Slashdot Mirror

Freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to do whatever the hell you want. Honestly, this is probably not in the interest of the public.

Censorious tropes six and five. A ground rule double.

Please boil this all down into a trope.

In United States v. Buttorff,70 cited with approval by Barnett, the Eighth Circuit denied free speech protection to the leaders of a tax protest group.7' Gordon S. Buttorff and Charles A. Dodge were convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting several people in filing false or
fraudulent income tax returns.72 They had both addressed several gatherings of John Deere employees and discussed "the Constitution, the Bible, and the unconstitutionality of the graduated income tax."73
"Only one principal testified to an affirmative action, other than speaking, by either defendant."N Thus, as the court summarized:
The problem here, of course, is that each defendant's only participation in the allegedly illegal activity of the principals, except with regard to [one principal], was to talk about his ideas before gatherings of disgruntled Americans. What this court must decide is whether the first amendment [sic]... prohibit[s] the convictions of these defendants ....
The court found that while "the speeches here [did] not incite the type of imminent lawless activity referred to in criminal syndicalism cases, the defendants did go beyond mere advocacy of tax reform. 7
Therefore, the court concluded that the speeches were not entitled to First Amendment protection and affirmed the convictions.77

https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?httpsredir=1&article=1286&context=mulr

I'll repeat what the first guy said, freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom to do whatever the hell you want.

See: http://scholarship.law.marquet...

And also: http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi...

There is conflicting case law in certain courts, but in general, the "Federal" rule as per SCOTUS does not require criminal intent:

But it is interesting to note, in the Lockwood case, the United States Supreme Court modified its earlier decisions by refusing to reject degrees of care or diligence. Thus, if there is anything of a "Federal" rule, it is that there are no degrees of negligence, but that there are degrees of care.

By intentionally creating the server, she showed conscious and wanton disregard (extreme carelessness aka gross negligence). Arguing her intent had to be specific to an individual email, and therefore she could always defend with "I could not recall", misses the larger carelessness that occurred. She *intentionally* set up a system that facilitated the violation of 18 U.S.C 793 (f), and then that actual risk was actualized on numerous, ongoing occasions.

At the very least, we should all be able to agree that this should have been adjudicated at trial, and avoiding such a trial was a political move, not a legal one.

Comey is an investigator, and is required to understand law as part of his job. His statements were legal declarations, of an investigatory agent, subject of course to an actual trial (which, we should have had). Comey, in fact, is a lawyer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Insofar as the "intent" pagragraphs:
(a) mentions "intent"
(b) mentions "intent"

You made the assertion that "gross negligence" == "intent", which is obviously untrue. If it was true, they would not have needed to specify "gross negligence" from "intent".

For more detailed legal analysis, about "gross negligence", please see: http://scholarship.law.marquet...

It is basically a failure to excercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances, or a failure to use the care which an ordinarily prudent man would use under the circumstances.

If you cannot understand how "extreme carelessness" is "a failure to exercise the degree of care demanded by the circumstances", you'll need to more carefully consult your english language dictionary.

The FAA would certainly like everyone to believe so. Some would disagree.

From http://scholarship.law.marquet...:
"The Court divides the airspace over the
United States into two zones. The upper zone is called navigable airspace.
Congress has defined it, "as airspace above minimum safe altitudes
of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority...,,22
In this upper zone the rights of the federal government are so complete
that this navigable airspace, according to the Court's opinion, is
"within the public domain."

  In Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corp's, the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit stated:
"He (the landowner) has a dominant right of occupancy for
purposes incident to his use and enjoyment of the surface....
We can not fix a definite and unvarying height below which
the surface owner may reasonably expect to occupy the airspace
for himself. That height is to be determined upon the
particular facts in each case."

In United States v.Causby, the military was granted an easement by the government, which met the military's need for transitioning the airspace over the Causby property. In exchange for the easement, Causby was granted $2,000, which the Supreme Court had found to be the value of the easement, as well as the chickens rendered lifeless by the overflights.

If the FAA would like to control the airspace over my head, then I would be more than happy to grant them an easement; I also expect to be granted the value of the easement: the retail value of the radio control model aircraft & related equipment, which I may no longer enjoy unencumbered by the FAA's rulings.

So the jury get to hear about prior convictions before deciding on the accused person's guilt. Neat!

The prior felony conviction for trafficking is what makes possession of the secret compartment a crime.

Is it necessary in a felon in possession of a firearm case that the jury know that the defendant is a felon?

