Slashdot Mirror
Appeals Court Upholds COPA Decision
sconeu writes: "Wired News is reporting that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The government's next move is to either appeal to the Supremes or ask for a full trial (IANAL - I don't understand why the radically different options)." The full decision is available on PACER. The appellate court was only affirming the temporary injunction against enforcement of the law that was issued earlier by the district court, there hasn't been a full trial of the law yet. Here's the ACLU press release.
Although, my understanding of injunctions was that they were supposed to be quick by their nature and purpose, and not drag on for years. I didn't even know that they could be appealed...
--Colbey (yes, I got the submission error too)
We at Andover.net appologize for any inconvenience you may be experiencing. We have temporarily removed all ability to post as a logged-in user. This course of action was due to the excessive number of Signal 11 troll accounts created.
It will take Pater and the rest of the crew a little while to root out all the troll accounts, but once we've done so we expect /. to function much better in the near future.
Estimated downtime is 11 hours.
I mean this is great news, and I like the fact
that the decision was unanimous. However it
still worries me that the majority of American
politicians seems to have no regard for free
speech whatsoever.
It's fine that the courts throw out laws like
that, but these laws shouldn't have passed in the
first place. Protection of constitutional rights
should be the task of the goverment, representatives and senators, too...
Every time I read about the courts over-turning some insidious, obviously unconstitutional law, my first thought is "Good. Things are still right in the world, and someone is acting to preserve the ideas our country was founded on." The next thought that comes to mind, however, is "Why does it take the COURTS to do this?" Why don't the law-makers, the elected officials whom we have (theoretically) chosen to create the rules best suited to serve our society, care about the constitution? They seem to see it as an obstacle to be overcome in obtaining their objectives and personal agendas. I suppose that is all the more reason to thank whatever gods you may or may not believe in that the courts seem to take their responsibility to society seriously....
IMHO children can protect themselves. At least I can protect myself. I won't say hello to strangers online and go with them into the park.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
*cough*
Does this mean Mattel will have to take down all of their Barbie-related websites?
---
seumas.com
It's about time the people in power recognise that the internet transcends social and cultural barriers.
At the end of the day i'm in the UK and it's perfectly legal for me to create a website with naked 16 year old school girls on it. In the US it would probably be considered kiddie porn!
It's also acceptable here for a 10 year old to walk into any shop and buy a daily newspaper featuring topless girls in it. In other parts of europe it's acceptable to show sexually explicit adverts in the middle of cartoons.
Yet in other cultures it's wrong for a women to show her face in public.
I'm of the opinion that everyone should post and view material at their own discretion and follow the laws of their appropriate country. Certainly websites should have warnings before showing material which is likely to offend but at the end of the day parents should teach their kids to use the net responsibly.
Anyway does the fact that the average 15 year old probably has a few jpgs tucked away under his virtual bed really do any great amount of harm?!
The internet was never intended for kids.
In the beginning of the net it was almost
exclussively accessible by adults, and there
was always talk about sex.
Nobody ever claimed - "here is the internet, it's
a free babysitter." Protecting children from the
net is easy: don't give them access.
You need a babysitter? Hire a babysitter!
The ruling today was on a ACLU request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the application of the law while waiting for it to undergo review. They won an earlier, lower court ruling for an injuction, which is what was appealed. The government now has the option of trying to appeal the preliminary injuction further or to stop fighting it and go to the full trial that would shut down COPA completely.
It's pretty clear that a preliminary injunction has to be granted in this case; the ACLU has a pretty damn strong case, and they can show a real risk of harm if the COPA is enforced. That means that an appeal to the Supreme Court on the injunction is unlikely to get anywhere, which is why Wired is reporting that the government is leaning toward going to a full trial. After all, the sooner the appeals are over, the sooner the case can be brought to a conclusion.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Where I am from (*.au*) we have no right to freedom of speech in our constitution. This is in a country most people would have called free until recently. I am sure you have heard what our gouvernment has done. Our politicians try and tell us that freedom of speech is implied in our constitution. This only seems to apply when it suits them and fundamentalist pressure groups.
Although the censorship laws introduced here have been largely ineffective so far they are still there and may be enforced with greater effort in the future. A scary situation for sure.
