Free Speech is not limited to speech on the government. Pornography and KKK rallies have been protected by the first amendment, and speech that doesn't really need to be protected is also protected. In order to abridge ANY speech or press, you need a strong reason, typically the public welfare.
Reading is fundamental and I was the one who brought up the *other* forms of expression protected by free speech.. the problem is that they are ALL in relation to government intervention in preventing you from expressing those ideas.. in other words.. As the owner of a concert hall I can restrict your first amendment right to free speech and not allow a KKK rally on stage regardless of how much money you want to throw at me.. If instead we are talking about a publicly funded government operated venue.. then the content of your speech cannot be the reason why you are denied the right to speak their (with a very narrow scope of exceptions) opinions.
For it to be a FREE SPEECH issue, it has to involve the government infringing on the rights to express *your* opinions however unpalatable they may be.
o claim they are mutually exclusive is ridiculous. They are different concepts, but that doesn't mean that there is never any overlap.
There can be no overlap because they address completely different areas.. There is no way possible for any "free speech" violation to also affect copyright or patents.. I am not sure what the problem with understanding this is.. they are unique and separate issues.
A copyright violation involves someone who did not/does not qualify as the creator of a work or his or her heirs/assignees/agents using that work in a manner that is not authorized by the rights holder. This is invariably between 2 private parties or a private party and the government (such as attempting to reproduce documents produced by the government and the government suing to stop/prevent it under copyright law)
Would you care to cite an example of how congress can (or better yet has) somehow enact a law, that tries to prevent free expression of ideas, that somehow also is a copyright violation?
How about a situation where copyright law legitimately abridges free speech as defined by the supreme court of the united states over the last 200 or so years?
No, they can't. A law that is not for a limited time would not be constitutional, and if it doesn't benefit the public by promoting arts and sciences, a law could and should be declared unconstitutional, which is what I would argue is clearly the case here. The same would apply to copyright laws that somehow conflict with other parts of the constitution, including the first amendment and any other amendment.
You still seem to think that free speech/free press are somehow linked to copyright, but on the points you listed.. the duration being limited could be effectively indefinate 900 years? 9999 years? still limited still fits the letter if not the intent of the copyright clause.. "benefit the public by promoting the arts and sciences" is a lovely term, that could and has historically been interpreted to mean "benefits creators of the arts, and those who use the sciences.. more profits == more art and scientific advances right? this is precisely what got us where we are today.
A Law that "encouraged" IBM spending a huge % of its profits compared to other companies on Research is a good thing right? Similarly laws designed to make more people willing to devote their lives to writing, producing, and yes selling books, movies, tv, painting, sculpting, everything arts related are good things. And yet.. here we sit in 2010 with laws that seem absurd (the Mickey Mouse Protection Act for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) and yet they are a completely legitimate area for congress to address.. we simply chose to let congress run rampant f
You still do not get it do you? FREE SPEECH != anything to do with copyright they are mutually exclusive concepts..
Free speech is "expression of ideas contrary to the established government, or otherwise unpopular opinions"
Congress is NOT allowed to for example enact a law that makes it illegal to say that congress sucks.. because that would abridge your right to speak out against the government..
Congress may not make it illegal for a news agency to publish articles about congress getting caught doing naughty things.. that would abridge the freedom of the press.
Congress may not ban you and your friends from getting together and protesting their idiotic copyright laws as that would abridge your right of freedom of assembly..
congress can enact any law they want regarding copyright duration, revocation, reinstatement as this is all covered under the copyright clause and in no way affects anything under amendment 1
Umm you seem to look at a random law and interpret it as "free speech", when in actual point of fact copyright law is what was modified to allow the exceptions and created fair use as a bridge between "copyright protection" and "public domain"
Free Speech is *not* copyright, fair use is a 1976 codification of US common law that existed back into at least 1709 in the UK.. (taken from the same article you pulled your quote from) this is still not a free speech issue, nor a freedom of the press issue.
Free Speech is about the GOVERNMENT not being allowed to restrict what people talk about, both privately and in public (with a few very VERY tightly controlled restrictions such as yelling fire in a theater) and is almost *always* interpreted as referring to the right to express unpopular opinions in general, and about the current or previous government in particular.
There is a vast difference between copyright/patent law.. and free speech/freedom of assembly.
Again your wrong, as congress was given the power to do exactly that.. like it or not..
I do not *like* the way congress is behaving regarding copyrights, that does not mean that they are not the folks given that power by our constitution.
The 10TH amendment codifies what was not put into the original document (that anything congress is not allowed to do is the states job)
You are ignoring Section 8 which enumerates the powers of congress, I have inserted it below..
Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is the part you seem to be missing/ignoring.. its commonly referred to as "the copyright clause"
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Wrong because "free" speech has nothing to do with copyright or vice versa.
