swatting endangers any children present.

And the law does include a provision for that:

(19) aggravated endangering a child, as defined in subsection (a)(1) of K.S.A. 21-3608a, and amendments thereto.

The definition of aggravated child endangerment is at https://law.justia.com/codes/k...

So it may be possible to put him away for a long time. It would be nice to have a criminal attorney from Kansas weigh in on that.

The Kansas legislature listed which felonies are "inherently dangerous" for the purpose of this statute and I don't see it listed.

K.S.A. 21-3436

https://law.justia.com/codes/k...

However, the law says "these felonies are inherently dangerous", it does NOT say "no other felonies are inherently dangerous". One could argue that the list isn't exhaustive, and swating could also fall under the felony-murder rule.

You're thinking Copperweld inability to conspire. The problem is, Eastman Kodak violations are a section 1 violation, the separate and independent nature is relevant to impermissible product tying, and the attempted conspiracy is between the intra-enterprise actor (Google/YouTube) and the unwilling target (Amazon).

Thanks for playing "I did not study antritrust law and it shows."

You're thinking Copperweld inability to conspire. The problem is, Eastman Kodak violations are a section 1 violation, the separate and independent nature is relevant to impermissible product tying, and the attempted conspiracy is between the intra-enterprise actor (Google/YouTube) and the unwilling target (Amazon).

Thanks for playing "I did not study antritrust law and it shows."

Matter falls into a black hole and leaves one universe. In another universe a big bang happens as that universe is formed. So universes bud off from each other, and the budding point is a black hole

Cool. Now prove it

Disprove it. QED.

No, the onus is on the person who postulated the idea or as it is more popularly known "The burden of proof" . Very useful to know when religious people turn up at your door.

BTW. The first AC was correct. You, on the other hand, are not.

This kid puts up a video showing people how to use cheating software. Cheating software has been previously established to be a copyright circumvention tool, thus the kid was clearly committing secondary copyright infringement.

Doctorow could have pointed out that this was dumb, that this was another example of why the DMCA is bad, but instead he claims that there was no copyright infringement going on and talks a lot about how the kid is fourteen years old (as though that were important). He also makes much ado about the lawsuit - what does he expect Epic to do here? A lawsuit is the correct and appropriate legal remedy.

For two : Courts making laws and forcing regulatory bodies to enforce them is a path you don't want to go down.

Your great great grandparents weren't even born yet, before we already circumnavigated the globe a few times by going down that path. You are at least one century too late to be warning people about that. Why the sudden radical change now?

Nevertheless, I was pretty damn skeptical of the "government agencies are not free to abruptly reverse longstanding rules on which many have relied without a good reason." I am pretty sure that the constitution doesn't contain a single word saying the executive branch can't change its mind on things, or that Congress can't enact laws that override previous laws, and it seems as long as those branches are free to pursue whatever policies they want to, that would cover regulatory agencies.

But it seems that regardless of whatever may be in the constitution, the Supreme Court really has ruled that way and it wasn't recent (this goes back, to at least 1962; I've no idea if it goes further back than that), so the other branches have had half a century to try to re-assert their authority above SCOTUS on this matter (e.g. by proposing an amendment or changing whatever part of the US Code that SCOTUS used in 1962 to justify their decision). What we know up to now, is that neither Democrats and Republicans, each having various degrees of power over several generations, have made any effort to do so. And nearly all voters stubbornly support those parties, so I would say there is effectively zero political will in America (at least, none among people who bother to vote) to take that back. So therefore, it stands that if you're an American voter, you almost certainly agree that regulatory agencies have to justify big changes in policy rather than simply getting to do whatever that want.

Granted, you might be an outlier with a different opinion (and there's nothing wrong with that!) who always loses every single election (i.e. you have alwasys voted against the Republicans and Democrats, and so you have always lost) or you're a non-voter. If you can find enough people who believe like you, that regulatory agencies should be able to radically change policy at the drop of a hat without justification, you might be able to band with others and your party could maybe some day get up to 5% of the vote. Good luck!