"Patience is a virtue, afforded those with nothing better to do." - I don't remember
I don't believe in COPPA regulation and will not comply with it as long as I possibly can.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
I cannot help but conclude that these laws are passed, and then defended, solely to please loud-mouthed, small-minded (Hello, Jodi!), and deep-pocketed constituencies (who likewise know they're bad laws, but are merely trying to have something to tell the little old ladies who send them their social security money every month). It seems it's all a collossal con game, a waste of taxpayer money, and the only people being fooled by it are some inbred trailer-park goobers somewhere in the Deep South. (Hello again, Jodi!)
Apologies, Sincere, 1 Each, if this has been posted multiple times. I kept getting 'unknown error'.
First, the two options are disparate because this is a preliminary injunction that is being reviewed. Basically, the trial court was asked to make an interim emergency decision. Such decisions are immediately appealable even though the case is nowhere near the final trial.
The main point is that the government is trying to regulate obscene speech in this case. As a policy matter, it isn't clear why speech dealing with sexual matter directed towards gratification of baser instincts gets hammered so badly in First Amendment law, but that's the way things have shaken out.
How do you know what's obscene? You apply local community standards. Now, if you have strip joint, where the local community is is pretty clear. On the net, of course, it's anything but. That's a pretty tough issue that is going to be essential to any trial. In meatspace dealings, you can count on the fact that the jurors are locals, so they can apply what they think the local standard is. Getting them to apply something other than their intuitive evaluation ought to be a trick. (One Supreme Court Justice said he couldn't define obscentity, but he knew it when he saw it. At least the jurors were getting the same opportunity, eh?)
The whole problem there is, at least the owner of a strip joint has a chance in hell of knowing that the other (local) people in the area think. He has a fighting chance at least. Not so on the in (distributed population) cases like this. We are one nation, but we've tolerated a law that had obscenity meaning different things in California and Tennessee. Maybe (too much to hope) this case would give the courts a chance to make law that tried to recognize that this is ONE country. (Gotta ignore the international thing for now -- getting greedy is the fastest way to lose.)
The Supreme Court shouldn't be hearing this one yet, if ever. If the government wants to insist on its trial, then let it have it. Let it lose. Congress, by repeatedly overreaching to regulate speech on the net is writing the law against itself case by case.
It is sort of entertaining that a new stupidity by Congress (speech regulation on the net) smacks into an old stupidity of the Supreme Court (local standards for Constitutional decisions) here. Maybe the Supreme Court wakes up, and something good comes of this.
One of the main problems with the bill is this:
Some coverage can be found here.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
I was under the impression that PACER is a pay-per-view system. How is it, then, that we are seeing this copy of the COPA opinion?
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
There is nothing for 4 or 5 or even 10 year olds to do on the WEB anyway. There probably should be a TLD created for kids only so that ALL other domains would be forbidden for them... Let say: www.toys.kid - this could be a toy site and it's easy to filter it out, so then www.adulttoys.com you don't look at 'adulttoys' you look at '.com' and forbid it. :]
BTW I am 24 so I earned my right to look at www.adulttoy.com
You can't handle the truth.
IANAL either, but I will take a stab at explaining why they have the different options.
The day after COPA became law, the ACLU and several website owners filed in District Court, a challange COPA. (A lawyer will have to explain how they could do this. I thought that someone had to be actually charged with violating the law in order to question the constitionality of a law.) The ACLU immmediately applied for a preliminary injuction that would stop the government from enforcing COPA until after the trial. The judge held a 5 day hearing on the preliminary injunction and then granted it.
The government appealed that ruling. Since the circuit court, the government has the option to appeal the circuit court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
Remember that this is a preliminary injunciton. That meens that no trial has been held to determine the facts of the case. The court uses some guidelines in deciding to grant a preliminary injuction. Some of them include the likelyhood of the party winning at the actual trial and the damage done to both parties if the injuction is granted or not granted.
So what the District Court judge and the Circuit Court said was basically: Although no trial has been held yet, we think that this party is likely to win at the actual trial and more damage would be done to that party if we don't grant the injuction than done to the opposing party if we do grant the injunction.
This explains the second option. If the government doesn't want to appeal the preliminary injunction to the Supreme Court, they have to go back to the District Court for a full trial to see who wins at the actual trial. (Of course, there is a third option, which is that the government just drops the case.)