Free speech means you can say unpopular things, things that disagree with the "establishment", things that are inflammatory, things that are downright disgusting (in some segment of the populations opinion)..
Free speech does not mean you can copy things either privately or for profit.. it never has and it never will. Fair Use/Copyright/Public Domain are all interrelated with only each other.
There are times when Free speech and Copyright may cross paths.. (such as I dunno.. someone putting out a scathing unauthorized biography of a political figure.. and selling that book/movie.. and then suing someone else for trying to copy his or her work and sell it)
I really wish that people who are so into constitutional/bill of rights issues would at least do the rest of the world a favor and get a passing knowledge of the subject first.
This misunderstanding of Free Speech comes up nearly as often as the complete and utter confusion over "the right to keep and bear arms" clause.. not to mention the strict constitutional interpretations that conveniently (much like religious zealots) ignore the parts that they do not like or agree with.
How dare you use logic and common sense in a slashdot comment!
Emokids who think that they somehow have a right to use company/school networks for whatever they please and take great pleasure in "sticking it to the man" are the modern equivalent of the employees of yesteryear who thought that a "job for life" was their right regardless of performance/thievery/behavior.
If you want to use the company network it will always have rules attached.. crying that you cannot shop online, or that your porn fix, random non work related internet use may in fact be monitors/blocked is somehow "unfair" or "Illegal" is downright comical
I suggest you go reread your source material, as you are way off base with regards to which case is which.. and what they actually cover..
Suffice it to say that *every* SMS provider can and will provide copies of incoming and outgoing texts to the person or company paying the bills.
If you are using workplace equipment, you have no expectation of privacy, this goes back to pre-internet days.. and nothing has changed.
The cases currently under review have to do with internal policy (allowing private use of company property if the user pays the overages) IE they where considering what sort of access the provider of the device has (the employer) when they ask the employee to pay a portion of the charges.. does that change the privacy expectation from non existant to partial. The other case was purely about "you did something and i am taking you to court" Because both of these cases where about partial employee payment, rather than simply provided goods.. is the only way they got in the door of the court, otherwise they would have been tossed out.
This IS THE Quon case ruled on by the supreme court, saying that there is no expectation of privacy on a employer issued device.
ANY Communications that are made over the device are open to recording and interception, the fact that it is a cellphone is in no way overriding the fact that its a "work issued" device.. if the employer wants to record every call in and out of its devices they can simply say "we record all conversations to improve service" and they are covered. If you do not like it.. use a private phone rather than leeching from the office.
If your not concerned that your use is gonna be illegal or embarrassing of course you dont need to pay for your own duplicate service.. That said.. government employees none of them should be issued cellphones imo, theres no logical reason for them to be distributing something that serves no work related purposes..
I mean really who is using government issue cellphones and in what way are they work related to begin with?
This is not a webserver in another country.. though is it? This is doing business directly with US ISP's and companies directly (offering its product a blacklist)
Thats a bit more active than just having a website that someone in the US happened to see
I said before i *really* suggest you go chat up a UK lawyer before you post any further on this subject.. the last statement you made sums up your opinion and lack of understanding of international law rather clearly.
If you as a small business in america choose to ignore a foreign court because its foreign chances are you will be screwed over for doing exactly what spamhaus did.. Though I am fairly certain that they would have been better off not showing up at ALL, rather than showing up leaving and making what amounts to throwing up a big middle finger salute to the american court on its website.
Having done this on several judgements (in the UK as well as several OTHER EU member states) I can guarantee you.. they did not ever care *what* the case was about, only that the I's where dotted and the T's where crossed in terms of the actual case..
Of course these where all contractual disputes, and *not* third party middleman cases. But the fact remains this is never gonna come down to "but the guy is a spammer so therefor the court will refuse to accept the judgement"
I mean logically if that was true then everyone in the UK could decide that credit card companies are right bastards, and therefore no need to pay bills anymore, and none of those judgements would be valid?
You would still be responsible for any civil proceedings in that country, and they would be legally able to attempt to extract any assets you do have from wherever you are.
Hopefully if you are a smart porn site you have your sites geoblocking *all* middle eastern countries from access, and certainly are blocking Mid-East plastic from going through your payment processor..
If you have not done all of that, and anything else you can think of to block countries with laws that make your content illegal, you get what you deserve.
Not sure what the point of your post was trying to make though, do you really think that i would agree that the spammer should win in court, but that I would be so hypocritical as to say "but in my case no i would say FU saudi court" ?
Clearly reading is too tough, and your lack of understanding of big words shows through here.
AGain, whether or not you flipping agree with the case by e360 being valid or not.. that doesn't change the fact that "being in the UK" saves its residents from being bound by doing business in the US.. if spamhaus didn't want to be a party to the laws of this country they should NOT be distributing their list here.