My backyard has not been forced to become a public speakers corner.

In People v. DiGuida, the final judgement of the supreme court was that the grocery store didn't have any obligation to let him use it to speak or circulate his petition:

"For the reasons set out above, we hold that Dominick's use of the criminal trespass to land statute to exclude defendant from its property did not violate defendant's rights under the free speech or the free and equal elections provisions of the *349 Illinois Constitution."

https://law.justia.com/cases/i...

Do you have one, just one, SPECIFIC example of a commercial space that was forced to become a public speaker's corner? Don't tell me to google something, give me a specific name.

Man, you are totally degrading our argument against these measures with this ridiculous line of reasoning. Of course these measures are useful against violent criminal organizations and actual people that wish to do harm. It's really trivial to find examples of this (like the dead San Bernardino shooter) and, with the way you've constructed your argument, you lose when an example like that comes out.

What those of us that are serious concede is that there are plenty of times in which such a measure is legitimately useful, but nevertheless, the risk for abuse is far too great and that we understand that as a tradeoff we should forego the legitimate uses to protect against the abuse. This is no different than any other conception of civil liberties -- after all, we know for a fact that our system acquits guilty people for a variety of procedural and other reasons, and that some fraction of those people go on to violate more people's rights. But we accept that as the cost of defendants' protections. Similarly, we accept the concept of parole knowing that some (maybe low) fraction of parolees will commit crimes that violate people's rights. We don't insist that parole can't happen unless that fraction is identically zero.

So quit it with the conspiratorial nonsense of imagining that this is some kind of plot. It's not, and you're making us look like loonies.

What it is is that there are zealots for whatever cause that don't give a shit about our rights and believe that it's better to trample them in order to get the drugs/terrorist/mafia/whatever-bad-guy. And you know what, in a big way that's a lot fucking worse that someone actually wants to enact tyranny. These are guys that are delusional and think they are fighting the good fight.

Oddly enough, besides making us look like loonies, your arguments give them cover by asserting that it must be bad motivations that lead to tyranny. It's exactly the opposite -- it's the zealous pursuit of good motives that pave the way to hell.

Finally, and before I rant further, I want to quote the Supreme Court talking about the purpose of the Fourth Amendment:

The point of the Fourth Amendment which often is not grasped by zealous officers is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate, instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.

Any assumption that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate"s disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity, and leave the people"s homes secure only in the discretion of police officers. Crime, even in the privacy of one's own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual, but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent.

implies that abortion is murder.

Abortion is killing, that's true. Whether it is murder — a prosecutable kind of killing — is up to the laws to define.

And they can define it as a killing of a born human. Both sides of the abortion debate are remarkably inconsistent:

You are right. In some countries (like USA) you can waive your rights. In most civilised countries however you cannot be forced to waive your rights.

You (theoretically) can't be FORCED to waive your rights in the USA, either. That's the "Voluntary" part of the requirement, which I now notice I forgot to mention...

The requirements in the USA are:

1. Knowing

2. Voluntary

3. Specifically and Affirmatively stated (an "express" waiver).

Here's a contract case in the USA that has some good "waiver" cites in it:

https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

The California Supreme Court decided the specifics of public access in 1970 in the Gion-Dietz case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/ca...

http://patents.justia.com/inve...

If that's your idea of a gotcha, you should have spent the hour it took to craft that reply actually reading the site which has covered the standards for defamation over and over and over again. Almost like the author was trying to explain how even sites like NPR get the standards wrong in their coverage. You can go read the EFF's article on it to at least get the basics. Also, it's kind of on you to prove your assertion that it is. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, i.e. TimothyHollins or you if you wish to take up that torch. I can't very well shoot down a non-specific assertion that made no attempt whatsoever to connect the facts of the matter to the elements of a claim of defamation, after all.