The irony of the case is that the ACLU and the websites will be trying to prove that their web sites ARE harmful to minors, while the DOJ and the anti-porn people are going to be trying to prove that these websites are NOT harmful to minors.
Why? Because if the websites are not harmful to minors, then the websites have no "standing" to challenge the law. The District Court would rule that they are in no danger of being charged under COPA so the case is dismissed, the preliminary injuction is lifted, and the government can go back to enforcing COPA without having to worry about the Supreme Court throwing out the law.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
It's pretty obvious: they're trying to place a cookie to track anonymous users, so that your reading patterns can be tracked even if you're not logged in. Better user tracking == more advertising revenue.
A of course NAL, bit my understanding of this decision is that it was just upholding an injunction. The full trial on all the information hasn't been heard yet, this is just a ruling on a motion about how things will remain during a trial.
Although, my understanding of injunctions was that they were supposed to be quick by their nature and purpose, and not drag on for years. I didn't even know that they could be appealed...
While I've only begun my research, here are a few resources that you -- and others should probably look into.
(It takes me a while to dig and digest info before I reply. I wonder how many people come and go before I can post)
The history of the ACLU challenge to COPA, including the filings, injunctions and hearings.
The Appellee brief (the basis of appeal) in the recently decided case, so you can see the issues that were specifically raised
And of course, no discussion can be complete without COPA itself
If you can go to bed, knowing you did a valuable thing today, you're very lucky. If you can't... it's not bedtime
Hopefully they don't mean "regulate" (as in restrict content) but in fact mean that various filtering/tracking software will become better / more sophisticated and will actually WORK.
Nope. They are very clear, elsewhere they talk about "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable".
They talk about technology as making congressional regulation constitutionally practicable
(emphasis added)The government's next move is to either appeal to the Supremes or ask for a full trial (IANAL - I don't understand why the radically different options)."
There was no final decision on appeal, just an interim (interlocutory, in lawspeak) appeal from the preliminary injunction finding the law unconstitutional. Interlocutory jurisdiction is proper (indeed on an expedited basis) when an injunction is granted or upheld.
This is a particularly important issue in a First Amendment censorship case. There, the government bears the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the law was necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and that no less intrusive means suffice to serve that interest. This is an enormous burden, which the government almost always loses.
On the record, the factfindings of the District Court make it peculiarly difficult for the government to win on appeal. Although there was an extensive hearing with detailed factfindings, the government may want to take a second byte at the Apple with the district court to make a record more suitable for Supreme Court review. If they go straight to the Supremes, the case will be decided (at least for the moment) primarily in view of the factfinding, which the Supes may not question absent clear mind loss on the District Court judge.
On the other hand, if they go straight up, and Supes affirm, they can still go back down, make their record, and go all the way back up after the final decision.
That's the ropes of the American justice system.
Hope this was of interest.
Best,
A
But I'm just too tired and cynical today to care.
Maybe another time.
Blar.
Pity the aussies don't have anything like that...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Today, the First Amendment is under attack by both the right (pr0n) and left (religion, campaign finance), the second is under attack by the left, the fourth in the name of drugs and children, and the ninth and tenth have long been forgotten.
The members of Congress often bow to the pressures of lobbyists because their sole goal is to get re-elected. Corporations don't have an inherent right to free speech, as they aren't a person, and thus, they shouldn't be able to contribute to political campaigns/give favors. HOWEVER, all of the money given to politicians by corporations, unions, etc means nothing if they severely piss off their constituents. Most people really don't pay much attention to what their government is doing unless it has a direct and immediate impact on them so most of the crap skates by... however, can you imagine the headlines in the local paper? "Congresscritter votes against bill to protect children from online molesters" Every parent in the district would be screaming for their head - it's political suicide. For as much as the Congress ignores the Constitution when it's convenient, people (en masse) today lack the understanding and foresight to understand the damage of Unconstitutional laws, especially if they convinced they'll get all those "millions" of perverts waiting online, and the harm they will bring.