Which brings us to your "not satisfied"
1) by distributing the list and causing action on that list by US entities satisfies the first rule
2) spamhaus lawyers did in fact file counterclaims in US court when they had the proceedings moved to federal court
3) By showing up and participating in the initial stage of the case, they agreed to submit
4) this was what happened today when they didnt throw the case out but returned it to the lower court for modification
5) was obviously satisfied as spamhaus knew about the case and participated until they figured out that the "hey we are from the uk your laws do not apply to us" defense was not going to work.
Again step back relax, forget that this is a spammer winning vs an anti-spammer vigilante and look at it for what it is.. Had the damn company simply played out the court case they would have had it disposed of properly years ago. Instead of trying to turn it into a political statement game.
Actually no a flat tax doesn't burden the poor any more than it burdens anyone else..
Shall we look at the current tax structure of the united states?
The US uses a tiered model, which theoretically has the wealthiest paying proportionately more of their income in taxes, more for their property in higher valued taxes, and theoretically more in sales and use taxes because they are more willing and able to buy products..
The lower income brackets pay less in income tax by %, less in sales taxes, and less or NO property taxes..
Theoretically this is great.. but in practice, this is not how things play out.. because the upper brackets shelter income, assets in tax free or low tax instruments.. and end up paying far *less* than their stated share of taxes..
10% of your income in taxes for a minimum wage employee is just that 10% of your income.. at the highest bracket.. which should be up to 35% but can be almost *entirely* shifted from actually paying taxes to *other* things.. reducing tax liability to less than 10%...
You cannot claim that your more harmed by paying your 10% than anyone else simply by nature of the fact that your paying 10%.. this is not about the fact that minimum wage in the USA is laughable, or that so many working people live below the poverty level etc.. this is purely about retarded tax laws that are so full of loopholes for the wealthiest people in the country, that the avg person has no idea what the hell they owe in taxes at a given time.
Having said all that, your assertion that its somehow "fair" to pay more suggests to me that you should go visit the USSR and see how that experiment worked out in the long run. Penalizing success is *not* the way to fix the tax system..
You again miss the point.. the UK court would *never* ask that question.. they dont give a shit what spamhaus feels about jurisdiction.. they would say "is this a legally binding valid judgement from a court that we recognize" if the answer is yes, they would recognize the judgement and force spamhaus to pay.
There is *NO* jurisdictional argument here, you may recall that there are many treaties between countries yes? many of them apply to just this sort of thing.. its why as long as the person in question is not facing the death penalty.. the UK will deport the person without any questions to face trial in the US..
You guys seem to think that being a UK citizen allows you to bypass the laws in the other 97% of the world freely and with impunity, sadly it does not.. your government has long recognized this.. and this is why your government and courts routinely enforce judgments and seizures of assets based on foreign court decisions.
Lets give a better example that bypasses the whole reason why you guys are in a tizzy (you feel spamhaus is right and e360 is wrong fine).. So lets go at it from this direction.. another form of civil case.. divorce decree issued in illinois forces ownership of property in the UK by a UK resident to be given to her ex.. when that divorce is granted by the Illinois court, the UK will force the transfer to the ex.. through simply filing the appropriate papers with the UK court.. *NOT* bringing the suit again in the UK..
Your trying to read far more into this than there is actually to read.. I never said automatic, merely that its routine for UK/US courts among others such as canada to RECOGNIZE the courts rulings as valid and enforcing them.. Without bringing suit again..
Keep in mind that spamhaus doesn't get to choose what courts it recognizes or not, and the jurisdictional claim wouldnt fly in a UK court any more than it did in american court. Another example.. if you live in Cumbria and a london retailer wrongs you.. you do not file suit in london, you file in your local court.. its up to the plaintiff to travel, not the defendant.. not in the US, and not in the UK..
Even if we follow the argument through that for some reason the charges need to be filed in the UK again or that the UK has to look at the charges again.. The problem for spamhaus is that the UK court HAS TO BY LAW agree that by not showing up to court, that they would have issued a summary judgement for the plaintiff as well. Because judges cannot be swayed by "personal opinion" on the validity of the case..
If i where to travel my happy ass to London and file a rediculous lawsuit against you saying that you agreed to pay me 100,000,000 dollars for webdesign work for your blog.. and you chose NOT to appear in court.. they would issue me a judgement for that amount as a matter of course..
And *that* is all they are gonna look at when e360 files to have its judgement enforced in the UK, they will not look at the "original charges" or side with spamhaus and say that "they where right not to appear", they will look at the FINDING OF FACTS in the case and say "everthing appears to be in order" and order payment.
