No, what I am saying, and what the judge said, is that the law cannot make distinctions between solicitous speech because such distinctions are reserved to the citizen.
The reason some such law, when properly drafted, will ultimately pass Constitutional muster is that it is an "opt out" law. The law as written opts you in to certain calls whether you want them or not.
The judge's decision stands in of your rights actually, not the rights of the callers.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, or a Congressman running for reelection, you may find the fact that people have the right to choose not listen to you offensive.
At the risk of being selfserving myself here is a link to a post I made earlier today explaining my views on the legality of the do not call list:
If the do not call list had made a distinction between various kinds of speech, but had allowed the citizen to opt out of each seperately this law might have met the Constitutional challenge.
"Press One if you don't want religous fanatics bothering you at dinner.
Press Two if you think your Congressman is a religous fanatic.
If you've simply had it up to here press Three, and then cancel your phone service.
No, by enforcing decisions that are not the consumer's.
The law arbitrarily allows certain parties ( such as Jehovah's Witnesses) to be uneffected, even though the "consumer" may well wish that said parties cease soliciting them.
Although it may not appear to be on the surface, this is actually a good ruling. The bill needs to be written better.
Congress does not want to write it better. Why not?
Because their own campaign fund/vote solicitations are exempted from the law along with the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Remove this self-serving exemption and perhaps the law will be found to be Costitutionally compliant.
"So what you're claiming is they are making claims without actually claiming any of the claims they're claiming to claim?"
I have made that claim, yes. Or so I claim.
"But is it safe?"
Not only is it safe and safe, it's also well known for being safe ( although BSD may be safer, safer and safer, or so some claim. Some of them even claim to claim this, although I wouldn't necessarily accept may claim to this claim without claiming your research on said claims).
I stake my claim on it.
See what SCO has led me to become? Prove positive that they're evil.
Arbitrary business plans do not have an inherent right to be profitable, nor even to exist in the first place. Nor do the people who work under such business plans have an inherent right to their jobs.
Think of all the crack cookers who are out of work and drug pushers whose business model is under attack just because crack is illegal. Think of the poor, starving children of all the extorsionists and contract killers "just trying to make a living."
I fully support the right of free speach. I personally don't believe there is any such thing as a "bad" word, image or thought. Only bad actions. If you swing your arm around and fail to hit my nose I really don't give a damn and think you have every right to swing your arms. I may, however, "opt in" to your hitting my nose.
So. ..
You have a right to speak freely. You do not have a right to make me listen. That's hitting my nose.
Existing law already acknowledges this situation and does so in a way that has been deemed Constitutional. You may speak, but you may not harass.
The survey person at the mall may solicit your participation, but she can't follow you around the mall all day.
Your ex-girlfriend can't call you up all time if tell her you opt out of such behaviour.
Opting out of receiving calls already has legal standing.
The do not call list is opt out. It does not infringe on free speach. It protects rights to not have speach impinged upon you in a manner that is inherently personal (as a opposed to a billboard which is in the public sphere, and even banning billboards has withstood certain Constitutional challenges already since they are an issue of building codes, not speach per se).
I believe the judge was probably right in ruling that the FTC didn't have the authority to directly impose the do not call list. I wish more judges would make like rulings against all the various "authorities" who abrogate and pervert the Constitution and allow Congress to violate the very nature of American legal philosophy through the use of "codes." Why the American public has even allowed this is beyond my compreshension.
However, if Congress passes a law allowing me to opt out of commercial harassment in my own home a priori I have no more philosophical problem with that than I do with the law that says you can't just walk up and punch me in the nose.
BSD is safe, since BSDI formally aquired rights to the UNIX code.
This makes SCO's position twice as ludicrous.
They seem to believe that it is Linux in particular that people are hot for, and will pay for no matter what.
It seems never to have occured to them that it is an Open Source free Unix that people want and that if Linux is destroyed people will simply switch to BSD and SCO still fails to extract a penny.
SCO's plan, being based on wholly false assumptions, was ludicrous right from its conception.
KFG
Re:Wonder if they used this?
on
SCO's Plan Examined
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
See how well the SCO FUD has worked? You think there is some claim against Linux, when actually the only legal claim SCO has actually made so far is against certain extensions of the 2.4 kernel (such as JFS support).
