Slashdot Mirror

The parent poster is not arguing that witches == communisim == terrorism == fictional, but I'm sure you already know that.

The fact is, throughout history society has found a particular attribute to label certain people with, be it fictional or not, and persecute them based upon that.

Perhaps a little bit of history is in order ...

Salem Witch Trials

McCarthyism

And BTW, despite the reality of the existance of "witches", do note that 19 real people were slain in Salem because they were accused of being witches. Those deaths are just as real as any other.

there is a difference between expressing anger and calling for killing everyone who has different views than yours. That's the kind of hate I was talking about.

Besides cases like shouting "fire" in a crowded bar, I'm surprised by the imminent action bit. If we stubstitute the term "treason" for "terrorism" in these cases, we see that the US has always had very high standard for what it actually forbids.

The Christians have done nothing wrong in this country, especially nothing illegal, therefore there is no reason to be put in jail.

Yeah I geuss state sanctioned murder is not illegal... But then again, those nutty christians are mostly harmless.

Remember, fanaticism in any sense means the trampling of anothers rights

Those pictures of RMS are a bit out of date. When he is not looking like a grizzled maniac, he likes playing dress up.

OK you seem to have some issues big big issues even rumsfeld doesn't belive this.American law and American history

America did exist at this and where a part of the world and would know about this precident in international law that was set you do know that America has been a keen practitoner and contributer to international law in the past.I'm pretty sure that's the case. What other explanation could you have had for thinking that the United States declared war on Napoleon and that Osama bin Laden is alive? Again you have a thin grasp on reality or you are being very subtle with your humour. I didn't take anything out of context. From your unacceptable spelling, incorrect grammar, and inability to use punctuation, it was clear that you were typing while drunk. Removing a piece from what you are quoting is taking something out of context. As i explained i have dyslexia hence the grammer etc. it is your ignorance that is unaceptable and your attitude that is incorrect and inability to act like an adult.

I'm pretty sure that's the case. What other explanation could you have had for thinking that the United States declared war on Napoleon and that Osama bin Laden is alive? Im starting to wonder if you have dyslexia and don't realise (mine affects writing and bizzarley i have above average reading and comperhension) it as it can affect some peoples ability to read and comprehend what they have read. It's nothing to be ashamed of most dyslexics have above average level inteligence.

anyway don't have anymore troll food today so you will have to wait until tomorrow. Don't go sealing your house up against sarin chemical attack and suffocating on me im starting to enjoy this.

Yeah, we are that dense. I'm a senior in an American high school, my English class just finished Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Not a single person in the class grasped the connection between the story and the McCarthy Hearings. Our teacher tried to stimulate discussion about the relationship between the Red Scare and the current terrorist hunts, this was met with glazed over looks. The future generation isn't going to be much better educated than the current bunch of dopes aiming the American war machine, sorry folks. The irony here is if we took the over bloated "defense" budget and spent it on education we might be smart enough not to go around stirring up wars, or at the very least smart enough not to elect warmongering idiots to office.

Be careful though who listens in -- if the tune resembles anything well-known, the *AA will come right after you!.

The thing about American Justice though... it's based on money. If an individual kills someone, and everybody realizes it, but they have a ton of money, they might have a shot at convincing a judge and jury to let them get away with it.

It's much more complicated. The OJ Simpson's trial is an example of the fundamental flaw of what was considered 600 years ago a great advancement of the Magna Charta - the trial by jury. The problem is that most people are biased in one way or another and they usually have their opinion ready prior to seeing the evidence (and then they believe only that part of the evidence that supports their a priori judgement). The art of fooling the American Justice is not the art of convincing the jury, it's the art of selecting the jurors that are already convinced. It's brilliantly descripted in the John Grisham's novel "Runaway jury" (adapted to a great movie with Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman). If you prefer a more scholar approach, here's a scholar analysis of the OJ Simpson jury.

I'm not accusing anyone of being biased - I can't cast the first stone, I'm not sure how would I behave during a trial of an Apple employee who killed a Microsoft employee. I might tend to believe him he was acting on self defense just because I have better feelings towards him. Actually, the OJ Simpson trial was only the most famous case of the jury bias, but definitely not the first one - and certainly not the last one. It wasn't important if Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty or not, the jury just didn't like all of them, the foreign anarchist scum.

