Because segregating kids from the "adult world" and then suddenly plunging them into that world on their magical 18th birthday is a great way to raise capable, well-adjusted adults.
"For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets -- in space ships like this one -- and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us.
At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. And the penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk.
The result is that we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war -- free to pursue more profitable enterprises. We do not pretend to have achieved perfection -- but we do have a system -- and it works."
If you're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, then unless the government is forcing you to sign the NDA the Constitution is not relevant. The Constitution is about governmental powers. Citing the Constitution in reference to agreements between private parties is like citing the rules of baseball in a hockey game.
IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is)
True enough, in most circumstances a person can represent himself. Bar admission is what allows one to work for others as an attorney. If Thompson isn't too busy trying to make a living at some other trade, he can spend his time filing suits pro se.
All being on the bar does is allow you to practice law in a courtroom.
That's not correct.
In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with -- and I'm admitted to practice law in three of them -- being disbarred means a lot more than not being allowed to practice law in a courtroom. It means you can't hold yourself out as an attorney or practice law in any capacity. That includes negotiating contracts, providing professional legal advice, and all the other things attorneys do outside of court.
Just to clarify, a lawyer is someone with a law degree. An attorney is someone admitted to the bar -- that is, licensed to practice law, in or out of a courtroom.
Sure, there's no rule saying that a disbarred lawyer can't teach law. But I doubt many law schools would be eager to hire a lawyer who was kicked out of the bar. (To say nothing of Thompson, who is also notorious for being a bullying, authoritarian git.)
The answer to this problem is clear, if we can only muster the will to follow through on it. We must ban those monstrous "Phoenix Wright - Ace Attorney" games, and protect our children from their insidious influence.
It is clear to any right-thinking person that these so-called "games" are in fact Lawyer Simulations. Thanks to their brutal desensitization we are in danger of creating an entire generation of Jack Thompsons.
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about.
And apparently you think the very idea of "Free Speech" did exist prior to 1791. Free Speech is far older, bigger and more important than the First Amendment to the US. Constitution.
You are absolutely correct that the First Amendment has no application here -- Google is a private party, and can remove anything from its servers that it cares to, for any reason or no reason. Few things irritate me more than some chucklehead crying "First amendment rights!" with regard to speech on private property or private Web space. But when Google presents itself as a reliable conduit of information, but removes some information and applies a content-based double standard, then they are certainly subject to criticism for violating the principles of free expression.
I can't wait for the new version that comes with a page of stickers instead of credit cards. Just put the mark on your right hand -- or even your forehead, if you want to be wacky! -- and show it to the scanner when you want to buy or sell. Fun for ages 6 - 66!
And like someone who didn't read the rest of my post.
I'm a parent, I read your entire post, and it to me it reads like impractical and irresponsible whining.
I don't expect others agree with my views of what is or is not appropriate for my child, so how on earth could I expect them to help limit his access to things I would consider inappropriate? Rather than deluding myself into thinking that the culture can be made "safe" for my child, I'm focusing my energies on raising a child who can make good moral choices while navigating the wide, weird -- and yes, sometimes dangerous -- media landscape we live in.
If you live on an island in the ocean you can tell your kid to ignore the water, and ask everyone to keep your kid away from the shoreline, or you can teach your kid where the water is safe, where it's dangerous, and train him to be a good swimmer. I'm teaching my kid to swim.
Probably that would be covered under homosexuality but if you could make it clear in the context of the game that men rubbing each others nipples was not homosexual then that is totally OK in Oklahoma...
"It's okay, Your Honor. It's a Trar Trek - ENTERPRISE game and they were just, you know, 'decontaminating.' Yeah, that's it."
So comcast isn't overlaying all those comcast adds and local adds on my national cable?
No, they aren't.
Yes they are. For many (most?) national cable channels, part of the deal under which the cable company carries the channel is that the cable company gets a certain number of minutes per hour in which to run their own ads. This is why you might see a commercial for your local, just-down-the-block used car dealer on a national channel like Food Network.
Ok, so I'm dusted. I see that the most liberal of parties opposes what is effectively Free Speech and the party which brought us the Patriot Act is advocating the it.
Congressmen are supposed to act in the best interests of the nation.
The judiciary is supposed to uphold the constitution.
Upon taking office, members of Congress also take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So a Senator or Representative who votes for something he knows or believes to violate the Constitution breaks his oath. Congressmen are not off the hook just because the Judiciary is there as a backstop.
