I'm sorry your honor, I only punched fourteen people in the face after taking their money. That's such a tiny percentage of the population.
The thing about mac zealots is, if their purchasing trends are any indication, they'll actually thank you for both punching them and taking their money.
Your passphrase could be phrased to be an admission to a crime. That gives it automatic protection. Something like "I have defaced US currency" or "I jaywalked last Saturday at 3pm"
Somehow I don't think that's what the judge based her ruling on.
I don't have an answer to the first question, but it's plain common sense that a person who has a vested interest in a decision going one particular direction should not be allowed to make that decision.
A judge has no vested interest in a decision going one particular direction or another. They're not paid by the case. If they find they don't have jurisdiction, they'll deny the application for the restraining order and move on to the next case.
I never said that they should be free to disregard them because they think they're unlawful, I say they should be free to disregardthem because they are unlawful. I agree that to allow someone to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because I didn't think it was lawful" and have the appeal judge reply "oh, well, if you thought it was unlawful that's ok then" would be a nonsense. But for someone to be able to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because it was unlawul, here's why..." and have the appeal judge reply "you're right, that was unlawful, no charge to answer" is plain common sense.
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in Walker v. City of Birmingham, holding that "in the fair administration of justice, no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted
his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. One may sympathize with the petitioners' impatient commitment to their cause. But respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom." In Howat v. Kansas the Court held "An injunction issued by a court of general jurisdiction and equity powers upon proper pleadings and served upon parties within the jurisdiction must be obeyed, even if erroneous and based upon an invalid statute, until set aside by orderly review."
And the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not, is that gag orders aren't automatically unconstitutional. You're always going to be able to come up with arguments as to why the injunction is invalid; it's up to the trial judge to decide how convincing those arguments are, and he or she is the one issuing the injunction. If you think you
It's a question of balancing; is it more important to promote the rule of law by requiring people to obey court orders until they're vacated, or is it more important to ensure that absolutely, positively nobody is ever imprisoned for a wrongful contempt charge. The courts pick the former, and I have to say I agree with them. You obviously believe in the latter, which is your right, and if you feel that strongly about it you should petition your representative to pass a law to fix the problem.
And though it may offend your sense of physics-like consistency, in City of Birmingham the Court implicitly recognized that where an injunction on its face is completely and transparently invalid (like your enjoined-from-breathing example), then you don't have to follow it.
I wasn't trying to argue that was in any sense a lawful order. Constitutional issues could get it overturned, but if defendant Smith is still bound to follow it until it's overturned, he's still going to prison or the morgue.
Or, far more likely, suffer a few fines. I think a Court is far more likely to find civil contempt in this case. And I'm not sure where you're getting the morgue from. But yes, in the end, it IS possible that someone may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing judge. Just like you may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing police officer. It's not a sign of a broken system unless you have no way to get out of jail. Fortunately, there are safeguards built into the system that will help you, for example habeas corpus writs. If you are enjoined from breathing, you may be
Considering that the constitution provides that he shouldn't be forced to incriminate himself, it is definitely good news that the Judge didn't try to rewrite the constitution. It's high time that we start holding the judges who disagree with this concept accountable.
It's up to judges to decide the tough ones. Yes, you have a right to not incriminate yourself. But the question becomes, is being forced to divulge a password self-incrimination? You're not admitting to a crime. Personally I think it is, and the judge made the right decision, but I can see how someone could legitimately think the other way.
This is why the courts should never be allowed to hear aspects of cases which hinge around the extents of the court's authority.
Well who else is going to do it? That's the first question a judge asks, "do I have subject matter jurisdiction here?"
If judges are free to issue orders which are in defiance of the law, and have higher courts uphold contempt judgements against people for disobeying those orders, there is no rule of law. Just petty tyrants with essentially unlimited power.
And if people are free to disregard orders because they believe the judges were wrong in issuing them, then there is no rule of law.
An example. A judge orders you to stop breathing. This is clearly not a lawful order. You appeal to a higher court, and 24 hours later sucessfully overturn it. In the mean time (let's assume that you don't choose to asphyxiate yourself), you've breathed many hundreds of times. The first judge finds you in contempt. The higher court supports the contempt ruling because you must obey an injunction until it's overturned and you go to prison. Either you're wrong, or the system is very broken. I hope it's the former (nothing personal).