Every issue tends to be demagogued these days... whether it's how many child seeking perverts are on the internet( probably FAR less than 1 in a million ), how many "innocent" kids died from guns last year( about 4000 child deaths, 85% of which were 16-19, 90% of which were drug/gang related - more innocent kids drowned in pools ), racism, or whatever. Nobody cares about the facts or what's right or wrong anymore, it's all about what makes the mass feel good. Nobody analyzes the harm that can be caused by these laws and proposed Constitutional amendments( the greatest threat of all ). Politicians cave so quickly to their constituents these days that instead of doing what's right they do what won't harm them come re-election. We're quickly approaching tyranny by (often apathetic, always ignorant) majority.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Have you ever tried to herd 435 cats (I'm sorry, congressmen)? It can be difficult, and this isn't an issue that everyone will automatically rally around.
Also, the Playboy case is a bit different because it involved people involuntarily recieving the not-so scrambled signals into their homes. At least on the Net you have to point and click to get to the place where you aren't supposed to be.
This is another view of the world.
The Court was just borrowing the quote and sentiment from the Playboy case, that was evident.
The People of the United States of America must get out of their Who Wants To Be A Millionare, McMeal, Pokemon daze and realize that consumerism is bad for the people. It is very obvious that a new political system, one that is much more socialist, with the people much more in focus, must be implemented! The future of this great country depends on it. Do you want the rich members of the MPAA running your life? Do you want the rights of Doubleclick put ahead of your childern?
I sure don't.
A.H.
"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."
It's not about protecting children - obviously. Real young 'uns think that sex is icky (when they think about it at all); older ones are already drenched in hormones. It's the grownups who are nervous or scared and are using "protecting kids" as an excuse to avoid deal with their own problems. A lot of popular U.S. culture hasn't outgrown its roots in puritanism and religious psychosis.
I had a rancorous debate with a philosophy professor awhile back (Hi, Nell!). She maintained that the Net was eroding community and leading to isolation and despair. Offered as examples were the declining role of local lodges, the Boy Scouts, etc. (OK, to be fair, she was indicting more than the Net; she went after all of modern American sociology.) I countered that there were still communities, but they had been freed of the shackles imposed by the need for geographical poximity.
In other words, these communities are more of the mind than of the body. In many ways, this is healthier and more beneficial.
I'm not sure how that will play out in the area of regulating the Web. I think that, technologically, it is essentially impossible and people will eventually be forced to this frightening conclusion: Hey, I have to raise my own kids, because society can't and won't.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The issue deals with free speach. Laws regulating expression are given the strictest scrutiny. One of those conditions is the "least restrictive means" and other condititions like reasonable means.
It is NOT unconstitutional to prohibit minors from certain material. Adults have full freedom of expression, minors have different levels of constitutional rights.
If it was not an unreasonable burden upon publishers, than preventing minors from accessing the material is okay. However, if the burdens are unreasonable and would create a chilling affect on free speach, then it is not okay.
If there was a system whereby people could post adult material and prevent minors from accessing it, then it would be okay. If the means to prevent minors from accessing it would restrict adult speach, than it is no good.
For example, if everyone was issued a digital certificate that verified that they were an adult (age >18) at age 18, and that could be used without compromising any additional information, than it would be okay.
For example, if Biometrics were common place, and your fingerprint could unlock the key to send, than this would not be an unreasonable burden. There would be no tracking (and therefore no chilling effect), and minors wouldn't have access to adult material.
That would not be an unreasonable scenario nor likely unconstitutional.
If a ratings system was in place that could truly categorize the site, than if you could screen based on locality without an undo burden, that would also be okay. Something like P3P (client negotiating with the system) would work, because it wouldn't chill free speach, but would allow community standards to reign.
Alex
is a secret 'sid', or slashdot discussion page, used by the 'elite' thread.
Vote Chad Okere in 2000!!!
The majority of those who oppose the death penalty have never been a victim of violent crime -- CNN
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
ARGHH, those gosh-darnned republican neo-nazis keep taking our rights away! That's it! It's time for violen-
Oh what? You mean- America actually stood up for justice and/or freedom?? Wow.... what a bizarre feeling it is *not* to get all enraged whenever anything regarding legislation on the net is discussed. Yippie! It's a very weird feeling. I don't think that I have heard anything positive regarding freedom online since sometime before I knew what a computer is. Maybe I just hang out at the Peacefire site too much... Hmmm, darn. I feel kinda silly having wasted all that $$ on the gas for the molitoff cocktails at the riot I was planning.
