I think there might be a loop-hole the churches could use. Before I go any further, let me state that I am neither a lawyer nor a resident of the USA.
If one considers that the ban is for TV-sets bigger than 55 inches, this is also part of the solution. The church could build a wall of TV-sets, each of which is smaller than the 55"-limit. Connect them all to the same box of electronics and you have got yourself a virtual 150" TV. Together all the TV-sets show the whole picture, but each individual TV-set shows only a small part of the entire picture.
Obviously, the 'solution' I propose could be illegal for some other reason, and it's definitely technically non-trivial, but it might be all it takes for the churches to continue showing the Super Bowl for lots of people.
I think your comparison with a bomb is lacking too much to make any sense.
Mostly, unless you happen to work for the armed forces, possession of a bomb is illegal, no matter what the intended use is. If TPB were illegal of itself, the authorities would have shut it down years ago, long before it made a name of itself. I think a more sensible comparison would be with a hammer: the item itself is legal, but when you use it to smash somebody's skull you are breaking the law. The use of the hammer in this crime is just a minor point, and does not make the hammer itself illegal. The same ought to apply to a torrent tracker: teh tracker itself is legal, it is the uses you put it to that could be illegal.
When it comes to TPB and their possibly illegal activities, the authorities have a problem. The prosecutor can charge TPB with aiding others in copyright violation. But in order to do that, they must first get a conviction of copyright violation, and it must have been done using TPB. Unless someone has been found guilty of copyright violation, TPB cannot be held responsible for aiding copyright violation. The authorities can obviously charge TPB with other crimes also/instead, but that is a different matter altogether.
Yes, I live in Sweden and have been reading a lot about the raid on TPB and comments surrounding the raid. However, I am not a lawyer but consensus of opinion seems to be what I expressed in the paragraph above.
Your cats may create some practical problems, as well as costs, but the embassy should be able to let you know what rules apply. Generally Sweden is very restrictive with letting animals enter the country, since we don't have rabies here.
On the subject of languages, obviously learning Swedish is a very good start. Having said that, I can admit I have met someone, whose grandfather has lived over 30 years in Stockholm. This grandfather does not speak a single word of Swedish! If you stay in the larger cities you will get by on English without any major problems. The younger people generally speak a very god English, but anybody over 50 might give you a problem.
While I agree with you that no-one has been raped, beaten or caught an STD on internet, there is a more important question: has the offender used internet in his/her search for a victim?
My reasoning behind the question is that I see very little (none, actually) reason to bar a typical rapist from using internet, since it isn't used to prepare for the crime. He (for it is usually a man) is out in town, gets drunk and assaults a woman on his way home. Though the crime is despicable, I don't see this idiot using internet to prepare for the crime. Not even for cleaning up what traces he might have left on the crime scene.
The other typical picture of a sex offender is the husband who rapes his wife. Yet again, what is internet doing to aggravate the crime? Or help in its perpetration? Or help keep the police from finding the criminal?
For the sex offender who uses internet as a tool for finding victims I can see a need to forbid this individual from using internet. But at the same time I think the ban should be time-limited. The reason is that people change over time, and everybody does deserve a second chance. Even third and fourth... Only while an offender is in prison do I really believe they should be banned from using internet, and even then only if internet was used to prepare/plan/execute/conceal the crime, or if this ban is placed on all inmates.
If a sex offender is such a threat to society as a whole that they merit being banned from using internet, then I claim they should be treated (for whatever condition they have, with whatever treatments are available) in a facility according to their needs. And, if those are the needs, then this facility should be locked, and the offender not let out until experts are certain he/she is not a threat to society.
The GPS units the athletes would be required to carry with them at _all_ times would by themselves not stop the athlete from taking any forbidden substances.
However, and this is something few commentators seem to realise, the units would make it possible for the anti-doping agencies to find any athlete at all times, thereby making the athletes subject to random drug test no matter where they are or if they try hiding or not. With a GPS unit on their person that transmits it's own position to relevant authorities no athlete would be safe from drug test at any time.
Obviously, if this is to work, there must be a heavy penalty for not being close to your personal GPS reciever/transmitter or the obvious way to cheat would be to leave the unit at home while you visit the doping factory/clinic...
One further point: Carolina Klüft has suggested the 'chip under the skin' solution as well as the 'key ring in the bag' version, but she is completely aware of the fact that the 'chip under the skin' is taking things to their extreme.
I can agree with you in principle, but think the suggested law is the wrong way to go. You should not be punished for following the law in the places you are, whether it be as a person or as a company. If the law of a country demands that (for example) companies turn over certain information to the authorities the companies following the law should not be punished in another country for doing so.
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem. You will also have cost the consumers in USA(1) a great deal, but that is another issue.
I think this law means the ISPs have a choice: either get fined in country X for not following the law, or get fined in USA for following the law in country X.
Either way, it opens some interesting points for discussion: should anybody (person or company) really be punished for following the law of the country/state/area in which they are? If action Z is legal in country X but illegal in country Y, should I be punished in country Y for doing X in country Z? Suppose Z is "criticising the government", X is USA and Y is the Peoples Republic of China (= mainland/communist China). Should Li Wang, who lives in Beijing, be imprisoned in China after having criticised the Chinese government while on holiday in USA? And should an American business man on a short business trip to China be popped behind bars for fifteen years for speaking his mind while in USA?
The funny part of it, if USA wants to enforce US laws in Sweden (where I live) is that Swedish law states that you are allowed to defend yourself (against, for example, US agents wanting to kidnap you) with "not obviously unreasonable" levels of violence. In plain language, it means that if the USA were to send 3 or more agents to forcibly transport me to any place I don't want to go, I could probably get away with killing one or more of them...
