The answer, of course, is that the 1st Amendment does not say "Congress shall may no law regarding speech of any kind." The Amendment protects "the freedom of speech." What exacly is the freedom of speech? Well, it has never included defamation or speech likely to incite crowds -- there have always been laws or common law doctrines punishing or suppressing these types of speech. The same men who wrote the 1st Amendment also saw little problem in prosecuting people for seditious speech. These things are simply not part of "the freedom of speech" the Amendment protects.
Thus, 10,000 court cases about whether certain forms of expression are within the "freedom of speech" protected by the Amendment.
Um, almost all companies are owned by entities that produce nothing, create nothing, and increase the value of nothing -- they're called shareholders.
The idea that the owners of a company need not be related to the laborers of the the comany is not a failing of the free market, it is one of the most fundamental principles of the free market. Instead of trying to fund my own lemonade stand, I bring on investors to cough up some money. I sell them a chunk -- or all -- of the business and happily expand while they share the profits.
As for boycotts, even if you boycott only one division of a congolomerate, you are still impacting (however slightly) the conglomerate's bottom line.
Supermonopolies? Last I checked, there were many many search engines.
"notoriously controversial Myst & Riven Series"
"notorious Presto Studios"
OK, I admit that I don't follow gaming all that closely -- but how are these things "nortorious" or "controversial"?
Try Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921), which held:
-- quote -- The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.
In the present case the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property, or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another. --
The Fourth Amendment only applies to the gov't. It has no application to civil discovery.
As I understand it, the UAW was insturmental in getting Ford to dish out the computers. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk up this move to corporate generosity or vision. I think keeping the union happy with a non-monetary benefit to workers is more like it. Would Ford rather give $1000 raises or go out an buy 300,000 PCs at a volume discount for its employees?
They don't *need* probable cause. They're not the state, and you're not going to jail.
Too many posters have this *civil* action mixed up with a criminal case. In a civil action, the plaintiff has the right to "discovery" of the defendant's files in order to gain evidence supporting the lawsuit. This happens every day. If you were to sue Northwest Airlines, for example, and had some basis for your suit, you could gain discovery of Northwest's files, and read all of *their* e-mail related to your suit.
The "cyber issue" here is not the methods of discovery in civil cases, but the dangers of using e-mail and computers in one's personal life. The real issue is that e-mail and computers make records of our communications. Back when the Northwest employees would have just called each other on the telephone to organize, there were no records of their communications to discover in a civil suit (save for the phone bills). E-mail, on the other hand, records the contents of one's communications, making a nice paper trail for anyone looking to sue you.
Civil discovery & privacy have not changed, the amount of discoverable material any person might have has changed.
The story takes the mere filing of a class action suit (something that happens very frequently, to all kinds of companies) and holds it out at a sign of Big Trouble for AOL.
AOL, through unnamed representatives, gets one quote in the whole piece -- and a legalistic sounding one at that.
And, to top the article off, the piece ends with two extended quotes from some managing editor at *Time* who essentialy sez that AOL has screwed up and needs to be more responsible. An editor at Time?! This guy is qualified to comment because he's the reporter's boss? I guess it cuts down on interview expenses when you only need walk down the hall for a few good quotes.
If anything, I think the story reflects Time's fear of being seen as if it is pulling punches. The quotes from Mr. Big Editor guy make me think this is some sort of internal message to the troops that it's ok to jump on AOL.
A close reading of the article reveals that the school is not "throwing out" the SAT, but allowing kids who flunk the school's SAT benchmarks to take a battery of alternative tests, including this lego test. The battery will apparently include a traditional interview. That thought, however, is too complex for us mere mortals to grasp. Watch as our friends in the media helpfully simplify the story for us over the next few days to: "SAT thrown out for Legos!" Dan
The only trouble with all this ranting about "misquoting" is that Katz *did not identify any specific person* as the source of the quote.
Thus:
Katz: Some guy told me "you suck, you are not a geek, you can't do Linux."
Angry Guy: Hey! I was the guy who said that! But I did not say that! I said something else!