They will also likely issue a statement telling spamhaus that disrespecting any court, or failing to appear is not a valid defense in the actual courts, only in the court of public opinion.
Btw http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.htm may be an interesting read if you *REALLY* think that the UK has some special laws that make their citizens and companies immune to laws of every other nation on the planet.
Fairness in taxes is that you all pay equally not that "the rich pay more, but have more chances to hide income so in effect pay far less"..
This whole business of having 1 part of the tax code aimed at "fairness for the lower income/middle classes, and those with most ability to pay paying more" and another part whose only reason for existance is to create loopholes in the tax code so that "those most able to pay taxes do not have to pay them".
Best thing that could be done is have a flat rate that actually pays the bills it needs to pay for the government,. and abolish *all* forms of loopholes once and for all.. I dream of a day where the US federal tax code consists of a single typewritten page saying "insert total income here and multiply by
Of course this will not happen until we can figure out a way to get strict 1 year term limits in congress (1 year and done for life, no moving around, no hopping from house to senate etc) and reform elections to where the guy with the most money wins (causing such idiocy as DNC and republicans spending 2 million or more on TV advertising for a house seat in a small district that means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things
The tax side is not the only half of that.. you cannot arbitrarily reduce taxes to nil and expect to fund every government program on the planet.. the idea is to use taxes in the most efficient manner possible, and stop trying to play favorites with tax dollars/breaks.. creating a monstrosity of a tax code that says in essence "taxes are paid at a rate of X % unless you are
I am no fan of high taxes, but i am even less of a fan of using taxes to create "most favored nation" loopholes to try to steal businesses from one town to another etc.. not to mention "tax breaks" as an incentive to do things
The "green gear" tax cuts need to go away as well.. if they want things green legislate it as a requirement and let competition sort out prices to be the most efficient.. rather than the current absurd situation where anything with a "green rebate" costs exactly what the Max rebate amount is.. or has added to what it should really sell for the amount the government is giving them (300$ instant hot water heaters that have been available for 20 years.. suddenly costing 1500+ due to a recent 1500$ rebate tax program)
That "run an ad in the local paper" is called a DBA and its required in all 50 states.. its to announce to the world that John Smith is now doing business as "John's Carpentry"...
When he "gave up and incorporated" he paid someone else to do it, but the ads where still run in the "paper of record" for the area he was doing business...
THe system is meant to protect consumers from drifters and scammers, if you cannot figure out how to goto your local tax collectors office, get a permit, run a classified ad (at worst 1 phonecall to the local paper). and fill out some paperwork.. perhaps you shouldn't be running a business ? Regardless of "type of business" most of these "onerous regulations" are really no more difficult than any other dealings with a government bureaucracy (DMV in most states, etc)
I dont even know how much the timeframe really matters.. I am more saying the total # is not relevant unwanted emails are unwanted emails..
sending 10 malware infested phishing emails to old ladies to steal their bank account info.. or 300,000,000 "buy viagra now" that get spam filtered... which is worse?
Given the 0 cost of sending virtually limitless #s of emails, I think that quoting numbers is pointless *shrug*
You sir are completely and utterly wrong on the subject.. this is not like "internet tax collection" where the "lack of a physical local entity" means you can ignore all local laws/regulations/courts.
You do not get to ignore any court for any reason just because you A) do not live near there B) feel that your right and the plaintiff is wrong.
As I have said, if this was not spamhaus vs random spam company, this wouldnt even be under discussion.. as a matter of fact, if it was Microsoft posting a letter of intent to ignore the judgement of an italian, or ukranian or south american court.../ readers would be all over them for being belligerent assholes..
People need to learn to seperate their pet peeves/petty grudges and actually read with an open mind the circumstances before they start typing..
I dunno over what timeframe? How many legit emails do you receive per month? The fact that the number of mails blocked was more than the number of people with email accounts is not as relevant as say... the MPAA saying that a studio lost 10 trillion dollars due to piracy of Avatar.. or some other sillyness where the numbers are meaningless.. Lemme give you an example.
Company X does list management for several large companies (ibm, apple, microsoft) who collectively have 100,000,0000 email addresses subscribed across various informational/promotional lists.. if *each* of them sends 10 emails per month to each user thats 3 billion messages.. The number is not really that large when talking about mail, the way your stating it is OMG ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEND EMAIL MORE TIMES THAN THERE ARE CONNECTED COMPUTERS.. which also btw ignores the fact that there are far more than 1 user per computer in most of the world. Not to mention multiple email addresses per person (isp, yahoo, google, apple, hotmail, lord knows how many others).
In short, less focusing on the number, more focus on the content if you wanna get your point across.
Slashdot Mirror
Free Speech is not limited to speech on the government. Pornography and KKK rallies have been protected by the first amendment, and speech that doesn't really need to be protected is also protected. In order to abridge ANY speech or press, you need a strong reason, typically the public welfare.