So the real question is not exactly about the money - it's the question if the trial by jury is really such a good idea after all?

Okay, if they don't want to be called Benedict Arnold CEOs, that's fine. I suggest Klaus Fuchs CEO instead then...

distinctions have led the Court to conclude that "the Constitution . . . affords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression."

The first link details the distinctions..

" The Central Hudson test recognizes the constitutionality of regulations restricting advertising that concerns an illegal product or service, or which is deceptive. For all other restrictions on commercial speech, however, the Court's test requires that the government show that the regulation directly advances an important interest and is no more restrictive of speech than necessary."

Then the Constitution should've said so. "Compelling state interest to abridge rights" is a dangerous concept to let stand, because it can also be applied to speedy & fair trials, uncompensated seizure of property, and more...

That battle has been fought and lost. See here for an example of where a "compelling state interest" permits a constitutionally suspect practice (racial discrimination) to be used by a public university.

As it stands, both the criminal libel code and campaign-finance regulations are both unconstitutional on their faces. (Blatant unconstitutionality is of course only a minor barrier to widespread enforcement of a USA law).

AFAIK, there is no "criminal libel code". Defamation is a civil tort. The US Govt. is not at all involved. The constitution protects individuals against only government action. Civil disputes are not regulated by it.

FWIW, I agree with you on campaign finance. I think it is clearly unconstitutional, but the Supremes disagree with the two of us. C'est la vie.

GF.

Sorry, a correction on my previous post (got my facts mixed up completely), Dr. Henry Lee was put on the stand by the defense attorney, not the prosecutin attorney.
Here's the link against in clickable form
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/S impson/leetest.html

I never even knew about this case, but find it quite interesting. That led me to the parent article, which is about the regulation of [what some people consider to be] indecent speech.

IMHO, kids are going to learn these words anyway, and to have them be "taboo" is to make them more appealing for kids to use.

I never even knew about this case, but find it quite interesting. That led me to the parent article, which is about the regulation of [what some people consider to be] indecent speech.

IMHO, kids are going to learn these words anyway, and to have them be "taboo" is to make them more appealing for kids to use.

That sounds workable emough. Granting power to individuals is useful. It's unaccountable power that worries me.

Hmmm, look a little harder. Googling for "Jury Nulification" turned up some interesting results right at the top. For instance, the Georgia and Virginia State constitutions specifically give juries power to "be judges of law as well as fact". Here and here.

Jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.

There is indeed a lack of legislative text about the topic, but that makes sense. How do you draft laws to dictate how people will ignore them? Indeed, it seems to be only the highest judicial levels that give the matter any weight at all (generally courts that don't actually have juries, oddly enough). Apparently just speaking in public in a courthouse about it is enough to get you kicked out or arrested.

There's a semi-urban legend of a burglar who fell down through a skylight while attempting to break into this one home and successfully sued the owners for negligence in not putting up warning signs on their roof. I'm unable to find anything more than anecdote about it, but (assuming it's more or less accurate) you can guess what happened; the jury was told that they had to base their decision off of the facts of the case alone. I'd bet my next paycheck that they were told that though the law, when applied to this case, lost all resemblance to common sense, they would have to find the owners guilty if the facts of the case demanded it.

That said, I fully appreciate the need for juries to consider the law far in front of their own consciences. Were I on a jury, for me to even consider nullification it would have to be a case that I felt to be so detrimental to the public good that to convict the guy would be a insult.

I know this was partly tongue-in-cheek, but you're probably right on the sentiment of the jury. However, most jurists are not aware that they can render a vote of "not guilty" even if it is proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant has broken the law. And of course, no judge today would ever let them in on that little secret, either. If you're interested, you should read about Jury Nullification.

PCR = Polymerase chain reaction. A method use to amplify the amount of DNA.

Once more and more copies are formed... it is easy to cut it up the DNA and compare the pieces of one sample to another sample.