You're only "misquoted" when someone attributes something to you that you didn't say. Nobody attributed nothin' here.
You might accuse Katz of making up e-mails, but that's a different argument. Besides, I think an author's liberty to paraphrase is greater when not attributing a quote to a specific person (i.e., a guy on the radio yesterday said . . .."
So two of the largest purveyors of homogenized pablum "information" have merged. So what? Synergistic homogenized pablum? Fewer options for consumers looking for celeberty profiles and books about cats?
The cost of making one's own "content" availible to the entire world has never been lower. AOL and Time can continue delivering pablum to those who want it. For those who don't, there has never been a greater forum.
Katz's article, while touching on a lot of valid issues, ultimately falls into a type of geek-chauvinism that afflicts the thinking of a lot of net-savvy types. The First Amendment and its relation to pornography has a history of robust case law that stretches back at least 50 years. The issues Katz raises, such as the line between socially valuable information relating to sexuality versus pornography, or the rights of children to access sexual information at school, have been hashed out pretty thoroughly in the Supreme Court and lower courts. Absolutely *nothing* about the Internet impacts the line the Supreme Court has drawn separating protected speech under the 1st Amendment vs. unprotected speech. Of course the Internet presents new problems for the law and law enforcement. The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, right? But the core legal issue -- what is protected and what is off-limits -- is not affected by the Internet. Too often, net-savvy (or net-centric?) types are quick to cry: "the Internet has changed everything, our old laws no longer apply!" On a topic so heavily debated by lawyers, politicians, and professors of all kinds for so many decades, it is geek-chauvinism to think that what's come before should be junked, and that only people with an intimate understanding of technology should write the new rules. Sorry, Katz -- a whole lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about the First Amendment and porn. The fact that the dirty pictures are now transmitted by IP packet rather than brown paper bag doesn't alter the fundamental issue.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer, of course, is that the 1st Amendment does not say "Congress shall may no law regarding speech of any kind." The Amendment protects "the freedom of speech." What exacly is the freedom of speech? Well, it has never included defamation or speech likely to incite crowds -- there have always been laws or common law doctrines punishing or suppressing these types of speech. The same men who wrote the 1st Amendment also saw little problem in prosecuting people for seditious speech. These things are simply not part of "the freedom of speech" the Amendment protects.
Thus, 10,000 court cases about whether certain forms of expression are within the "freedom of speech" protected by the Amendment.
Um, almost all companies are owned by entities that produce nothing, create nothing, and increase the value of nothing -- they're called shareholders. The idea that the owners of a company need not be related to the laborers of the the comany is not a failing of the free market, it is one of the most fundamental principles of the free market. Instead of trying to fund my own lemonade stand, I bring on investors to cough up some money. I sell them a chunk -- or all -- of the business and happily expand while they share the profits. As for boycotts, even if you boycott only one division of a congolomerate, you are still impacting (however slightly) the conglomerate's bottom line. Supermonopolies? Last I checked, there were many many search engines.
"notoriously controversial Myst & Riven Series" "notorious Presto Studios" OK, I admit that I don't follow gaming all that closely -- but how are these things "nortorious" or "controversial"?
Where do you think charitable foundations keep their endowments? Under a mattress? It's in equity and bonds.
IAAL.
Try Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921), which held:
-- quote --
The Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in the previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly issued.
In the present case the record clearly shows that no official of the federal government had anything to do with the wrongful seizure of the petitioner's property, or any knowledge thereof until several months after the property had been taken from him and was in the possession of the Cities Service Company. It is manifest that there was no invasion of the security afforded by the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, as whatever wrong was done was the act of individuals in taking the property of another.
--
The Fourth Amendment only applies to the gov't. It has no application to civil discovery.
Dan
As I understand it, the UAW was insturmental in getting Ford to dish out the computers. I wouldn't be so quick to chalk up this move to corporate generosity or vision. I think keeping the union happy with a non-monetary benefit to workers is more like it. Would Ford rather give $1000 raises or go out an buy 300,000 PCs at a volume discount for its employees?
They don't *need* probable cause. They're not the state, and you're not going to jail.