Are you a corporation or a person? If you are a real person - not a legally-defined fictitious entity like a corporation - then liberals & progressives (not necessarily Democrats) are on "your side", whether you support and/or agree with them or not.
Sorry, but someone who does things I don't agree with and don't want them to do is not "on my side," whether they claim to be or not.
We all use the floppy disk. I don't care who you are (but more likely so if you're a government employee), you have a green floppy disk in your briefcase that has a masking-tape label on it written with pencil..
Oh, man. The memories! I had a blue bulk floppy with a Schwa alien sticker on it, and a DOS batch file that would zip up the data from my Delphi.com offline mail and newsreader so I could use the floppy to sync up my 386 desktop and my 386sx laptop. I had even hand-drilled a hole in floppy so it would hold 1.44MB.
Now this is an extremely useful article. Having analyzed the police officers' reasons for suspecting this person, I've developed a to-do list of appropriate behavior to show that I am not a threat.
Next time I'm in London and have to take the tube I'll be sure to:
--Go naked.
--Stare directly into the eyes of every police officer I see, for as long as possible.
--Avoid looking at anyone else for any reason whatsoever.
--If I am carrying a bag, put the bag down on the platform and move away from it as quickly as possible.
A better comparison would be John Carmack to Walt Disney. Allowing for big cultural differences (such as there being fewer media outlets in Disney's day) I think Carmack hold up well in that comparison.
"...Unless they are eating babies or something...there is a line for everything."
Seems like you want it both ways. Should corporate decisions consider morality, or not?
Yes, as you say, there is a line for everything. For many people (myself included) government restrictions on discussing democracy are well past that line.
Slashdot Mirror
Because segregating kids from the "adult world" and then suddenly plunging them into that world on their magical 18th birthday is a great way to raise capable, well-adjusted adults.
"For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets -- in space ships like this one -- and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression we have given them absolute power over us.
At the first sign of violence they act automatically against the aggressor. And the penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk.
The result is that we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war -- free to pursue more profitable enterprises. We do not pretend to have achieved perfection -- but we do have a system -- and it works."
Klaatu, The Day the Earth Stood Still
If you're talking about the Constitution of the United States of America, then unless the government is forcing you to sign the NDA the Constitution is not relevant. The Constitution is about governmental powers. Citing the Constitution in reference to agreements between private parties is like citing the rules of baseball in a hockey game.
IIRC, you can always represent yourself with or without a law license (no matter how bad an idea it is)
True enough, in most circumstances a person can represent himself. Bar admission is what allows one to work for others as an attorney. If Thompson isn't too busy trying to make a living at some other trade, he can spend his time filing suits pro se.
All being on the bar does is allow you to practice law in a courtroom.
That's not correct.
In every jurisdiction I'm familiar with -- and I'm admitted to practice law in three of them -- being disbarred means a lot more than not being allowed to practice law in a courtroom. It means you can't hold yourself out as an attorney or practice law in any capacity. That includes negotiating contracts, providing professional legal advice, and all the other things attorneys do outside of court.
Just to clarify, a lawyer is someone with a law degree. An attorney is someone admitted to the bar -- that is, licensed to practice law, in or out of a courtroom.
Sure, there's no rule saying that a disbarred lawyer can't teach law. But I doubt many law schools would be eager to hire a lawyer who was kicked out of the bar. (To say nothing of Thompson, who is also notorious for being a bullying, authoritarian git.)
-T.
Yesterday someone said it's only a matter of time before JT sues himself. Maybe he'll sue for legal malpractice?
The answer to this problem is clear, if we can only muster the will to follow through on it. We must ban those monstrous "Phoenix Wright - Ace Attorney" games, and protect our children from their insidious influence.
It is clear to any right-thinking person that these so-called "games" are in fact Lawyer Simulations. Thanks to their brutal desensitization we are in danger of creating an entire generation of Jack Thompsons.
Please, think of the children.
-T.
...And apparently my freedoms include the right to let typos make me look like an idiot. Of course I meant to type:
"And apparently you think the very idea of "Free Speech" did NOT exist prior to 1791."
Sorry for any confusion...
Okay, apparently half the posters don't understand what Freedom of Speech is all about.
And apparently you think the very idea of "Free Speech" did exist prior to 1791. Free Speech is far older, bigger and more important than the First Amendment to the US. Constitution.
You are absolutely correct that the First Amendment has no application here -- Google is a private party, and can remove anything from its servers that it cares to, for any reason or no reason. Few things irritate me more than some chucklehead crying "First amendment rights!" with regard to speech on private property or private Web space. But when Google presents itself as a reliable conduit of information, but removes some information and applies a content-based double standard, then they are certainly subject to criticism for violating the principles of free expression.
