Slashdot Mirror

From: https://www.nysenate.gov/newsr... All text below comes directly from NYSenate.gov

Education. As a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, states are required to provide K-12 public education for students without legal immigrant status.

Health. New York State law requires that hospitals treat everyone who requires emergency care.

Labor. illegal immigrants are eligible for workers' compensation,

Welfare. The short answer appears to be that they are not legally entitled to most benefits, but do in fact receive them.

TL/DR: Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.

First off - illegal immigrants don't have access to existing "socialist" programs. What makes you think they'd have access to new ones?

But they do have access to some medical benefits. Their kids go to publicly funded schools and they receive refundable child tax credits. Then there's the benefits they're not supposed to receive, but do anyways, since the burden of disproving their immigration status lies with the agency that's handing out welfare, and they're not qualified to do so.

That's the reason for the Fair Repair Act that explicitly prohibits software locks on repairs, something Apple is actively lobbying against.

What exactly are you smoking? I copy-pasted the exact text of the statute. The commas are exactly the same as the original statutory text:
https://www.nysenate.gov/legis...

See that? Commas. Now let's go eat grandma.

But there is no implied consent for submitting your phone.

That's what buying your local legislator is for, sonny. From the actual text of the proposed New York bill:

2. Any person who operates a motor vehicle in this state shall be
deemed to have given consent to a portable electronic device field test
for the purpose of determining portable electronic device usage when
involved in an accident while operating a motor vehicle including phone
activity for the period of time immediately preceding the accident ...

[ALL CAPS removed to get around /.'s loudness filter]

The New York State Senate uses an "Open Legislation" system that allows anyone to not only see the text of bills but also to comment on them. However, in several years of using this system, I don't think I've ever seen anyone other than me comment on a bill... If people aren't even interested enough to comment, why would we expect them to vote.

Take a look at this New York bill, https://www.nysenate.gov/legis..., as an example. At the bottom, you'll see a Disqus comment block... Try to find a bill that someone actually commented on...

A quick web search shows that similarly worded legislation is being considered in Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, South Carolia, and New York.

While I didn't do an item-by-item comparison, a quick glance suggests that most or all these were crafted by a common hand. Anyone want to guess who that might be?

As soon as money changes hands it is no longer a "private arrangement". When you charge for a place to stay you are now a hotel unless it is on a month to month basis then you have a roommate. If you are providing the same service as a hotel you are operating a hotel. It is not a "public safety" issue.

This summary is inaccurate - it is a "public safety" issue. In the Nigel Warren case where he rented out his room on Airbnb in NYC, the judge levied a fine of fine of $2,400 after ruling that they were operating an unlicensed hotel.

The law on which the decision was based, Bill S6873B-2009 states:-

JUSTIFICATION:

The Multiple Dwelling Law and local Building, Fire and Housing Maintenance Codes establish stricter fire safety standards for dwellings such as hotels that rent rooms on a day to day (transient) basis than the standards for dwellings intended for month to month (permanent) residence. There are substantial penalties for owners who use dwellings constructed for permanent occupancy (Class A) as illegal hotels. However, the economic incentive for this unlawful and dangerous practice has increased, while it is easier than ever to advertise illegal hotel rooms for rent to tourists over the internet ... It endangers both the legal and illegal occupants of the building because it does not comply with fire and safety codes for transient use.

I.e. The reasoning given for the law was to protect public safety, specifically to ensure compliance with fire and safety codes.

With the passing of New York State Senate S-2230-2013 the gun-owners map website became a moot-point. The bill provides that all persons acquiring a firearms permit within the State of New York will have their name and address published, unless they opt-out.

In order to opt-out, the person must provide sufficient proof to the issuing judge to not release their name and address at that time, AND the judge must deem it necessary to agree to the opt-out. The wording specifically is that they "may" accept the opt-out, not that they 'shall'. Therefore, all judges in NY are empowered to force every registrant to be disclosed. This is similar to the wording regarding issuing the permit --- that the judge "may" issue a permit, not 'shall'.

The information is going to be disclosed publically by the State of New York, so the newspaper will have to follow the orders to not disclose, and probably shuttered the website to a static map to avoid liability after the law has taken effect.