In short, please come back when you can explain how "fraudulent news" is a specific claim of provable fact in light of Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.4th 676, 691 (1994) and Information Control v. Genesis One Computer Corp., 611 F.2d 781, 784 (9th Cir.1980).

I'll want specifics of exactly which article(s) are "fraudulent", who was defrauded of what, which specific person(s) allegedly perpetrated the fraud, and you'll have to get that information by quoting specific Trump statements in contexts where he made the statement(s) you claim meet all the elements of a defamation claim. CNN is a public figure, so you will also have to prove actual malice here, once you figure out what that is.

Good luck!

I don't think any part of that is true. The SCOTUS reversed the 9th Circus on that case, upholding the original conviction.

Go read the actual decision and then tell me I'm wrong.

This case was not about an innocent bystander, but rather a distributor trying to use a constitutional challenge to avoid conviction. The 9th circuit ruled that the law was unconstitutional by interpreting the statute in such a way that distributing child porn was illegal regardless of whether the person distributing the child porn knew that it was child porn (or even knowing that it was porn, for that matter). In the majority opinion, they said that such a reading was completely absurd and cannot possibly have been the intent of Congress in writing the law, and thus the only plausible interpretation was that the act was only a crime if the distributor knew that it was child porn. Based on that, the SCOTUS reversed the finding of unconstitutionality.

Because the lower courts had already ruled that the distributor knew that the material was child porn, the conviction was therefore upheld for lack of a constitutional reason to overturn it. The opinion of the majority strongly implied that any law lacking such a requirement would be held prima facie unconstitutional.

Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented, arguing that such a law would only be unconstitutional if the distributor did not know that the content was pornography, arguing that porn has lower protection than other forms of speech and that someone knowingly distributing porn should be strictly liable for verifying the age of the performers.

If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.

The likelihood of getting caught is pretty low provided you don't do something to attract attention, and the car you're driving is properly registered so it doesn't trigger a red flag when checked. And driving without a license is a fine, not jail, unless the revocation was because of drunk driving or another offence. Judges aren't going to throw people in jail for such minor offenses - that costs money. Fines make money.

What the intent was is actually completely irrelevant in any law. The courts do not decide on intent.

That's not always the case. Where the law has a clear and obvious meaning, legislative intent does not enter into the discussion. However, when there is ambiguity, courts may turn to legislative intent to get an idea of what the law should mean. In Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 723 (2000), the majority (six justices) opinion and one of two concurring opinions held that because a plain reading of the law resulted in an absurdity, the intent of Congress in passing the law must be examined. Thomas concurred in the result but disagreed with the need to use legislative intent, and Scalia disagreed with using legislative intent and with the Court's choice of definitions.

This has become less common in the last few decades, as discussed in this William and Mary Law Review article but it's still around at various levels. In general, the more conservative the judge or justice, the less likely they are to rely on legislative intent, while more liberal judges and justices are more likely to rely on it. However, use of it has decreased across the spectrum.

If on the other hand, I deliberately try to serve cookies containing peanuts to you, knowing you're deathly allergic to peanuts

Peanut allergy is real. So, apparently, is the effect of strobing images on epileptics. But it is still worrying...

Recall, that "trigger warnings" are already "a thing". What if my political opinion "triggers" somebody — causing them pain and/or other suffering? For now, such snowflakes are content to escape the brutal realities of life in "safe spaces". Unfortunately, those prolifereate and are already used to silence certain opinions.

True, FBI is not yet used to go after the "triggering" folks, but that can't be far off. When the current crop of students enters real life and their careers place (some of) them into actual decision-making positions, Law Enforcement will equate such triggering with assault — and doctors, currently in pre-med at those same campuses, will certify in court that the "victims'" "pain" is real...

Oh, and did you know, movement is seriously afoot to make "hate speech" a crime too?

tell someone that my intention is to do you harm

Yep. Right here... I do consider certain Illiberals to be beyond repair and do wish to make them uncomfortable — my very /. signatures are designed to mock something they hold dear. Intentionally.