--Tetsujin.
I can't wait for the new version that comes with a page of stickers instead of credit cards. Just put the mark on your right hand -- or even your forehead, if you want to be wacky! -- and show it to the scanner when you want to buy or sell. Fun for ages 6 - 66!
For a pretty good Disneyfied version, see National Treasure.
Spoken like someone who is not a parent.
And like someone who didn't read the rest of my post.
I'm a parent, I read your entire post, and it to me it reads like impractical and irresponsible whining.
I don't expect others agree with my views of what is or is not appropriate for my child, so how on earth could I expect them to help limit his access to things I would consider inappropriate? Rather than deluding myself into thinking that the culture can be made "safe" for my child, I'm focusing my energies on raising a child who can make good moral choices while navigating the wide, weird -- and yes, sometimes dangerous -- media landscape we live in.
If you live on an island in the ocean you can tell your kid to ignore the water, and ask everyone to keep your kid away from the shoreline, or you can teach your kid where the water is safe, where it's dangerous, and train him to be a good swimmer. I'm teaching my kid to swim.
-T.
"It's okay, Your Honor. It's a Trar Trek - ENTERPRISE game and they were just, you know, 'decontaminating.' Yeah, that's it."
No, they aren't.
Yes they are. For many (most?) national cable channels, part of the deal under which the cable company carries the channel is that the cable company gets a certain number of minutes per hour in which to run their own ads. This is why you might see a commercial for your local, just-down-the-block used car dealer on a national channel like Food Network.
Ok, so I'm dusted. I see that the most liberal of parties opposes what is effectively Free Speech and the party which brought us the Patriot Act is advocating the it.
Oh, you mean the Patriot Act which every voting Democrat senator supported, except one?
Congressmen are supposed to act in the best interests of the nation.
The judiciary is supposed to uphold the constitution.
Upon taking office, members of Congress also take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. So a Senator or Representative who votes for something he knows or believes to violate the Constitution breaks his oath. Congressmen are not off the hook just because the Judiciary is there as a backstop.
Are you a corporation or a person? If you are a real person - not a legally-defined fictitious entity like a corporation - then liberals & progressives (not necessarily Democrats) are on "your side", whether you support and/or agree with them or not.
Sorry, but someone who does things I don't agree with and don't want them to do is not "on my side," whether they claim to be or not.
We all use the floppy disk. I don't care who you are (but more likely so if you're a government employee), you have a green floppy disk in your briefcase that has a masking-tape label on it written with pencil..
Oh, man. The memories! I had a blue bulk floppy with a Schwa alien sticker on it, and a DOS batch file that would zip up the data from my Delphi.com offline mail and newsreader so I could use the floppy to sync up my 386 desktop and my 386sx laptop. I had even hand-drilled a hole in floppy so it would hold 1.44MB.
Man, I though that was all just too cool.
Now this is an extremely useful article. Having analyzed the police officers' reasons for suspecting this person, I've developed a to-do list of appropriate behavior to show that I am not a threat.
Next time I'm in London and have to take the tube I'll be sure to:
--Go naked.
--Stare directly into the eyes of every police officer I see, for as long as possible.
--Avoid looking at anyone else for any reason whatsoever.
--If I am carrying a bag, put the bag down on the platform and move away from it as quickly as possible.
Did I miss anything?
Hmmm... as I recall, George Washington and Ben Franklin were Englishmen.
Only in the sense that at the time of their birth their birthplaces were British colonies. Washington was born in Virginia; Franklin, in Boston.
(Then again, maybe the GP poster could lobby for admission of England into the United States?)
It is like we are living in 1999.
Cue the purple.
A better comparison would be John Carmack to Walt Disney. Allowing for big cultural differences (such as there being fewer media outlets in Disney's day) I think Carmack hold up well in that comparison.
Just think "free speech." Unless you're tempted to spell free as "frea," this should remind you to spell speech the right way.
"CNN doing worthwhile reporting? What crack have you been smoking?"
What? You don't think CNN does worthwhile reporting? How about that great segment where they have hot newsbunnies read verbatim from blogs?
"...Unless they are eating babies or something...there is a line for everything."
Seems like you want it both ways. Should corporate decisions consider morality, or not?
Yes, as you say, there is a line for everything. For many people (myself included) government restrictions on discussing democracy are well past that line.