Oh well, maybe the DeCSS case will turn out bad, because I don't know what I would do if I lived in a world where I couldn't protest against white-wing-fascists :-)
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
The way it refers to the "most restrictive and conservative state's community standards", that quote indicates to me that the court is merely recognizing that internet sites can be accessed from anywhere in America and not giving any thought at all to international internet users. And really, if they decided to recognize the internationality of the internet it wouldn't really make a difference; COPA is already unusable against foreign websites.
//initiate rant sequence
Silly person. You are under the opinion that the American Goverment (I'm being rude and assuming you live in the us) actually is responsible for the repression of civil rights (and other assorted hollywood plots). But it's all about Big Buisness, the laws protect the companies, and the people are almost an afterthought.
Rember like how it was the 1950's, and all these really neat folks got blacklisted becaues they may have possibly been linked to communism- the dreaded opposition of imperialism and exploitation? Or perhaps just 10 years ago when we fought the gulf war... and we got lots of feel happy goverment propaganda that helped fuel ethnic hatred about those damn iraquis- what the hell are they doing, attacking those poor innocent people?... when the only reason the usa was involved was so that Big Buisness would be in control of the oil so they could get rich by killing their planet.
I think this is perhaps a little off topic, but i think it does have to do with the situation in some aspects. Rember when Gorbachov (my hero!) said that free speech was ok in the USSR, so then all this anti-gov't propaganda came out, and there was this coup, and it was all screwed up and confusing? Well, I think that freedom of though, freedom of alternative sources of goods and media and sex (does net porn hurt companies like playboy?) will hurt Big Business. And in the spirt of all things American, laws will be adapted by the right-wing-fascists to protect Big Buisness from *competition*, or horrible ideas that might make you think it is not cool to [pay a company [that gets people to pay them money to be a billboard] money to be a billboard] (say THAT 5 times real fast).
But seriously, what's the diffrence between seeing nekkid ladies in the magazines under your friend's dad's bed and getting it from the net? I have been exposed to the Horrors of the free internet for most of my life. Hey guess what? Nothing happened (aside from growing more independant, caring, smart, computer literate, informed, more artistic, etc....)
Sorry if that's a little off topic, but it's late, and the exhaust from all the SUV's is affecting my brain, and I'm a rebellious hooligan in the street who's been brainwashed by his deviant musical tastes so just leave it be :)
//terminate rant sequence
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
I looked up IANAL.org and it didn't find it. Any help appreciated, thanks.
If you like the fact that silly laws like COPA gets nullified think about supporting the ACLU. The minimum cost is around $25 / year and the information on what's going on regarding free speech is easely worth it. I have only been member for a year and regret not joining sooner.
Help fight continental drift.
I'm pretty happy about this for three reasons (or maybe four)
/., yippee!
reason the first: I don't have to implement the requirements for collecting information from minors (my comp collects info, voluntarily), sometimes kids wander by (they listen to the radio too). Less work for me, ergo, more
second reason: We had a dept meeting about a month ago talking about how we would implement the stringent requirements, I said (cynically) "well, whatever, the thing is unconstitutional anyway."
third reason: I think the DMCA is uncon. too.
(four: DMCA dies a grisly death)
--
+&x
dude, WTF is wrong with you? get a hobby.
COPA, as I'm sure everyone knows, is simply a continuation of the right wing's agenda to control what we see and hear. It was originally put forth as the CDA. The right wing has the power to put laws like this forth because its people vote. Needless to say, politicians respond to votes.
Laws like the CDA and COPA make me very angry. Angry for what they represent and doubly angry for how the right tries to misrepresent them. The law is supposedly meant to "protect the children," when in fact that is simply a convenient and effective excuse to violate the rights of us all.
Freedom of speech has as its counterpart the freedom to listen. If each of us is free to express our ideas or opinions, then likewise each of us is be free to choose which ideas and opinions we are an audience to. The CDA and COPA are attempts to take that choice away from us. Why? Because certain ideas and opinions go against what the right would like us all to believe and these same ideas and opinions cannot be easily discredited.
The only effective means of mind control is information control. Control a person's information and you control the conclusions they reach.