Other jurisdictions seem to think so. Six federal circuits and several states have concluded that the jury must be apprised of all elements of the offense, even status elements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that if jurors are left in the dark about a key element of the crime, then jurors might question whether the elements submitted to them should constitute a crime at all. Jurors might question why a defendant is being charged with merely possessing a firearm when, under ordinary circumstances, possessing a firearm is legal.

Prior Conviction as an Element of a Crime: The Effect of Stipulations After State v. Warbelton

She's not the only one you might have to share with

There's also been discussion about border searches of laptops, mobile devices obtained in criminal investigations, encrypted drives, etc... Passwords seem to sometimes be a Fifth Ammendment exception. (Although other cases like Terry Childs are not).

She's not the only one you might have to share with

There's also been discussion about border searches of laptops, mobile devices obtained in criminal investigations, encrypted drives, etc... Passwords seem to sometimes be a Fifth Ammendment exception. (Although other cases like Terry Childs are not).

I mean he's actually saying that teaching a kid how to use a condom encourages the kid to seek out becoming a rape victim?! HOW?!

Any sex with a person under 18 is rape in the State of WI. See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case (first link). So if a 17 year old has sex with a 16 year old, they have both raped each other. It's a perversion of language to call that a rape (even if it remains a crime, I'm not going to wade into that minefield of the exact numerical value for the age of consent) but that's the law. A 17 year old out to lose his virginity is, in fact, seeking to become a rape victim.

Now, the theory that because of this the teacher that showed the kid year old how to use a condom is responsible for the crime because he encouraged (statutory,willing)-rape is bizarre, to say the least.

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

[ AH FUCK UNCLOSED TAGS DAMNIT REPOST. ]

Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone.

The Honorable Representative should read her own laws, because it most certainly is a crime for a person to use a condom (properly) if the other party to the condom usage is under 18 (under 16 and it's a felony). If both are under 18, then it is mutual statutory rape under the laws of the fine state of Wisconsin. So yeah, Mrs. Roys, using a condom is a crime for the vast majority of high school students in your state.

I hasten to say that I'm not at all supportive of the DA's theory that a teacher who instructs students on proper condom usage is somehow responsible for their subsequent crimes. I just wanted to point of that the Representative made a transparently false factual statement about the law in her own State.

See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

Using condoms isn't a crime for anyone

is a crime for >80% of the high school students in your state.

See 948.02 for the under-16 case and 940.09 for the over-16 but under-18 case.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf [PDF]
http://law.marquette.edu/lawreview/Spring%202006/Olszewski.pdf [PDF]

"Imagine the outcry if the courts were to legalize patents on English prose. Suddenly, you could get a "literary patent" on novels employing a particular kind of plot twist..."

Copyright on literary concepts is strong enough to survive conversion from book to film, even when nothing remains of the original dialogue. It's strong enough to cover original sequels. Read Harry Potter and the Unauthorized Sequel. The concept of "scenes a faire" covers the concept of literary "prior art" and prevents re-copyrighting the obvious. This is generally considered workable, although it took some litigation in the 1980s before the law settled down as regarding video game "look and feel".

"Small businesses and nonprofit organizations far removed from the traditional software industry have IT departments producing potentially infringing software. The Brookings Institution's Ben Klemens has" documented that this is not a theoretical problem"

Following the "documented" link leads to a set of PowerPoint slides by someone listed as "Senior Statistician, Mood and Affective Disorders, NIMH". (Where does the Cato Institute find these people?) He's grumbling about infringement lawsuits directed against the Green Bay Packers, Caterpillar, Kraft Foods, J. Crew, Linens and Things, McDonalds, Dole Food, and Oprah Winfrey. All occupy dominant positions in their industry. (Technically, the Green Bay Packers are a "small business", with only 189 employees, but the business is valued at $911 million.) None is a nonprofit.

The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21

You might think this, but you would be wrong. The Vatican has an annual operating budget of $260 million. This puts it on order a mid-sized U.S. college. http://www.marquette.edu/umi/events/documents/AllenJohn.pdf

Marquette's website Title is ...
"Marquette University - The Catholic, Jesuit University in Milwaukee, WI"
That explains it.

Also, the following directories are set for directory browsing...
http://www.marquette.edu/images/
http://www.marquette.edu/art/

Marquette's website Title is ...
"Marquette University - The Catholic, Jesuit University in Milwaukee, WI"
That explains it.