PCR is kinda famous...
Nobel Prize

PCR for OJ

During the civil war, the north took a radical step by attacking civilian and logistical targets instead of purely military ones. A move that would have been reviled had the north ended up losing, instead it's hailed as tactical genius.

Actually, even at that time, this tactic was very controversial in the North. And in the South of course it was reviled and led directly to the conspiracy to decapitate the federal government.

Ging-gang-google gave me this article from the website of the school of Law at UKMC.

Apparently what happened was that the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) sent letters out in 1996 to camps - including Girl Scout ones - demanding they pay fees for singing any of their copyrighted songs (such as Edelweiss and Puff the Magic Dragon), saying, "They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too. If offenders keep singing without paying, we will sue them if necessary."

Later they claimed that they hadn't meant to target Girl Scouts, just other camps - "the sort that bring in bands for square dances, have music by the pool ... and are like sending your kid to a resort."

When/where was this incident? Anybody?

This incident happened in 1996.

* ...and "gun" control though it doesn't make sense as the amendment specifically cites militias, they are also against unlimited distribution of arms (the literal word) like missle launchers, tanks, cannons, and biowarfare agents.

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.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The text of the case is here.

You think you're joking, but see American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) has informed [Girl Scout]camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the 4 million copyrighted songs -- for campfire sing alongs.

I'm learning to read classical Greek so that I may read Euripides.

An admirable exercise.

Journalist I.F. Stone, rather late in life, taught himself ancient Greek, in order to read the actual source documents relating to the trial and execution of Socrates.

No translation would suffice: Stone felt that only by reading the original text for himself could he arrive at the insight he desired.

-kgj

Actually, if you read the constitution, there is no mention that corporations and trade groups are covered and protected by the Bill of Rights. It has been the assumption by corporate lawyers that corporations have first amendment rights.

You are right that there is no mention of corporations being protected by the Constitution, but you are wrong that it is strictly a concoction of corporate lawyers. We have the power of "Judicial Review" to thank for this situation.

"The major event that truly fostered corporate power was another Supreme Court case, this one in 1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. This baffling ruling defined a corporation as equivalent to a natural individual person for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution - that is, all corporations were entitled to the same rights that individuals had. Given corporations' vast financial resources and considerable legal advantages, this ruling actually gave them far more power than the individual. Today, however, this definition of the corporation is seen as perfectly natural, and is seldom questioned."

(Taken from here)

Blacklists don't suppress speech. No one forces you or your ISP to use the blacklists or to refuse e-mail from IP addresses listed on them. I use blacklists and my server may reject messages from you. So what? You have no Constitutionally guaranteed right to use my server to deliver your message. It's my private property, just as your ISP's server is their property.

But never mind all that, just suppose that we do allow owners of networks and servers absolute control of what passes over their wires. Is that something you really want? Sure, it gives them the power to shut down spam. But it also gives them the power to control what web sites their users can access. Or what their users can put on their own web sites. Now, if hardware is owned by a private company and all its users are employees who are supposed to be using the internet to do their jobs, I suppose you have to grant that company a large measure of control. But if we're talking about public ISPs, then we're talking about something very scary. These ISPs, if they coordinated their efforts, and were allowed to totally control whatever passes over their wires, could do something that governments have repeatedly tried and failed to do: censor the internet.

A few years ago, there was a site called blackdeath.org that offended certain parties with its anti-Christian rants. Who demanded that their ISP pull the plug. When the ISP declined, they went to the ISP's backbone provider. Which happened to be owned by a major media company. Now, media companies are not fans of censorship, but they like offending people even less -- they might complain to the FCC, or worse, stop watching TV. So the backbone provider told the ISP to pull the plug on blackdeath.org, or else they'd lose their own internet service, and be forced out of business. Naturally they complied. Blackdeath.org went dark, briefly came back with a low-bandwidth provider, then finally disappeared forever.

This really scared me at the time, since the internet backbone had been consolidated into just a few big companies, most of them with the same censorship-prone connections as the Time Warner backbone. Since then, the backbone situation has gotten a little more competitive. But with the trend to consolidate more and more communications into fewer and fewer companies, I wouldn't get to sanguine. And I'd look for solutions to the spam problem that emphasizes individual, not central, control over network traffic.