A good many ditros do not, and never have even included those extensions.
Everything else is SCO claiming they claim, without actually claiming it, and then relying on public perception to equate the actual claim with the claimed claims.
And, of course, the second SCO bother to actually identify any code that actually infringes it will be written out of Linux in a matter of a few days and Linux will be "safe" again.
That's why SCO will actually, in the long run, refuse to defend their claims in court where such code will have to be made public knowledge.
Don't be silly. Time is duodecimal really ( 12 major divisions of the clock), so you can get by in your normal state -- one hand and your pants down.Women have an easier time of this one being true duodecimal creatures, so just keep a woman around to tell time.
"Honey, could you come here for a few 1/12ths?"
Don't talk to me about celestial navigation though. That hurts - - and can only be done at an orgy.
Because they are trying to drive the demand to produce sales, and yes, most of that push is coming from Redmond pushing on the hardware manufacturers to move in a direction that requires an OS upgrade.
It's an unholy feedback cycle that profits everyone, but. . . us.
Ah, but that wasn't my conclusion at all. My conclusion was that democracy was no prevention at all for it happening. This is a very different conclusion from the one you stated.
And of course fear and thuggery has never been a deciding factor in an election in America and could never happen on a national scale.
Because, well, because this is America, God Bless Her, everyone.
Right now America is broken. Most of it doesn't even know it's broken, even though every time Ashcroft opens his mouth more fascist hate spews out of it.
Why is it broken?
Because the voting public has already refused to use their democratic rights inherent in the Constitutional system to prevent it from becoming this broken.
Oddly enough time does not follow you particularly.
Some people have yet to learn those lessons and for them Slack remains just as relevant today as it was for you "back in the day."
There's always a new generation looking for their first "girlfriend," and even the occassional older man who has no objections to a fresh face that has yet to learn to adulterate itself with makeup and "chrome" and an air of false, unearned sophistication and commercial cynicism.
Although Slack may be "high maintainence" as "she" matures into a woman, she is high maintainence in the sense that someone working on her doctorate in archeology is high maintainence -- and not in the sense of someone who's bitching about your not working hard enough to buy her a more status laden house full of shoes is.
Windows 95/98/Me et al = Kludge on top of DOS, which was a kludge in and of itself.
NT/XP ( Changing the letters doesn't change the OS ) = Kludge on top of VMS
Microsoft only has two operating systems, only one of them is considered current and that one is virtually as old as Unix, which otherwise displaced it in the market place as the superiour system.
Slashdot Mirror
No, what I am saying, and what the judge said, is that the law cannot make distinctions between solicitous speech because such distinctions are reserved to the citizen.
0 57 852
The reason some such law, when properly drafted, will ultimately pass Constitutional muster is that it is an "opt out" law. The law as written opts you in to certain calls whether you want them or not.
The judge's decision stands in of your rights actually, not the rights of the callers.
If you are a Jehovah's Witness, or a Congressman running for reelection, you may find the fact that people have the right to choose not listen to you offensive.
At the risk of being selfserving myself here is a link to a post I made earlier today explaining my views on the legality of the do not call list:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=79968&cid=7
If the do not call list had made a distinction between various kinds of speech, but had allowed the citizen to opt out of each seperately this law might have met the Constitutional challenge.
"Press One if you don't want religous fanatics bothering you at dinner.
Press Two if you think your Congressman is a religous fanatic.
If you've simply had it up to here press Three, and then cancel your phone service.
Have nice, quiet day."
KFG
Please see my earlier post.
What you wanted to happen may not be what this law causes to actually happen.
That is the nubbin of the decision which actually stands in support of your right to choose.
KFG
No, by enforcing decisions that are not the consumer's.
The law arbitrarily allows certain parties ( such as Jehovah's Witnesses) to be uneffected, even though the "consumer" may well wish that said parties cease soliciting them.
Although it may not appear to be on the surface, this is actually a good ruling. The bill needs to be written better.
Congress does not want to write it better. Why not?
Because their own campaign fund/vote solicitations are exempted from the law along with the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Remove this self-serving exemption and perhaps the law will be found to be Costitutionally compliant.