Well now that's just silly. That's like saying a bridge is "very broken" because it can't handle a weightload of a billion tons. Law isn't physics, it can't make provisions for impossible values of variables, and it's based on handling plausible situations. Besides which, the situation you raise has obvious due process problems, and the Constitution trumps both statutory law and equity.
All I'm saying is that as a general premise you are expected to obey an order until it is vacated or reversed, This doesn't mean that failure to do so means automatic criminal contempt and the appellate court won't overturn it. It just means that you can't lightly disobey court orders because you're second guessing the judge. In fact, speaking as someone who actually works in the field, I can tell you that contempt citations are frequently overturned, so much so that trial courts are hesitant to actually issue them. But you're not going to get too much sympathy from the appellate court by saying "I didn't obey the order because the judge was wrong," even if the appellate court agrees that the judge was wrong.
An article of this magnitude (well it isn't but if it were true...) and the least the editor could've done is hover his mouse cursor over the link.
But that would require the editors to spend several minutes a day editing, leaving them precious little time to do whatever else it is they do. You know, if I had a time machine I'd go back in time and become friends with CmdrTaco so I too could get a nice job like slashdot editor...
Eh, you face civil and criminal liability for walking down the street. It's just a risk everyone faces in life. And your company is almost certainly going to pay for your representation whether they've promised or not, because if they don't then you can just run to the other side and say "drop all charges against me and I'll testify on your behalf."
But you are under no obligation to go *looking* for that information. That's the examiners job.
I asked a patent lawyer friend of mine about this today, she said while there is no requirement to look for prior art, the court is allowed to hold it against you in a later infringement action.
Ok I've been making fun of Id for years for their cheesy use of heavy metal album cover-style art design. Now they just up and admit it? That takes some of the fun out of it.
Not so simple. "What I told him to do" cannot amount to an abridgement of any person's rights, unless there is a contract to mitigate this,
and of course you cannot ask someone to do anything illegal.
There doesn't need to be an actual written contract setting out specific duties; without a written contract (or even with one where the duties aren't defined) the law will interpret the terms, and I think for a software developer to be asked to help out with the patent process would be considered normal job duties. Therefore, refusal to follow orders to help out would be cause for firing.
Your example is worlds away from what's going on here.
which also probably means they can fire you and not face the consequences. It just won't be a "for cause" firing, but rather letting you go for some bogus reason.
"He wouldn't do what I told him to do" would be for cause.
The Dreamcast was imo the best console ever made. Years ahead of its competitors, and could even frequently go head to head against consoles that came out years later.
If you're addressing an ambassador from another country in your own, I think it would be a good idea to be respectful in a diplomatic way. Of course, I'm sure we'd love to develop that kind of image for ourselves.
Colbert is not a representative of the U.S. government and he has neither a legal nor moral obligation to refrain from insulting China. You'd probably think that it'd disrespectful to picket the Chinese embassy over Chinese human rights violations, right?
Stewart is a pretentious ass who looks down and mocks conservatives. Colbert does the same, just in character. Conservatives aren't invited to share views, they're invited as fodder for ridicule.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stewart treats conservatives (and liberals) a lot more respectfully than many of them deserve. Have you even watched the show? Do you ever think before you talk? Are you completely devoid of rationality?
I hope this doesn't mean he's going to be too disconnected from the rest of the/. demographic!
Yes, with those kinds of distractions he might start making missteps like posting duplicate stories. Imagine what slashdot would become with something like that...
I'd like to see a headline like "Malware Creators of XP AntiVirus 2008 Charged Today"...
And then see a hundred slashdot posts insisting that a) it's all Microsoft and/or the user's fault for allowing/installing malware, b) that the young malware creator is just a precocious geek, and companies should hire them for being such brilliant malware creators.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry your honor, I only punched fourteen people in the face after taking their money. That's such a tiny percentage of the population.
The thing about mac zealots is, if their purchasing trends are any indication, they'll actually thank you for both punching them and taking their money.
Your passphrase could be phrased to be an admission to a crime. That gives it automatic protection. Something like "I have defaced US currency" or "I jaywalked last Saturday at 3pm"
Somehow I don't think that's what the judge based her ruling on.
I don't have an answer to the first question, but it's plain common sense that a person who has a vested interest in a decision going one particular direction should not be allowed to make that decision.
A judge has no vested interest in a decision going one particular direction or another. They're not paid by the case. If they find they don't have jurisdiction, they'll deny the application for the restraining order and move on to the next case.