I'm currently watching "The Crucible" on (German) TV -- how come this malediction of all things P2P reminds me of that? :-(

Hopefully any victory over SCO will leave a smoking hole in the ground and no one will admit to ever having had the slightest thing to do with them--but that's just my little hope and dream. :^)

What would the government possibly gain from convicting an innocent man?

The same thing the government gained when it executed the Rosenbergs for relatively minor espionage crimes.

(Not to say that the Rosenbergs didn't act as spies, but they didn't do anything as bad as some people did.

ASCAP? They're the guys who threatened to sue the Girl Scouts for "performing" copyrighted songs at summer camp.

I always assumed a "performance" is when you sing or play a song for an audience other than yourself, but evidently that is not the case...

There are thousands of hardworking men and women serving in Coast Guard ships off our coasts, monitoring land border crossings, inspecting imported cargo containers, and serving as airport security inspectors and skymarshals, all to keep your bloody arses safe behind your monitors as you make fun of them.

Well, it seems they spend an awful lot of time seizing boats and putting fishermen out of business because a crew member had a joint in his pocket. How exactly does this help Homeland Security?

you own a field and someone grows weed on it, does that make you liable? I [doubt] that, too...

Tell it to this guy.

I was a little surprised that no one has mentioned the Alvin Fernald series by Clifford B. Hicks (TWO of which were made into Disney versions, years apart.) Wonderful "boy inventions," funny situations and scary climaxes. Probably contemporaneous with the Brinley books. They had a lot of good messages for kids too. "Superweasel" dealt with pollution (imagine climbing the smokestack of the nearest big corporate polluter to plug it with a tarpaulin!) I showed it to my fifth grade teacher in 1978 and he promptly spent a few weeks reading it aloud to the entire class, and we did a school wide environmental awareness project based on it.

Alvin's Secret Code deals with cryptography. Hicks is careful to mention the dark side of war and not overly romanticise the subject: "Spying is a dirty business," the retired cryptographer tells Alvin in response to Alvin's awe over his experiences.

The rest of the Alvin Fernald series maintains a high degree of quality with these and other themes.

The Danny Dunn series was great. My favorite, "Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine" deals with his friend Professor Bullfinch's new computer. Danny programs the computer to do his homework and later feels guilty about cheating. But the professor points out that Danny's efforts to program the computer are proof in themselves that he has learned the concepts just as thoroughly, if not more so, than if he'd done things "by hand."

Then there's the "Henry Reed" series by Keith Robertson. Foreign service brat Henry has lived abroad his whole life, and comes to Grover's Corner, New Jersey (no Red Lectroids here, it's Grover's Corner, not Grover's Mill) to spend summers with his uncle and aunt, and neighbor Margaret Glass. Lots of great kid gadget tinkering, and a launch of a silage-bag helium balloon with a timed pigeon release experiment that goes wrong when Henry's beagle, Agony, jumps into the gondola. In another scene, Henry and Margaret try "dowsing" or "water witching," improvise a drill from a wagon axle, and strike oil!

These books are excellent inspirers of fantasy play for children of all ages. A kid who reads these kinds of things should learn above all that with a healthy interest in the world around one, it is possible never to be bored. They're also an important source of scientifically-minded literary heroes for young readers working their way up to Jules Verne and H. G. Wells.

What I got out of this period in my reading life: just because your playmates look at you funny when you invent something or discuss science doesn't mean that you're the only person who could conceive of doing science as a kid.

"Well, it is sad to be alone, but that is the way it is in this world." -- R. P. Feynman, on A. S. Eddington

No one has a right to clog your mail server with unwanted mail. The right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to a free platform for that speech. If I walk into a shopping mall and start babbling about whatever issue at the top of my voice, the owner has the right to legally kick me out.

PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS

Pruneyard Scorecard (2001)

Pruneyard Scorecard (1996)

Treaties can, however, make an otherwise unconstitutional law constitutional. Take a look a Missouri vs. Holland. "Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution, while treaties are declared to be so when made under the authority of the United States."