KFG
"So what you're claiming is they are making claims without actually claiming any of the claims they're claiming to claim?"
I have made that claim, yes. Or so I claim.
"But is it safe?"
Not only is it safe and safe, it's also well known for being safe ( although BSD may be safer, safer and safer, or so some claim. Some of them even claim to claim this, although I wouldn't necessarily accept may claim to this claim without claiming your research on said claims).
I stake my claim on it.
See what SCO has led me to become? Prove positive that they're evil.
KFG
Arbitrary business plans do not have an inherent right to be profitable, nor even to exist in the first place. Nor do the people who work under such business plans have an inherent right to their jobs.
.
Think of all the crack cookers who are out of work and drug pushers whose business model is under attack just because crack is illegal. Think of the poor, starving children of all the extorsionists and contract killers "just trying to make a living."
I fully support the right of free speach. I personally don't believe there is any such thing as a "bad" word, image or thought. Only bad actions. If you swing your arm around and fail to hit my nose I really don't give a damn and think you have every right to swing your arms. I may, however, "opt in" to your hitting my nose.
So. .
You have a right to speak freely. You do not have a right to make me listen. That's hitting my nose.
Existing law already acknowledges this situation and does so in a way that has been deemed Constitutional. You may speak, but you may not harass.
The survey person at the mall may solicit your participation, but she can't follow you around the mall all day.
Your ex-girlfriend can't call you up all time if tell her you opt out of such behaviour.
Opting out of receiving calls already has legal standing.
The do not call list is opt out. It does not infringe on free speach. It protects rights to not have speach impinged upon you in a manner that is inherently personal (as a opposed to a billboard which is in the public sphere, and even banning billboards has withstood certain Constitutional challenges already since they are an issue of building codes, not speach per se).
I believe the judge was probably right in ruling that the FTC didn't have the authority to directly impose the do not call list. I wish more judges would make like rulings against all the various "authorities" who abrogate and pervert the Constitution and allow Congress to violate the very nature of American legal philosophy through the use of "codes." Why the American public has even allowed this is beyond my compreshension.
However, if Congress passes a law allowing me to opt out of commercial harassment in my own home a priori I have no more philosophical problem with that than I do with the law that says you can't just walk up and punch me in the nose.
KFG
BSD is safe, since BSDI formally aquired rights to the UNIX code.
This makes SCO's position twice as ludicrous.
They seem to believe that it is Linux in particular that people are hot for, and will pay for no matter what.
It seems never to have occured to them that it is an Open Source free Unix that people want and that if Linux is destroyed people will simply switch to BSD and SCO still fails to extract a penny.
SCO's plan, being based on wholly false assumptions, was ludicrous right from its conception.
KFG
See how well the SCO FUD has worked? You think there is some claim against Linux, when actually the only legal claim SCO has actually made so far is against certain extensions of the 2.4 kernel (such as JFS support).
A good many ditros do not, and never have even included those extensions.
Everything else is SCO claiming they claim, without actually claiming it, and then relying on public perception to equate the actual claim with the claimed claims.
And, of course, the second SCO bother to actually identify any code that actually infringes it will be written out of Linux in a matter of a few days and Linux will be "safe" again.
That's why SCO will actually, in the long run, refuse to defend their claims in court where such code will have to be made public knowledge.
Therefore Linux is not only safe, it's safe.
KFG
No. All parents, even the Slashdot variety, like to enjoy the illusion ( no matter how illusory ) of saftey when it comes to their children.
Therefore they're all going to switch to the BSD devil.
KFG
So switch to propriatary AIX instead and be safe.
KFG
Japan/China
Ok, another bad example. The Japanese talent for absorbing, internalizing and rebroadcasting culture as their own is remarkable and unique.
The Swiss and the Dutch come close, but the effect is far more subtle, and thus less noticable, with them.
KFG
Don't be silly. Time is duodecimal really ( 12 major divisions of the clock), so you can get by in your normal state -- one hand and your pants down.Women have an easier time of this one being true duodecimal creatures, so just keep a woman around to tell time.
"Honey, could you come here for a few 1/12ths?"
Don't talk to me about celestial navigation though. That hurts - - and can only be done at an orgy.