To attempt to do this violates a right which is even more fundamental than freedom of speech or the freedom to listen, and that is freedom of thought. What use is freedom of expression if the ideas and opinions expressed are not a person's own?
Reading this you might think I'm a member of the left wing, well I'm not. The left is just as guilty of this and other things as the right. You might call me a libertarian but you'd be wrong. Many of my beliefs are libertarian in nature but I hardly subscribe to the philosophy as a whole. Pure libertarianism wouldn't work any better than any other system of government derived from ideology instead of reality.
Unlike so many others I have the misfortune of knowing, my mind, and the thoughts which originate from it, are my own.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
In fact, quite a lot of pornography isn't even obscene under current law. Obscene is defined at UK law as "tending to deprave and corrupt, having regard to the class of persons into whose hands it might come", and juries - no doubt influenced by 30 years of page 3 girls in the media murdochiana - have sensibly come to the conclusion that smiling/pouting young ladies with their lungs hanging out aren't likely to deprave or corrupt anyone, provided sales are restricted to adults.
Well, not illegal as such. It's just that it's accepted by the police and Customs & Excise that provided that any depiction of peni complies with the "Mull of Kintyre" rule (look at a map of the Mull!) they aren't going to even try a prosecution. Again, I doubt a jury is going to be too upset by pictures of young gentlemen au naturel.
Obscenity these days, given what passes for community standards here in the UK and how they'd likely be applied by a jury, basically means animals, nasty s&m, scatophilia and anything visibly non-consensual. The depiction of children is covered by separate legislation.
-- AndrewD
A Maze of Twisty Little Laws, All Different.
As I mentioned in another quote, the court quite specifically states that they "express ... confidence" at technology "making congressional regulation to protect minors from harmful material on the Web constitutionally practicable"
They are not making a ruling that holds for all time. Rather, they are basing the current free-speech decision on a particular technological situation. As we all know, being netheads, technology changes rapidly.
This is important. They did not make an eternal ruling. In fact, they actually hope their ruling will soon become moot! "We also express our confidence and firm conviction that developing technology will soon render the "community standards" challenge moot"
This decison is a big win, but it's more tentative a win than might be apparent at casual understanding.
Why can't congress say 'Hey, why don't we see if this new law is constitutional BEFORE we try to make it a law'?
Sorry, but I fail to be appalled by the government suing these companies.
We pay a hell of a lot of taxes to medicare. Much of this money goes toward helping out middle class and poor people who smoked and smoked and smoked. Yeah I know they are suckers but because of the way medicare is set up we have to pay for their mistakes. I fully support trying to get big tabbacco to pay for what they have done.
Guns are a similiar case. Somehow these guns make it into criminals hands. Is it the governments responsibilty to pass more and more laws making it more difficult to get guns? That isn't going to work. I say try to make companies responsible for their actions. Make these gun makers o everything in their power to make sure their guns are not given to illegal arms dealers.
Our litigation system is messed up in that it allows you to do this. But that's the way it works. Might as well use it that way.
--
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Everyone send them another $100. Without them, we'd really be in trouble!
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
The politicians that pass the legislation gain kudos with (parts of) the public in that they can shout loudly about how hard they're trying to protection children from the horrors of the net. They don't have to pay for the inevitable litigation to test the constitutionality of the laws, and can always stand before the cameras claiming that they did their best.
In effect, they can use the constitution and the court system as an excuse for NOT balancing competing interests and NOT making the hard choices.
Why would it have anything to do with the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I don't know, but if they have to appeal to them, they better give them some respect (just a little bit!)
- Rei
The yellowcake is a lie.
I A N A L ...BUT....
The government is trying to snow job
the Appeals court by making a blanket
request for any type of relief from the
injunction that would require a remedy from
ANY OTHER FORUM than the court presently taking
jurisdiction over COPA.
IANAL is an abreviation of
I am not a lawyer.
Here in the land of the free, we must
warn others of our limited understanding of the
corrupt system of jurisprudence under which
we live, like in Hitler's Germany [" before
I treat you I am required by law to tell you
I am a Catholic"].
IANAL but in my opinion [IMO], I truly
believe [ITB] that you can make an assertion
'based on information & belief'which is a
lesser form of responsibility for any
you make statements. Following my warning
to the net about the Free Masons,
excommunicated by the church, burned at the
stake for vile acts & accused of murder
by our goverment; a select set of
abreviations & terms will follow.
x o x
Since Geo. Washington, the officers of
the Armed Forces have all been
Free Masons, which may be why
their Russian Brothers had our
troop movements before our men did
in Korea.