I never said that they should be free to disregard them because they think they're unlawful, I say they should be free to disregardthem because they are unlawful. I agree that to allow someone to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because I didn't think it was lawful" and have the appeal judge reply "oh, well, if you thought it was unlawful that's ok then" would be a nonsense. But for someone to be able to stand up and say "I didn't obey the order because it was unlawul, here's why..." and have the appeal judge reply "you're right, that was unlawful, no charge to answer" is plain common sense.
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in Walker v. City of Birmingham, holding that "in the fair administration of justice, no man can be judge in his own case, however exalted his station, however righteous his motives, and irrespective of his race, color, politics, or religion. This Court cannot hold that the petitioners were constitutionally free to ignore all the procedures of the law and carry their battle to the streets. One may sympathize with the petitioners' impatient commitment to their cause. But respect for judicial process is a small price to pay for the civilizing hand of law, which alone can give abiding meaning to constitutional freedom." In Howat v. Kansas the Court held "An injunction issued by a court of general jurisdiction and equity powers upon proper pleadings and served upon parties within the jurisdiction must be obeyed, even if erroneous and based upon an invalid statute, until set aside by orderly review."
And the law of the land, whether you agree with it or not, is that gag orders aren't automatically unconstitutional. You're always going to be able to come up with arguments as to why the injunction is invalid; it's up to the trial judge to decide how convincing those arguments are, and he or she is the one issuing the injunction. If you think you
It's a question of balancing; is it more important to promote the rule of law by requiring people to obey court orders until they're vacated, or is it more important to ensure that absolutely, positively nobody is ever imprisoned for a wrongful contempt charge. The courts pick the former, and I have to say I agree with them. You obviously believe in the latter, which is your right, and if you feel that strongly about it you should petition your representative to pass a law to fix the problem.
And though it may offend your sense of physics-like consistency, in City of Birmingham the Court implicitly recognized that where an injunction on its face is completely and transparently invalid (like your enjoined-from-breathing example), then you don't have to follow it.
I wasn't trying to argue that was in any sense a lawful order. Constitutional issues could get it overturned, but if defendant Smith is still bound to follow it until it's overturned, he's still going to prison or the morgue.
Or, far more likely, suffer a few fines. I think a Court is far more likely to find civil contempt in this case. And I'm not sure where you're getting the morgue from. But yes, in the end, it IS possible that someone may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing judge. Just like you may be briefly imprisoned due to the wrongful acts of an overbearing police officer. It's not a sign of a broken system unless you have no way to get out of jail. Fortunately, there are safeguards built into the system that will help you, for example habeas corpus writs. If you are enjoined from breathing, you may be
Considering that the constitution provides that he shouldn't be forced to incriminate himself, it is definitely good news that the Judge didn't try to rewrite the constitution. It's high time that we start holding the judges who disagree with this concept accountable.
It's up to judges to decide the tough ones. Yes, you have a right to not incriminate yourself. But the question becomes, is being forced to divulge a password self-incrimination? You're not admitting to a crime. Personally I think it is, and the judge made the right decision, but I can see how someone could legitimately think the other way.
This is why the courts should never be allowed to hear aspects of cases which hinge around the extents of the court's authority.
Well who else is going to do it? That's the first question a judge asks, "do I have subject matter jurisdiction here?"
If judges are free to issue orders which are in defiance of the law, and have higher courts uphold contempt judgements against people for disobeying those orders, there is no rule of law. Just petty tyrants with essentially unlimited power.
And if people are free to disregard orders because they believe the judges were wrong in issuing them, then there is no rule of law.
An example. A judge orders you to stop breathing. This is clearly not a lawful order. You appeal to a higher court, and 24 hours later sucessfully overturn it. In the mean time (let's assume that you don't choose to asphyxiate yourself), you've breathed many hundreds of times. The first judge finds you in contempt. The higher court supports the contempt ruling because you must obey an injunction until it's overturned and you go to prison. Either you're wrong, or the system is very broken. I hope it's the former (nothing personal).
Well now that's just silly. That's like saying a bridge is "very broken" because it can't handle a weightload of a billion tons. Law isn't physics, it can't make provisions for impossible values of variables, and it's based on handling plausible situations. Besides which, the situation you raise has obvious due process problems, and the Constitution trumps both statutory law and equity.