Reading is fundamental and I was the one who brought up the *other* forms of expression protected by free speech.. the problem is that they are ALL in relation to government intervention in preventing you from expressing those ideas.. in other words.. As the owner of a concert hall I can restrict your first amendment right to free speech and not allow a KKK rally on stage regardless of how much money you want to throw at me.. If instead we are talking about a publicly funded government operated venue.. then the content of your speech cannot be the reason why you are denied the right to speak their (with a very narrow scope of exceptions) opinions.
For it to be a FREE SPEECH issue, it has to involve the government infringing on the rights to express *your* opinions however unpalatable they may be.
o claim they are mutually exclusive is ridiculous. They are different concepts, but that doesn't mean that there is never any overlap.
There can be no overlap because they address completely different areas.. There is no way possible for any "free speech" violation to also affect copyright or patents.. I am not sure what the problem with understanding this is.. they are unique and separate issues.
A copyright violation involves someone who did not/does not qualify as the creator of a work or his or her heirs/assignees/agents using that work in a manner that is not authorized by the rights holder. This is invariably between 2 private parties or a private party and the government (such as attempting to reproduce documents produced by the government and the government suing to stop/prevent it under copyright law)
Would you care to cite an example of how congress can (or better yet has) somehow enact a law, that tries to prevent free expression of ideas, that somehow also is a copyright violation?
How about a situation where copyright law legitimately abridges free speech as defined by the supreme court of the united states over the last 200 or so years?
No, they can't. A law that is not for a limited time would not be constitutional, and if it doesn't benefit the public by promoting arts and sciences, a law could and should be declared unconstitutional, which is what I would argue is clearly the case here. The same would apply to copyright laws that somehow conflict with other parts of the constitution, including the first amendment and any other amendment.
You still seem to think that free speech/free press are somehow linked to copyright, but on the points you listed.. the duration being limited could be effectively indefinate 900 years? 9999 years? still limited still fits the letter if not the intent of the copyright clause.. "benefit the public by promoting the arts and sciences" is a lovely term, that could and has historically been interpreted to mean "benefits creators of the arts, and those who use the sciences.. more profits == more art and scientific advances right? this is precisely what got us where we are today.
A Law that "encouraged" IBM spending a huge % of its profits compared to other companies on Research is a good thing right? Similarly laws designed to make more people willing to devote their lives to writing, producing, and yes selling books, movies, tv, painting, sculpting, everything arts related are good things. And yet.. here we sit in 2010 with laws that seem absurd (the Mickey Mouse Protection Act for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act) and yet they are a completely legitimate area for congress to address.. we simply chose to let congress run rampant f
Fail troll.. and not even a funny one..
You still do not get it do you? FREE SPEECH != anything to do with copyright they are mutually exclusive concepts..
Free speech is "expression of ideas contrary to the established government, or otherwise unpopular opinions"
Congress is NOT allowed to for example enact a law that makes it illegal to say that congress sucks.. because that would abridge your right to speak out against the government..
Congress may not make it illegal for a news agency to publish articles about congress getting caught doing naughty things.. that would abridge the freedom of the press.
Congress may not ban you and your friends from getting together and protesting their idiotic copyright laws as that would abridge your right of freedom of assembly..
congress can enact any law they want regarding copyright duration, revocation, reinstatement as this is all covered under the copyright clause and in no way affects anything under amendment 1
Umm you seem to look at a random law and interpret it as "free speech", when in actual point of fact copyright law is what was modified to allow the exceptions and created fair use as a bridge between "copyright protection" and "public domain"
Free Speech is *not* copyright, fair use is a 1976 codification of US common law that existed back into at least 1709 in the UK.. (taken from the same article you pulled your quote from) this is still not a free speech issue, nor a freedom of the press issue.
Free Speech is about the GOVERNMENT not being allowed to restrict what people talk about, both privately and in public (with a few very VERY tightly controlled restrictions such as yelling fire in a theater) and is almost *always* interpreted as referring to the right to express unpopular opinions in general, and about the current or previous government in particular.
There is a vast difference between copyright/patent law.. and free speech/freedom of assembly.
Again your wrong, as congress was given the power to do exactly that.. like it or not..
I do not *like* the way congress is behaving regarding copyrights, that does not mean that they are not the folks given that power by our constitution.
The 10TH amendment codifies what was not put into the original document (that anything congress is not allowed to do is the states job)
You are ignoring Section 8 which enumerates the powers of congress, I have inserted it below..
Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 is the part you seem to be missing/ignoring.. its commonly referred to as "the copyright clause"
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
This explicitly gives the power to co
Wrong because "free" speech has nothing to do with copyright or vice versa.