VA doctors have found neither
chemical or biological
justification for the Desert Storm
Syndrome. Perhaps our officers
are punishing our men for what
they did under orders. Done
with a MICROWAVE LASER.
^ ^ ^
SLASHDOT JARGON
[wHEN IN DOUBT TRY http://www.webopaedia.com/]
AFAIK [As Far As I'm Koncerned]
Backplane [board with expansion slots on it active backplane contains
active components in addition to xpansion slots]
Beowulf Cluster Brandname network
BSD [Berkely Software Design Unix software]
BTW [by the way]
DCMA [Digital Millenium Copyright Act]
DeCSS [Decoder for CSS or Content Scramble System]
DDoS [Distributed Denied of Service] hackers use other people's
computers to jam a web sight eg. Attack on Yahoo
DeCSS [decode css protocol]
DSL [DIGITAL sUBSCRIBER lines copperwire'POTS' lines-
short run from home to street box]
DSP [Digital Sigal Processor or processing]
FPU [Floatingpoint Processor Unit - Math Coprocessor]
FSB [faster speed bus?- no def found]
IANAL [I am not a lawer]
IMO [In my opinion]
MPAA
MIPS [Million instruction processor]
OTOH [on the other hand]
PCI [peripheral component interconnect]
SBC [Single Board Computer]
SMP [symmetric multiprocessing- shaing proc between idle P s.]
thread [portion of a progam that can run alone.]
What happens in general terms is this. The processor requests a piece of information. The first place it looks is in the level 1 cache, since it is the fastest. If it finds it there (called a hit on the cache), great; it uses it with no performance delay. If not, it's a miss and the level 2 cache is searched. If it finds it there (level 2 "hit"), it is able to carry on with relatively little delay. Otherwise, it must issue a request to read it from the system RAM. The system RAM may in turn either have the information available or have to get it from the still slower hard disk or CD-ROM. The mechanics of how the processor (really the chipset controlling the cache and memory) "look" for the information in these various places is discussed here.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
ALPHA PROCESSOR. A powerful RISC processor developed by Digital Equipment Corporation used in their line of workstations and servers. It is the only microprocessor, other than x86 microprocessors, that runs Windows NT. As of 1998, versions of the Alpha chip contain nearly 10 million transistors and run at clock speeds from 300 to 600 MHz.
-30-
I'm not a big fan of tabbacco companies or gun makers, i.e. I like the idea of *people* suing these companies to force things like child locks, etc. Would you prohibit the government from being a party to a civil case?
You are correct that it is very dangerous for the executive (or legislative) branch to avoid the checks and balances, but this is not a really serous violation.
Now we do have very serious violations of seperation of powers, including: (1) the various states of emergency which have been in effect since the 50s to avoid various parts of the constitution, (2) the parts of the executive branch which get to make up laws instead of just enforcing them (EPA, FDA, FAA, IRS, etc.), (3) the fact the federal gov. controls the state gov. via the money it gives them,.
Actually, the single biggest mistake in our constitution is not regulating the flow of money more strictly.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
the Playboy case is a bit different because it involved people involuntarily recieving the not-so scrambled signals into their homes. At least on the Net you have to point and click to get to the place where you aren't supposed to be.
I disagree. After all, to get the Playboy channel you have to 1) sign up for cable and 2) tune in to the channel it is on, which is the equivalent to the pointing and clicking you mentioned. Any bleed through to other channels is mainly due to having a crappy cable provider...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Lawmakers should be kicked out of office and new elections called when they propose and pass blatently unconstitutional legislation. Likewise for the president who signs such a bill into law.
Both are violating their oath to their office to "uphold" the constitution and should be immediately removed for either (a) violating that oath or (b) gross incompetence.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It isn't news it's ancient history, the whole argument boils down to one thing; responsibility. Uncle Sugar is trying to legislate it because mom and dad wont use it to show right and wrong to us. The Sunday school teacher talks about responsibility but there is nothing to hang the examples onto; why shouldn't we do what we want, nobody cares about what we do.