All I'm saying is that as a general premise you are expected to obey an order until it is vacated or reversed, This doesn't mean that failure to do so means automatic criminal contempt and the appellate court won't overturn it. It just means that you can't lightly disobey court orders because you're second guessing the judge. In fact, speaking as someone who actually works in the field, I can tell you that contempt citations are frequently overturned, so much so that trial courts are hesitant to actually issue them. But you're not going to get too much sympathy from the appellate court by saying "I didn't obey the order because the judge was wrong," even if the appellate court agrees that the judge was wrong.
Contempt of an invalid order doesn't stand, does it?
The Federal courts have made it quite clear that you must obey an injunction, even if it is ultimately overturned on appeal.
You know, confiscation is not "arrest."
An article of this magnitude (well it isn't but if it were true...) and the least the editor could've done is hover his mouse cursor over the link.
But that would require the editors to spend several minutes a day editing, leaving them precious little time to do whatever else it is they do. You know, if I had a time machine I'd go back in time and become friends with CmdrTaco so I too could get a nice job like slashdot editor...
You mean I WASN'T Scarlett Johansson's date to last year's Oscars??? Despite the picture I have of it??
Similarly, for a new developer, it will take time before people start recognising the name and start trusting the developer to do the right things.
In other words, it's hard because I make it hard.
How can this bode anything for net neutrality anyway?
In my opinion there's way too much boding going on. I mean, you can't turn around without something boding something else.
Well, at least they don't have monsters with Big Hair
Not since Romero left at least...
Eh, you face civil and criminal liability for walking down the street. It's just a risk everyone faces in life. And your company is almost certainly going to pay for your representation whether they've promised or not, because if they don't then you can just run to the other side and say "drop all charges against me and I'll testify on your behalf."
But you are under no obligation to go *looking* for that information. That's the examiners job.
I asked a patent lawyer friend of mine about this today, she said while there is no requirement to look for prior art, the court is allowed to hold it against you in a later infringement action.
heavy metal album cover
Ok I've been making fun of Id for years for their cheesy use of heavy metal album cover-style art design. Now they just up and admit it? That takes some of the fun out of it.
Not so simple. "What I told him to do" cannot amount to an abridgement of any person's rights, unless there is a contract to mitigate this, and of course you cannot ask someone to do anything illegal.
There doesn't need to be an actual written contract setting out specific duties; without a written contract (or even with one where the duties aren't defined) the law will interpret the terms, and I think for a software developer to be asked to help out with the patent process would be considered normal job duties. Therefore, refusal to follow orders to help out would be cause for firing.
Your example is worlds away from what's going on here.
The Iphone is Apple's Vista...Bloated, shiney and overpriced!
Sounds like the Iphone is Apple's Macintosh. Wait, that's not an analogy anymore, is it...
which also probably means they can fire you and not face the consequences. It just won't be a "for cause" firing, but rather letting you go for some bogus reason.
"He wouldn't do what I told him to do" would be for cause.
The Dreamcast was imo the best console ever made. Years ahead of its competitors, and could even frequently go head to head against consoles that came out years later.
Yeah, well you have to disagree with the fairtax because it's not on your teams agenda.
No, I don't play on the "stupid" team.
If you're addressing an ambassador from another country in your own, I think it would be a good idea to be respectful in a diplomatic way. Of course, I'm sure we'd love to develop that kind of image for ourselves.
Colbert is not a representative of the U.S. government and he has neither a legal nor moral obligation to refrain from insulting China. You'd probably think that it'd disrespectful to picket the Chinese embassy over Chinese human rights violations, right?
Stewart is a pretentious ass who looks down and mocks conservatives. Colbert does the same, just in character. Conservatives aren't invited to share views, they're invited as fodder for ridicule.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stewart treats conservatives (and liberals) a lot more respectfully than many of them deserve. Have you even watched the show? Do you ever think before you talk? Are you completely devoid of rationality?
Support the Fair Tax. http://fairtax.org/
Ohhhh, guess you are completely devoid of rationality.
I hope this doesn't mean he's going to be too disconnected from the rest of the /. demographic!
Yes, with those kinds of distractions he might start making missteps like posting duplicate stories. Imagine what slashdot would become with something like that...
But it is not diplomatic
And he's not a diplomat.
I'd like to see a headline like "Malware Creators of XP AntiVirus 2008 Charged Today"...
And then see a hundred slashdot posts insisting that a) it's all Microsoft and/or the user's fault for allowing/installing malware, b) that the young malware creator is just a precocious geek, and companies should hire them for being such brilliant malware creators.