Why do you think it's usually done by seamen?
KFG
You can't win you know. As soon as he gets his due recongnition America will just co-opt him as our own.
We did it with Alexander Graham Bell, Albert Einstein and Werner Von Braun.
How many Americans know that the great man, Michael J. Fox, is actually a Canadian?
Ok, bad example, but it's the thought that counts.
KFG
Hey, at least the Frankfurter is still all American.
KFG
The way I see it you have two options.
The first is to grow six more fingers. This is the prefered method.
The second is to implement the Tom Lehrer approach, because base 8 is just like base 10 really. . . if you're missing two fingers.
Got bandsaw?
KFG
Do I care if I'm seen when I go out in public? No, not at all. Sometimes I actually go out in public for the express purpose of being seen.
Do I care if I'm stalked if I go out in public? Why yes. Yes I do. Very much.
I care even more if they can do the stalking months, or even years, after the fact.
KFG
Because they are trying to drive the demand to produce sales, and yes, most of that push is coming from Redmond pushing on the hardware manufacturers to move in a direction that requires an OS upgrade.
It's an unholy feedback cycle that profits everyone, but. . . us.
KFG
Ah, but that wasn't my conclusion at all. My conclusion was that democracy was no prevention at all for it happening. This is a very different conclusion from the one you stated.
And of course fear and thuggery has never been a deciding factor in an election in America and could never happen on a national scale.
Because, well, because this is America, God Bless Her, everyone.
Right now America is broken. Most of it doesn't even know it's broken, even though every time Ashcroft opens his mouth more fascist hate spews out of it.
Why is it broken?
Because the voting public has already refused to use their democratic rights inherent in the Constitutional system to prevent it from becoming this broken.
In fact, most approve of it.
KFG
Two words: Patriot Act.
You do understand that in a number of polls the "people" have been shown more than willing to completely renounce Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
And, of course ( here comes Godwin's Law), Hitler was voted dictator for life in a democratic election.
KFG
"If voting were faster and cheaper it could be involved more regularly in all manner of decision making processes."
A clearer recipe for hell I don't think I have ever come across.
That isn't "governance." It's mob rule.
At least tyrany by the few and powerful is stable and at least leaves you with some idea of what not to do to avoid getting put up against the wall.
KFG
These techies just trying to make living wouldn't happen to have a few sales people just trying to make a living as well?
These sales people wouldn't, perhaps, have represented the machines as somewhat better than "substandard," now would they?
No, the states aren't forced to buy them, but "just trying to make a living" don't cut it.
How else is the same sentiment sometimes phrased? Oh, yeah.
"A girl's got to make living."
KFG
Ok, kludge on top of broken VMS:The Next Generation.
:)
Much better.
KFG
Oddly enough time does not follow you particularly.
Some people have yet to learn those lessons and for them Slack remains just as relevant today as it was for you "back in the day."
There's always a new generation looking for their first "girlfriend," and even the occassional older man who has no objections to a fresh face that has yet to learn to adulterate itself with makeup and "chrome" and an air of false, unearned sophistication and commercial cynicism.
Although Slack may be "high maintainence" as "she" matures into a woman, she is high maintainence in the sense that someone working on her doctorate in archeology is high maintainence -- and not in the sense of someone who's bitching about your not working hard enough to buy her a more status laden house full of shoes is.
Have I beaten your metaphor into the ground yet?
KFG
Sucks to be addicted to small, shiney objects, don't it? :)
KFG
A nice attempt at a troll, but. . .
The point you miss is that with the various flavors of Unix you can install a system and just use it for 5 years without updating, or even 10 years.
Many, in fact, do just this.
Most Unix improvements these days are really only chasing the changes mandated by the "improvements" driven by the propriatary companies.
To this day when I want a good, solid Unix solution to just get some real work done I install Red Hat 5.2.
It's killer.
KFG
Windows 95/98/Me et al = Kludge on top of DOS, which was a kludge in and of itself.
NT/XP ( Changing the letters doesn't change the OS ) = Kludge on top of VMS
Microsoft only has two operating systems, only one of them is considered current and that one is virtually as old as Unix, which otherwise displaced it in the market place as the superiour system.
KFG