RUN!!! Don't walk, to the nearest exit.

All commercial organizations that want to play or stream music that is copyrighted, to a large number of people, must pay a license fee to places like ASCAP. That is what muzak (spell?) in elevators is all about. Businesses pay for that music to be heard. Even stores that sell CDs must pay for the very music that they play in their stores. So in theory, yes a company could certainly purchase CDs and P2P them, but technically they would be required to pay the same fees as if they were putting it out over the loudspeakers.

Even Happy Birthday has copyright.

By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way.

Oh my God, this is so laughable. Let's take a look at history, shall we?

I know there's a whole preconceived notion that when you're young and join the military you're innocent, and deserve some kind of sympathy. It's sad when people die, but the fact of the matter is, when you join the armed forces, knowing you could at one point be ordered to kill people who've done nothing wrong to you, just on the command of one person, you are responsible . Given that, if you disagree with war you don't "support our troops" on principle. If you joined the Armed Forces you made a stupid decision, and even a dishonorable discharge is better than the other result.

I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?

Yet at the same time you admit previously that stupid American policy is the reason those troops are in danger in the first place? So why do you "hope our military uses whatever they can?" Enlightened people don't waste their time viewing themselves as members of some fictitious nation drew up by manmade borders, with some horrible notion that these lines must be defended. You don't support a war just because your 'country' happens to be involved in it -- this isn't a fucking football game with your local teams playing in it.

RIAA never sued the Girl Scouts. Never even threatened. You're thinking ASCAP as copyright owners. They threatened in 1996 and retracted their threat when hit with the incredible backlash. Read more here:
ASCAP and the Girl Scouts

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

Lets say I'm just your typical Information Wants to Be Free zealot, and I don't patent it but I then release it to a news group. Then, a big corporation takes the concept (not the source or anything) and files their own patents slightly different to show their innovation that's piggy backed [...]

Patent bad.


You forgot to mention that "big corporation" could do exactly the same even if you had patented Flubberlitzen beforehand. This is a known strategy in patent land, called "surrounding patents", see for instance this article (found on a random google search):

Conversely, patenting can also serve as your sword. If you are competing against a rival technology, you might review your competitor's patents for ways to improve the basic technology. If this can be done, then you might be able to file supplementary patents surrounding your competitor's basic invention. Such surrounding patents would require the competitor to come to you for a license to practice improvements to his or her own invention. Your tactical advantage can then be traded for a reciprocal right to practice the competitor's invention, thus providing you access to a market that you might otherwise not be able to serve.

Not that I'm against the idea of patents, but I don't think patents do serve very well in protecting the small guy - at least not in their current state - and yes, I know "small guys" owning a patent, and they openly admit that they mostly are good for marketing reasons, not for collecting royalties.

A whole bunch of other good, related links can be found here.

Here is an account of the Zenger trial. I highly recommend it and if you read the account carefully, you will find that no matter how 'fringe' a view jury nullification is without a doubt deeply embedded in the idea of the american jury trial.

How about Galileo's trial? Trial

No they don't. ASCAP later rescinded the order. See the afterword to this article.

The federal copyright act allows composers and music publishers to demand payments for any public performance of copyrighted material. The law defines a public performance as "where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered."

Wow- I was moderating but my jaw dropped when I read this and had to post:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c ommunications/ASCAP.html

"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts - they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, ASCAP's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, we will sue them if necessary."

There have already been tens of thousands of dollars spent on adjudicating the argument between religious dogma and scientific theory.

The Scopes "Monkey Trial" happened in the early 1920s, with John Scopes fighting to teach evolution in the state of Tennessee. Scopes's lawyer, Darrow, lost.

Refusing to admit crucial evidence, the presiding judge, John T. Raulston, gloried in frustrating the defense and upholding Christian orthodoxy.

These are the kind of people you're up against. Evidence and proof mean nothing. Reality? What's that? You can spend all the money you want, but you'll never convince superstitious zealots that what they believe is wrong.