If the USA can find agents willing to take that kind of risk while at work, then I suppose I can't stop them, only get a bigger dog.
Slashdot Mirror
If one considers that the ban is for TV-sets bigger than 55 inches, this is also part of the solution. The church could build a wall of TV-sets, each of which is smaller than the 55"-limit. Connect them all to the same box of electronics and you have got yourself a virtual 150" TV. Together all the TV-sets show the whole picture, but each individual TV-set shows only a small part of the entire picture.
Obviously, the 'solution' I propose could be illegal for some other reason, and it's definitely technically non-trivial, but it might be all it takes for the churches to continue showing the Super Bowl for lots of people.
Mostly, unless you happen to work for the armed forces, possession of a bomb is illegal, no matter what the intended use is. If TPB were illegal of itself, the authorities would have shut it down years ago, long before it made a name of itself. I think a more sensible comparison would be with a hammer: the item itself is legal, but when you use it to smash somebody's skull you are breaking the law. The use of the hammer in this crime is just a minor point, and does not make the hammer itself illegal. The same ought to apply to a torrent tracker: teh tracker itself is legal, it is the uses you put it to that could be illegal.
When it comes to TPB and their possibly illegal activities, the authorities have a problem. The prosecutor can charge TPB with aiding others in copyright violation. But in order to do that, they must first get a conviction of copyright violation, and it must have been done using TPB. Unless someone has been found guilty of copyright violation, TPB cannot be held responsible for aiding copyright violation. The authorities can obviously charge TPB with other crimes also/instead, but that is a different matter altogether.
Yes, I live in Sweden and have been reading a lot about the raid on TPB and comments surrounding the raid. However, I am not a lawyer but consensus of opinion seems to be what I expressed in the paragraph above.
Your cats may create some practical problems, as well as costs, but the embassy should be able to let you know what rules apply. Generally Sweden is very restrictive with letting animals enter the country, since we don't have rabies here.
On the subject of languages, obviously learning Swedish is a very good start. Having said that, I can admit I have met someone, whose grandfather has lived over 30 years in Stockholm. This grandfather does not speak a single word of Swedish! If you stay in the larger cities you will get by on English without any major problems. The younger people generally speak a very god English, but anybody over 50 might give you a problem.
While I agree with you that no-one has been raped, beaten or caught an STD on internet, there is a more important question: has the offender used internet in his/her search for a victim? My reasoning behind the question is that I see very little (none, actually) reason to bar a typical rapist from using internet, since it isn't used to prepare for the crime. He (for it is usually a man) is out in town, gets drunk and assaults a woman on his way home. Though the crime is despicable, I don't see this idiot using internet to prepare for the crime. Not even for cleaning up what traces he might have left on the crime scene. The other typical picture of a sex offender is the husband who rapes his wife. Yet again, what is internet doing to aggravate the crime? Or help in its perpetration? Or help keep the police from finding the criminal? For the sex offender who uses internet as a tool for finding victims I can see a need to forbid this individual from using internet. But at the same time I think the ban should be time-limited. The reason is that people change over time, and everybody does deserve a second chance. Even third and fourth... Only while an offender is in prison do I really believe they should be banned from using internet, and even then only if internet was used to prepare/plan/execute/conceal the crime, or if this ban is placed on all inmates. If a sex offender is such a threat to society as a whole that they merit being banned from using internet, then I claim they should be treated (for whatever condition they have, with whatever treatments are available) in a facility according to their needs. And, if those are the needs, then this facility should be locked, and the offender not let out until experts are certain he/she is not a threat to society.
The GPS units the athletes would be required to carry with them at _all_ times would by themselves not stop the athlete from taking any forbidden substances. However, and this is something few commentators seem to realise, the units would make it possible for the anti-doping agencies to find any athlete at all times, thereby making the athletes subject to random drug test no matter where they are or if they try hiding or not. With a GPS unit on their person that transmits it's own position to relevant authorities no athlete would be safe from drug test at any time. Obviously, if this is to work, there must be a heavy penalty for not being close to your personal GPS reciever/transmitter or the obvious way to cheat would be to leave the unit at home while you visit the doping factory/clinic... One further point: Carolina Klüft has suggested the 'chip under the skin' solution as well as the 'key ring in the bag' version, but she is completely aware of the fact that the 'chip under the skin' is taking things to their extreme.
If companies doing business with the communist government in China is a problem, then forbid any company in USA to trade with China and you will have solved the problem. You will also have cost the consumers in USA(1) a great deal, but that is another issue.
1: According to Wikipedia China is USAs second largest import supplier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#US_imports_of_goods_in_2004_by_country
I think this law means the ISPs have a choice: either get fined in country X for not following the law, or get fined in USA for following the law in country X. Either way, it opens some interesting points for discussion: should anybody (person or company) really be punished for following the law of the country/state/area in which they are? If action Z is legal in country X but illegal in country Y, should I be punished in country Y for doing X in country Z? Suppose Z is "criticising the government", X is USA and Y is the Peoples Republic of China (= mainland/communist China). Should Li Wang, who lives in Beijing, be imprisoned in China after having criticised the Chinese government while on holiday in USA? And should an American business man on a short business trip to China be popped behind bars for fifteen years for speaking his mind while in USA?
The funny part of it, if USA wants to enforce US laws in Sweden (where I live) is that Swedish law states that you are allowed to defend yourself (against, for example, US agents wanting to kidnap you) with "not obviously unreasonable" levels of violence. In plain language, it means that if the USA were to send 3 or more agents to forcibly transport me to any place I don't want to go, I could probably get away with killing one or more of them... If the USA can find agents willing to take that kind of risk while at work, then I suppose I can't stop them, only get a bigger dog.