Too many posters have this *civil* action mixed up with a criminal case. In a civil action, the plaintiff has the right to "discovery" of the defendant's files in order to gain evidence supporting the lawsuit. This happens every day. If you were to sue Northwest Airlines, for example, and had some basis for your suit, you could gain discovery of Northwest's files, and read all of *their* e-mail related to your suit.
The "cyber issue" here is not the methods of discovery in civil cases, but the dangers of using e-mail and computers in one's personal life. The real issue is that e-mail and computers make records of our communications. Back when the Northwest employees would have just called each other on the telephone to organize, there were no records of their communications to discover in a civil suit (save for the phone bills). E-mail, on the other hand, records the contents of one's communications, making a nice paper trail for anyone looking to sue you.
Civil discovery & privacy have not changed, the amount of discoverable material any person might have has changed.
Dan
The story takes the mere filing of a class action suit (something that happens very frequently, to all kinds of companies) and holds it out at a sign of Big Trouble for AOL.
AOL, through unnamed representatives, gets one quote in the whole piece -- and a legalistic sounding one at that.
And, to top the article off, the piece ends with two extended quotes from some managing editor at *Time* who essentialy sez that AOL has screwed up and needs to be more responsible. An editor at Time?! This guy is qualified to comment because he's the reporter's boss? I guess it cuts down on interview expenses when you only need walk down the hall for a few good quotes.
If anything, I think the story reflects Time's fear of being seen as if it is pulling punches. The quotes from Mr. Big Editor guy make me think this is some sort of internal message to the troops that it's ok to jump on AOL.
A close reading of the article reveals that the school is not "throwing out" the SAT, but allowing kids who flunk the school's SAT benchmarks to take a battery of alternative tests, including this lego test. The battery will apparently include a traditional interview. That thought, however, is too complex for us mere mortals to grasp. Watch as our friends in the media helpfully simplify the story for us over the next few days to: "SAT thrown out for Legos!" Dan
The only trouble with all this ranting about "misquoting" is that Katz *did not identify any specific person* as the source of the quote.
."
Thus:
Katz: Some guy told me "you suck, you are not a geek, you can't do Linux."
Angry Guy: Hey! I was the guy who said that! But I did not say that! I said something else!
You're only "misquoted" when someone attributes something to you that you didn't say. Nobody attributed nothin' here.
You might accuse Katz of making up e-mails, but that's a different argument. Besides, I think an author's liberty to paraphrase is greater when not attributing a quote to a specific person (i.e., a guy on the radio yesterday said . . .
So two of the largest purveyors of homogenized pablum "information" have merged. So what? Synergistic homogenized pablum? Fewer options for consumers looking for celeberty profiles and books about cats?
The cost of making one's own "content" availible to the entire world has never been lower. AOL and Time can continue delivering pablum to those who want it. For those who don't, there has never been a greater forum.
Katz's article, while touching on a lot of valid issues, ultimately falls into a type of geek-chauvinism that afflicts the thinking of a lot of net-savvy types. The First Amendment and its relation to pornography has a history of robust case law that stretches back at least 50 years. The issues Katz raises, such as the line between socially valuable information relating to sexuality versus pornography, or the rights of children to access sexual information at school, have been hashed out pretty thoroughly in the Supreme Court and lower courts. Absolutely *nothing* about the Internet impacts the line the Supreme Court has drawn separating protected speech under the 1st Amendment vs. unprotected speech. Of course the Internet presents new problems for the law and law enforcement. The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, right? But the core legal issue -- what is protected and what is off-limits -- is not affected by the Internet. Too often, net-savvy (or net-centric?) types are quick to cry: "the Internet has changed everything, our old laws no longer apply!" On a topic so heavily debated by lawyers, politicians, and professors of all kinds for so many decades, it is geek-chauvinism to think that what's come before should be junked, and that only people with an intimate understanding of technology should write the new rules. Sorry, Katz -- a whole lot of smart people have spent a lot of time thinking about the First Amendment and porn. The fact that the dirty pictures are now transmitted by IP packet rather than brown paper bag doesn't alter the fundamental issue.