Free speech means you can say unpopular things, things that disagree with the "establishment", things that are inflammatory, things that are downright disgusting (in some segment of the populations opinion)..
Free speech does not mean you can copy things either privately or for profit.. it never has and it never will. Fair Use/Copyright/Public Domain are all interrelated with only each other.
There are times when Free speech and Copyright may cross paths.. (such as I dunno.. someone putting out a scathing unauthorized biography of a political figure.. and selling that book/movie.. and then suing someone else for trying to copy his or her work and sell it)
I really wish that people who are so into constitutional/bill of rights issues would at least do the rest of the world a favor and get a passing knowledge of the subject first.
This misunderstanding of Free Speech comes up nearly as often as the complete and utter confusion over "the right to keep and bear arms" clause.. not to mention the strict constitutional interpretations that conveniently (much like religious zealots) ignore the parts that they do not like or agree with.
How dare you use logic and common sense in a slashdot comment!
Emokids who think that they somehow have a right to use company/school networks for whatever they please and take great pleasure in "sticking it to the man" are the modern equivalent of the employees of yesteryear who thought that a "job for life" was their right regardless of performance/thievery/behavior.
If you want to use the company network it will always have rules attached.. crying that you cannot shop online, or that your porn fix, random non work related internet use may in fact be monitors/blocked is somehow "unfair" or "Illegal" is downright comical
I suggest you go reread your source material, as you are way off base with regards to which case is which.. and what they actually cover..
Suffice it to say that *every* SMS provider can and will provide copies of incoming and outgoing texts to the person or company paying the bills.
If you are using workplace equipment, you have no expectation of privacy, this goes back to pre-internet days.. and nothing has changed.
The cases currently under review have to do with internal policy (allowing private use of company property if the user pays the overages) IE they where considering what sort of access the provider of the device has (the employer) when they ask the employee to pay a portion of the charges.. does that change the privacy expectation from non existant to partial. The other case was purely about "you did something and i am taking you to court" Because both of these cases where about partial employee payment, rather than simply provided goods.. is the only way they got in the door of the court, otherwise they would have been tossed out.
And according to the supreme court.. the 9th circuit was wrong, RTFA.
Did you even read the article?
Or are you just trying to sound smart?
This IS THE Quon case ruled on by the supreme court, saying that there is no expectation of privacy on a employer issued device.
ANY Communications that are made over the device are open to recording and interception, the fact that it is a cellphone is in no way overriding the fact that its a "work issued" device.. if the employer wants to record every call in and out of its devices they can simply say "we record all conversations to improve service" and they are covered. If you do not like it.. use a private phone rather than leeching from the office.
If your not concerned that your use is gonna be illegal or embarrassing of course you dont need to pay for your own duplicate service.. That said.. government employees none of them should be issued cellphones imo, theres no logical reason for them to be distributing something that serves no work related purposes..
I mean really who is using government issue cellphones and in what way are they work related to begin with?
This is not a webserver in another country.. though is it? This is doing business directly with US ISP's and companies directly (offering its product a blacklist)
Thats a bit more active than just having a website that someone in the US happened to see
I said before i *really* suggest you go chat up a UK lawyer before you post any further on this subject.. the last statement you made sums up your opinion and lack of understanding of international law rather clearly.
If you as a small business in america choose to ignore a foreign court because its foreign chances are you will be screwed over for doing exactly what spamhaus did.. Though I am fairly certain that they would have been better off not showing up at ALL, rather than showing up leaving and making what amounts to throwing up a big middle finger salute to the american court on its website.
Having done this on several judgements (in the UK as well as several OTHER EU member states) I can guarantee you.. they did not ever care *what* the case was about, only that the I's where dotted and the T's where crossed in terms of the actual case..
Of course these where all contractual disputes, and *not* third party middleman cases. But the fact remains this is never gonna come down to "but the guy is a spammer so therefor the court will refuse to accept the judgement"
I mean logically if that was true then everyone in the UK could decide that credit card companies are right bastards, and therefore no need to pay bills anymore, and none of those judgements would be valid?
You would still be responsible for any civil proceedings in that country, and they would be legally able to attempt to extract any assets you do have from wherever you are.
Hopefully if you are a smart porn site you have your sites geoblocking *all* middle eastern countries from access, and certainly are blocking Mid-East plastic from going through your payment processor..
If you have not done all of that, and anything else you can think of to block countries with laws that make your content illegal, you get what you deserve.
Not sure what the point of your post was trying to make though, do you really think that i would agree that the spammer should win in court, but that I would be so hypocritical as to say "but in my case no i would say FU saudi court" ?
Clearly reading is too tough, and your lack of understanding of big words shows through here.