How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

From the bill:

Safe Storage

To prevent, among other things, unauthorized and unlicensed use of guns, section 47 of the bill adds a new Penal Law 265.45 establishing safe storage requirements for rifles, shotguns and firearms. Under this new section, a gun owner who lives with someone who the owner has reason to know is prohibited from possessing a gun because the prohibited person has been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years must, when the gun is out of the owner's immediate control, keep the gun secured in a safe storage depository (for example, a safe or similar secure container with a lock that can be opened only with a key or combination, or other locking mechanism) or render it incapable of being fired by putting a safety lock on the gun.

So would this part of the bill cover Adam Lanza? So far I have seen no reports that he was 'adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years'.

How about house-holding - if someone in the same residence is a registered gun owner, will they be forced to surrender their weapons?

From the bill:

Safe Storage

To prevent, among other things, unauthorized and unlicensed use of guns, section 47 of the bill adds a new Penal Law 265.45 establishing safe storage requirements for rifles, shotguns and firearms. Under this new section, a gun owner who lives with someone who the owner has reason to know is prohibited from possessing a gun because the prohibited person has been convicted of a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, has been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, is subject to a court order of protection or has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence whose sentence has been completed in the last five years must, when the gun is out of the owner's immediate control, keep the gun secured in a safe storage depository (for example, a safe or similar secure container with a lock that can be opened only with a key or combination, or other locking mechanism) or render it incapable of being fired by putting a safety lock on the gun.

Unfortunately due to the abuse of that system by this paper you may not be able to do that much longer. http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/breaking-news-senator-ball-issues-statement-journal-news-gun-permit-map-and-introduces It is a shame that the information was abused in such a way but you may not be able to easily obtain it (at least in ny) for much longer.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/James-D-Conte/contact/

http://www.nysenate.gov/senator/thomas-f-omara/contact

Everyone, not just NY'ers, send them feedback. But use an obviously fake name, address, phone, email. Tell them you did this to prove a point. Don't make the message threatening - try to be informative. If they get thousands of messages, maybe....just maybe...they'll get the point.

(I know they won't, but it least I feel like I'm doing something about it)

Christ. To get to the original source article, you have to click links through two different intermediate sites, one of which is the Volokh Conspiracy, which while always interesting is not exactly an unbiased source.

Remember kids, when you get your news from Slashdot, you're getting it fourth-hand. It's good to read the news, it protects your rights as a citizen. Kinda like a condom. But do you really want to protect yourself with a fourth-hand condom?

Anyway, on to the meat of the matter: the original article doesn't clearly come down on the side of the scare-quote that's being passed around. It says, IN ALL CAPS FOR GOD'S SAKE, that some people think free speech rights should never be limited, while others think a less extreme approach, with exceptions for grievous harm to others, is needed. Its tone does seem to suggest it favors the latter, which is disturbing, but as an "oh my God these guys want to burn the Constitution" freakout document, it lacks a little punch.

I agree that the report is primarly an informative piece with a few suggested policies. I disagree with your conclusion; you seem to think the inclusion of moderate language and statements somehow offsets the damage that these policies, and this mindset, would do to our freedoms. Policy is often a one way street and it is hard to regain freedoms once lost.

Yes, cyber-bullying is an issue. No, this guys extreme view on the 'privilege' of free speech isn't going to help prevent kids from being bullies.

Only thats not at all what's written. Read the entire report for yourself, you'll be pleasantly suprised. The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!

Actually, no. The first amendment is pretty clear - and prior restraint is a violation of free speech. Just because something is bad doesn't mean you should ban it - you can still make certain types of statements a crime - but to suggest that preventing someone from uttering them is not a first amendment violation is wrong, IMHO.

They may be trying to make a good faith effort to not violate the first, but I think they fail.

All the article links to is a report which is in all caps, and is very hard to read. Here's the official copy, as linked to by the NY State Senate. http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/final%20cyberbullying_report_september_2011_0.pdf

THE CHALLENGE LIES IN PROTECTING TEENAGERS FROM CYBERBULLYING WITHOUT TRAMPLING ON THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION ACCOMPLISHES THAT IN THE FOLLOWING WAY:

The report has some fairly decently nuanced considerations and is being damned by a single, out of context quote. Hell read onto the next page if you like

IN SUMMARY, ALTHOUGH SPEECH IS GENERALLY PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT, THERE ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH RESTRICTIONS ARE WARRANTED. IN

HOLY SHIT, THEYRE CONSIDERING THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND APPLIED IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT MY IDEOLOGICAL BUNKER!!!!!