Also, the following directories are set for directory browsing...
http://www.marquette.edu/images/
http://www.marquette.edu/art/

For any other part of Marquette you would be totally correct. However, the Marquette Dental School is the only one in the State of Wisconsin, and it receives a subsidy from the state. Additionally, in-state Dental students receive a tuition subsidy. See: http://www.marquette.edu/bursar/tuition/0506tui.sh tml

As is typical with most news stories, there is quite a bit more to the story than what is published by the media.

Who's next to inappropriately threaten us with punishment for behavior it doesn't like?

Given that Marquette is a religious school, I don't see why it's so surprising that they're completely opposed to opinions and individual thought. I mean, their whole dogma is based on conformity and compliance without question. WTF do you expect?

What can we expect from those who expound on academic freedom so much? I would think a lot better than this but well it seems that may not be so.

I don't know if you realize it, but Marquette University is a religious school. So intolerance of certain ideas is expected.

denis.lynch@marquette.edu, clarice.burrell@marquette.edu, tim.creamer@marquette.edu,anthony.iacopino@marquet te.edu, william.lobb@marquette.edu, nancy.potter@marquette.edu, joyce.schweitzer@marquette.edu, lori.stempski@marquette.edu, thomas.taft@marquette.edu, carol.trecek@marquette.edu http://www.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/phonebook/deptloo kup.cgi?searchstring=School%20of%20Dentistry/ http://www.marquette.edu/contact/phone/

denis.lynch@marquette.edu, clarice.burrell@marquette.edu, tim.creamer@marquette.edu,anthony.iacopino@marquet te.edu, william.lobb@marquette.edu, nancy.potter@marquette.edu, joyce.schweitzer@marquette.edu, lori.stempski@marquette.edu, thomas.taft@marquette.edu, carol.trecek@marquette.edu http://www.marquette.edu/cgi-bin/phonebook/deptloo kup.cgi?searchstring=School%20of%20Dentistry/ http://www.marquette.edu/contact/phone/

But if this wasn't posted on Marquette University's servers, they weren't providing the forum And this action could be in violation of Marquette's mission statement: Our mission, therefore, is the search for truth, the discovery and sharing of knowledge.

A little research shows that Denis Lynch ( mailto:denis.lynch@marquette.edu ) is the one who started the whole thing. In fact, the school's own expert witness on ethics was told not to come in for the student's hearing. I suggest emailing Mr. Lynch and expressing your discontent at his actions.

http://www.marquette.edu/osl/policies/conduct_code .html

A few more:
- Garbage (the band)
- The Zucker Brothers (and Jim Abrahams)
- Cray Compter
- The Dells
- The Marquette Golden Eagles... Uh... Gold... Uh... Warriors? Hilltopers? Uh... Dwyane Wade went to school here!
- Fighting Bob La Follette
- Sewer Socialists
- Harley-Davidson
- They brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to America
- Douglas MacArthur
- Bratwurst
- Numbered Highways
- Birthplace of The Republican Party
- Svetlana Alliluyeva (Stalin's Daughter)
- Frank Lloyd Wright
- Heather Graham

Heh. According to a recent story in one of the local (Iowa) papers, Tolkien said in a letter to a Jesuit priest that LotR was definitely Catholic and religious in nature. That, of course, was the extent of the quote, I somehow seriously doubt the context truly implied that Tolkien considered all of Middle Earth Catholic.

The article did go on to note that Tolkien consciously choose to include no references to the religous beliefs of Middle Earth at all. There was also mention of notes in his original manuscript that supposedly supported the argument that Middle Earth is Christian based. The original manuscripts appear to be here.

Personally, I feel that the "beliefs" of Middle Earth encompass things that are far older than Christianity and found the whole article somewhat irritating.

• Amoco
• Johnson Controls
• CitySoft
• Nuedge Systems
• Expediore
• Hanson, Dodge & Sutter
• Resource Marketing
• CNA Insurance
• and on, and on

So it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please research before you knock.

Oh and will you give me a list of your clients?

We (Waterloo) still don't have a wireless network.

Here's who does:

• Carnegie Mellon has Wireless Andrew all over campus
• Dartmouth has it
• Drexel has it (Information Resources and Technology, Library)
• Princeton (Firestone Library and Computing & Information Technology)
• Marquette
• Richard Ivey School of Business at University of Western Ontario

Grumble, grumble. So much for us being a high tech school.

Paul

...and to help the lazy this is the page describing the collection, which is rather impressive indeed!

Going on means going far
Going far means returning