AGain, whether or not you flipping agree with the case by e360 being valid or not.. that doesn't change the fact that "being in the UK" saves its residents from being bound by doing business in the US.. if spamhaus didn't want to be a party to the laws of this country they should NOT be distributing their list here.
Which brings us to your "not satisfied" 1) by distributing the list and causing action on that list by US entities satisfies the first rule
2) spamhaus lawyers did in fact file counterclaims in US court when they had the proceedings moved to federal court
3) By showing up and participating in the initial stage of the case, they agreed to submit
4) this was what happened today when they didnt throw the case out but returned it to the lower court for modification
5) was obviously satisfied as spamhaus knew about the case and participated until they figured out that the "hey we are from the uk your laws do not apply to us" defense was not going to work.
Again step back relax, forget that this is a spammer winning vs an anti-spammer vigilante and look at it for what it is.. Had the damn company simply played out the court case they would have had it disposed of properly years ago. Instead of trying to turn it into a political statement game.
Actually no a flat tax doesn't burden the poor any more than it burdens anyone else..
.. reducing tax liability to less than 10%...
Shall we look at the current tax structure of the united states?
The US uses a tiered model, which theoretically has the wealthiest paying proportionately more of their income in taxes, more for their property in higher valued taxes, and theoretically more in sales and use taxes because they are more willing and able to buy products..
The lower income brackets pay less in income tax by %, less in sales taxes, and less or NO property taxes..
Theoretically this is great.. but in practice, this is not how things play out.. because the upper brackets shelter income, assets in tax free or low tax instruments.. and end up paying far *less* than their stated share of taxes..
10% of your income in taxes for a minimum wage employee is just that 10% of your income.. at the highest bracket.. which should be up to 35% but can be almost *entirely* shifted from actually paying taxes to *other* things
You cannot claim that your more harmed by paying your 10% than anyone else simply by nature of the fact that your paying 10%.. this is not about the fact that minimum wage in the USA is laughable, or that so many working people live below the poverty level etc.. this is purely about retarded tax laws that are so full of loopholes for the wealthiest people in the country, that the avg person has no idea what the hell they owe in taxes at a given time.
Having said all that, your assertion that its somehow "fair" to pay more suggests to me that you should go visit the USSR and see how that experiment worked out in the long run. Penalizing success is *not* the way to fix the tax system..
True.. LOL
You again miss the point.. the UK court would *never* ask that question.. they dont give a shit what spamhaus feels about jurisdiction.. they would say "is this a legally binding valid judgement from a court that we recognize" if the answer is yes, they would recognize the judgement and force spamhaus to pay.
There is *NO* jurisdictional argument here, you may recall that there are many treaties between countries yes? many of them apply to just this sort of thing.. its why as long as the person in question is not facing the death penalty.. the UK will deport the person without any questions to face trial in the US..
You guys seem to think that being a UK citizen allows you to bypass the laws in the other 97% of the world freely and with impunity, sadly it does not.. your government has long recognized this.. and this is why your government and courts routinely enforce judgments and seizures of assets based on foreign court decisions.
Lets give a better example that bypasses the whole reason why you guys are in a tizzy (you feel spamhaus is right and e360 is wrong fine).. So lets go at it from this direction.. another form of civil case.. divorce decree issued in illinois forces ownership of property in the UK by a UK resident to be given to her ex.. when that divorce is granted by the Illinois court, the UK will force the transfer to the ex.. through simply filing the appropriate papers with the UK court.. *NOT* bringing the suit again in the UK..
Your trying to read far more into this than there is actually to read.. I never said automatic, merely that its routine for UK/US courts among others such as canada to RECOGNIZE the courts rulings as valid and enforcing them.. Without bringing suit again..
Keep in mind that spamhaus doesn't get to choose what courts it recognizes or not, and the jurisdictional claim wouldnt fly in a UK court any more than it did in american court. Another example.. if you live in Cumbria and a london retailer wrongs you.. you do not file suit in london, you file in your local court.. its up to the plaintiff to travel, not the defendant.. not in the US, and not in the UK..
Even if we follow the argument through that for some reason the charges need to be filed in the UK again or that the UK has to look at the charges again.. The problem for spamhaus is that the UK court HAS TO BY LAW agree that by not showing up to court, that they would have issued a summary judgement for the plaintiff as well. Because judges cannot be swayed by "personal opinion" on the validity of the case..
If i where to travel my happy ass to London and file a rediculous lawsuit against you saying that you agreed to pay me 100,000,000 dollars for webdesign work for your blog.. and you chose NOT to appear in court.. they would issue me a judgement for that amount as a matter of course..
And *that* is all they are gonna look at when e360 files to have its judgement enforced in the UK, they will not look at the "original charges" or side with spamhaus and say that "they where right not to appear", they will look at the FINDING OF FACTS in the case and say "everthing appears to be in order" and order payment.