Whatever this intent says about my own character flaws, it is still protected by the First Amendment today. But we are already sliding down the slippery slope... The First Amendment may be protecting a nebulous "right" to sell pornography (except for the child sort, for some reason), as well as to (quietly!) video-tape police. But, if the current trends aren't reversed, it will — in a generation — become illegal to say certain things because of the "painful reaction" such speech might cause...

"Incorporation, in U.S. law, is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."
Wikipedia

Also, The California Constitution also guarantees freedom of expression
"(a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press."
Source

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.

Most excellent cite. Thank you.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Argued November 29, 1994; decided May 22, 1995.

The exercise by Congress of its power to judge the qualifications of its Members further confirmed this understanding. We concluded that, during the first 100 years of its existence, "Congress strictly limited its power to judge the qualifications of its members to those enumerated in the Constitution." 395 U. S., at 542.

"It would seem but fair reasoning upon the plainest principles of interpretation, that when the constitution established certain qualifications, as necessary for office, it meant to exclude all others, as prerequisites. From the very nature of such a provision, the affirmation of these qualifications would seem to imply a negative of all others." 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 625 (3d ed. 1858) (hereinafter Story). See also Warren 421 ("As the Constitution ... expressly set forth the qualifications of age, citizenship, and residence, and as the Convention refused to grant to Congress power to establish qualifications in general, the maxim expressio unius exclusio alterius would seem to apply").

Unsurprisingly, the state courts and lower federal courts have similarly concluded that Powell conclusively resolved the issue whether Congress has the power to impose additional qualifications. See, e. g., Joyner v. Mofford, 706 F.2d 1523, 1528 (CA9 1983) ("In Powell ... , the Supreme Court accepted this restrictive view of the Qualifications Clauseat least as applied to Congress"); Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (CADC 1994) (citing Nixon's description of Powell's holding); Stumpf v. Lau, 108 Nev. 826, 830, 839 P. 2d 120, 122 (1992) (citing Powell for the proposition that "[n]ot even Congress has the power to alter qualifications for these constitutional federal officers").13

Petitioners argue that the Constitution contains no express prohibition against state-added qualifications, and that Amendment 73 is therefore an appropriate exercise of a State's reserved power to place additional restrictions on the choices that its own voters may make. We disagree for two independent reasons. First, we conclude that the power to add qualifications is not within the "original powers" of the States, and thus is not reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Second, even if States possessed some original power in this area, we conclude that the Framers intended the Constitution to be the exclusive source of qualifications for Members of Congress, and that the Framers thereby "divested" States of any power to add qualifications.

I didn't have any falsehoods about deleting e-mails. It's all based on the media intentionally or misunderstanding IT. The FBI report is pretty clear that they had access to all e-mails. The deletions were temporary and duplicate copies. I go into detail in some of my other posts.

Clinton may have violated her non-disclosure agreement, but the worst penalty in the NDA she signed was that she could be to be terminated from the job or losing access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI); neither of which she had anyways by the time the FBI investigated.

As I stated in another post, intent does matter for 18 793 (f) according to the supreme court in Gorin v. United States. You can't just read a law as a layman and interpret it. You have to look at precedent too. The supreme court ruled that prosecution requires "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Comey was correct that she could not be prosecuted because there was no intent.

https://supreme.justia.com/cas...

As I recall it was about 1998. The boxes were indeed addressable. They would ping every known box with an instruction that told it to ignore the next firmware update. None of the "illegal" boxes were told. Then they published a broken firmware update. http://law.justia.com/cases/fe...

Try citing the actual case.

The relevant case is Ex parte Garland (1867), in which Justice Stephen J. Field, writing for the court in a 5-4 decision, wrote that a president's pardon power ''extends to every offense known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.'' This precedent was reaffirmed in Murphy v. Ford (1975).