Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Finally, A Solution To The DMCA

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hehe dept.

morcego writes: "Well, finally someone came up with a solution to the DMCA problem. You can read it on the archive of the Humorix list." Well, combine this with my ULC Reverendship, and we're well underway *grin*.

6 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. Protected religious practices by gughunter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If American Indians can't eat peyote for religious rituals, I doubt this idea will fly either... but still, it's a nice thought.

  2. Church of Pron by Alien54 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I can remember a pron theater many years ago in the city of Boston that tried to argue that they were a church, and that their films were part of the sacraments for their worshippers.

    Didn't go very far, but you had to admire their gusto.

    - - -
    Radio Free Nation
    "If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
    - - -

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  3. Re:Freedom of Religion? by flatrock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The second ammendmnet to the US consittution:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    If the school allows other clubs, then they should allow bible clubs equal access. Otherwise they are prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging those student's right to free speech, and preventing them from peaceably assembling on property that is available to others.

  4. the mess the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid? by Gorimek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Were government run schools really around much when the constitution was written? I though they became the norm 50-100 years later.

    The best solution to this whole mess would be to get the governemnt out of the school business altogether. It's not like they're doing a good job or anything...

  5. The unclear part by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    The unclear part is how to apply this when the each of these two adjacent sentence clauses (no establishment/no prohibition) contradict each other.

    It is unclear whether providing overhead (electricity, land, janitorial services etc) support for people egaged in religious activity constitutes a move, however tiny, towards the establishment of religion. Neither is it perfectly clear that forbidding equally all such support to all such groups effectively prohibits their right to excercise freedom of religion.

    People tend to see the issue as perfectly clear cut on one side or the other. It isn't, in my opinion. It is perfectly possible, in my view, that the framers left us with situations where those two adjacent phrases give us two contradictory imperatives, at least viewed using two valued logic.

    Let A be the proposition that letting the students meet on school property is kind of state establishment of religion. Let B be the proposition that not letting the students meet on school property limits their free excercise of religion.

    It's not a black and white issue. Propositions like this aren't true or false in the same way that "3 > 2" or "pi is irrational" are. They are matters of judgement, and can be somewhat true or somewhat false. I happen to think A is practically completely false (but to a tiny degree true); and B is mostly false (but considerably more true than A). Therefore, I favor the students being allowed to meet, but I can see how other people would have different opinions.

    Since neither A, nor B is anything like 50% true, I'm not going to get very worked up either way. Since there is not way to split the difference (the students are allowed to meet on the property or they are not), then either decision is somewhat good and somewhat bad.

    Now, if the policy where not applied equally to atheists, jews, pagans, muslims and christians, then I would definitely get very excited about it, since it would be a clear step towards establishment.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  6. Re:Freedom of Religion? by Sir+Tristam · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Constitution itself promotes a strict interpretation. Congress in prohibited in Acticle I from making any ex post facto law; that is, a law that makes something illegal after the fact. Why? Simple; so that people would know the rules ahead of time, and only be punished if they break the rules that were in effect at the time that they committed a crime.

    If you look at the Declaration of Independence, making past actions illegal and then punishing the colonists for them was one of the tyranies that the colonists railed against when it was done by King George. That is why they made sure to include this restriction on the laws passed by Congress.

    However, if we then say that the Constitution itself is not to be interpreted strictly, but has a meaning that can change over time, then we are saying that people do not know the rules in advance; they find out that what they did was illegal when the courts "interpret" the Constitution. This smacks of the same tyranny that our founders were trying to escape.

    So, if we wish to summarize, interpreting the Constitution according to its "spirit" is against the spirit of the Constitution.

    Chris Beckenbach