They will also likely issue a statement telling spamhaus that disrespecting any court, or failing to appear is not a valid defense in the actual courts, only in the court of public opinion. Btw http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.htm may be an interesting read if you *REALLY* think that the UK has some special laws that make their citizens and companies immune to laws of every other nation on the planet.
Fairness in taxes is that you all pay equally not that "the rich pay more, but have more chances to hide income so in effect pay far less"..
This whole business of having 1 part of the tax code aimed at "fairness for the lower income/middle classes, and those with most ability to pay paying more" and another part whose only reason for existance is to create loopholes in the tax code so that "those most able to pay taxes do not have to pay them".
Best thing that could be done is have a flat rate that actually pays the bills it needs to pay for the government,. and abolish *all* forms of loopholes once and for all.. I dream of a day where the US federal tax code consists of a single typewritten page saying "insert total income here and multiply by
Of course this will not happen until we can figure out a way to get strict 1 year term limits in congress (1 year and done for life, no moving around, no hopping from house to senate etc) and reform elections to where the guy with the most money wins (causing such idiocy as DNC and republicans spending 2 million or more on TV advertising for a house seat in a small district that means next to nothing in the grand scheme of things
The tax side is not the only half of that.. you cannot arbitrarily reduce taxes to nil and expect to fund every government program on the planet.. the idea is to use taxes in the most efficient manner possible, and stop trying to play favorites with tax dollars/breaks.. creating a monstrosity of a tax code that says in essence "taxes are paid at a rate of X % unless you are
I am no fan of high taxes, but i am even less of a fan of using taxes to create "most favored nation" loopholes to try to steal businesses from one town to another etc.. not to mention "tax breaks" as an incentive to do things
The "green gear" tax cuts need to go away as well.. if they want things green legislate it as a requirement and let competition sort out prices to be the most efficient.. rather than the current absurd situation where anything with a "green rebate" costs exactly what the Max rebate amount is.. or has added to what it should really sell for the amount the government is giving them (300$ instant hot water heaters that have been available for 20 years.. suddenly costing 1500+ due to a recent 1500$ rebate tax program)
That "run an ad in the local paper" is called a DBA and its required in all 50 states .. its to announce to the world that John Smith is now doing business as "John's Carpentry"...
When he "gave up and incorporated" he paid someone else to do it, but the ads where still run in the "paper of record" for the area he was doing business...
THe system is meant to protect consumers from drifters and scammers, if you cannot figure out how to goto your local tax collectors office, get a permit, run a classified ad (at worst 1 phonecall to the local paper). and fill out some paperwork.. perhaps you shouldn't be running a business ? Regardless of "type of business" most of these "onerous regulations" are really no more difficult than any other dealings with a government bureaucracy (DMV in most states, etc)
I dont even know how much the timeframe really matters.. I am more saying the total # is not relevant unwanted emails are unwanted emails..
sending 10 malware infested phishing emails to old ladies to steal their bank account info.. or 300,000,000 "buy viagra now" that get spam filtered... which is worse?
Given the 0 cost of sending virtually limitless #s of emails, I think that quoting numbers is pointless *shrug*
You sir are completely and utterly wrong on the subject.. this is not like "internet tax collection" where the "lack of a physical local entity" means you can ignore all local laws/regulations/courts.
./ readers would be all over them for being belligerent assholes..
You do not get to ignore any court for any reason just because you A) do not live near there B) feel that your right and the plaintiff is wrong.
As I have said, if this was not spamhaus vs random spam company, this wouldnt even be under discussion.. as a matter of fact, if it was Microsoft posting a letter of intent to ignore the judgement of an italian, or ukranian or south american court..
People need to learn to seperate their pet peeves/petty grudges and actually read with an open mind the circumstances before they start typing..
I dunno over what timeframe? How many legit emails do you receive per month? The fact that the number of mails blocked was more than the number of people with email accounts is not as relevant as say... the MPAA saying that a studio lost 10 trillion dollars due to piracy of Avatar.. or some other sillyness where the numbers are meaningless.. Lemme give you an example.
Company X does list management for several large companies (ibm, apple, microsoft) who collectively have 100,000,0000 email addresses subscribed across various informational/promotional lists.. if *each* of them sends 10 emails per month to each user thats 3 billion messages.. The number is not really that large when talking about mail, the way your stating it is OMG ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO SEND EMAIL MORE TIMES THAN THERE ARE CONNECTED COMPUTERS.. which also btw ignores the fact that there are far more than 1 user per computer in most of the world. Not to mention multiple email addresses per person (isp, yahoo, google, apple, hotmail, lord knows how many others).
In short, less focusing on the number, more focus on the content if you wanna get your point across.