The jury is instructed to apply the law without considering whether the law is constitutional.
That is part of the problem. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. You cannot decide whether something is illegal or legal without considering the constitutionality of the law.
You are mostly correct, but I don't think specific enticement to violence and revolutionary speech are entirely orthogonal. You cannot have a revolution without violence, and revolutions have social value. Therefore incitements to violence can have social value.
Re:Modern Computers do come with BASIC
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
VBScript has its place but using it for anything other substantially more complex than short straight-line automation scripts is lunacy.
It sounds like the perfect modern analogue to BASIC then.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?
The value of hate speech is less obvious, but it's still clearly covered by the first amendment.
That said, your analysis of the likely outcome is probably correct.
Oh sure we're in a recovery, in the limited technical sense of the term invented by bankers, for bankers, which has no relevance at all to the working person. Saying we're in a recovery now is like saying we have no combat troops in Iraq. Nothing but weasel words.
The real problem is the plurality system which excludes any voices besides the two major parties. Until Americans can vote for a 3rd party without handing the country over to the other side as happened in 2000 our political problems will remain intractable. Of course that can't happen unless the Constitution is amended, which would require the two major parties to cooperate to undermine their own power.
The voters collectively know that, despite any propaganda you get out of the media. If the economy was actually improving the voters would not have voted as they did.
This is a classic case of begging the question. The voters voted how the did because they know that the economy sucks. We know the economy sucks because of the way the voters voted.
So why did they take those Republican amendments? This is why voter turn out from young progressives was so poor. They realized they couldn't count on Obama to fight for anything.
Obama should have brought the public option to the table, pushed it through, and lost. THEN started to make compromises.
Well I do agree with you here. It's certainly possible that people can be taught to be more critical of the psychological tricks they use. But it hasn't happened yet, which is why I had to disagree with your statement that the people were too smart to vote against their interests. Honestly, that's probably a more effective means of facilitating change than advocating for any specific candidate.
I expect the next two years to be hard on Boehner. He'll be facing stiff opposition for sure. But maybe there will be a happy ending if he doesn't cock it up. Otherwise the Republicans will be getting the sack for sure.
As a day trader you know shit about the real economy. The economy will be improving when people start making money doing real work, instead of just shuffling money around.
If you think the SCOTUS doesn't consider the real world implications of their decisions, then you're an idiot. Whether they should or shouldn't is debatable, but they do. If they didn't, the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" would never have come about.
So all we have to do is analogize content we don't like to porn and we can ban it at will?
Personally I think the obscenity exemption to the first amendment is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights. I've seen a lot of horrible things on the internet, and nothing disgusts me more than censorship.
Not allowing a child to purchase something that may or may not be considered speech does not suppress the child's right to free speech.
Yes it does. Complementary to the right to speak as you wish is the right to listen as you wish. The right to speak is meaningless if your target audience is forbidden from listening.
Possibly, but society tends to generally agree tthat some levels of censorship are important with respect to age.
Censorship on the part of the parent, not the government. It is not the place of the government to decide what is appropriate for children.
Failing to cast a vote is consent to be ruled by anyone. Casting a vote is consent to be ruled by the winner. What course of action do you recommend to someone who wishes to withhold consent?
Obama always made it clear that he supported the Afghanistan war but not the Iraq war. He's fulfilled his promise to withdraw from Iraq in a rapid by responsible way.
No he didn't. There are still combat troops in Iraq. If they are trained for combat, equipped for combat, and receiving combat pay then they are combat troops. Anyone who tries to spin it otherwise is lying.
Obama also tried to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay but he was blocked by Congress.
Congress blocked funding. Surely the Commander in Chief in a time of war can find enough funds to open the doors, turn off the lights, and walk away. It can't be any more expensive to close the base than it is to keep it open. Use those funds.
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecuting her for perjury or obstruction of justice would be completely appropriate. Levying unconstitutionally extreme damages against her is not.
The jury is instructed to apply the law without considering whether the law is constitutional.
That is part of the problem. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. You cannot decide whether something is illegal or legal without considering the constitutionality of the law.
If your GF needs anything more than a small box of fine chocolates and a good romp in the sack, she's too high maintenance anyway.
Netflix is not Bittorent and has a well defined source which is a commercial entity. So the ISP knows after who it needs to go.
Netflix already pays its ISPs. There's no one for anyone to "go after".
You are mostly correct, but I don't think specific enticement to violence and revolutionary speech are entirely orthogonal. You cannot have a revolution without violence, and revolutions have social value. Therefore incitements to violence can have social value.
VBScript has its place but using it for anything other substantially more complex than short straight-line automation scripts is lunacy.
It sounds like the perfect modern analogue to BASIC then.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?
The value of hate speech is less obvious, but it's still clearly covered by the first amendment.
That said, your analysis of the likely outcome is probably correct.
Oh sure we're in a recovery, in the limited technical sense of the term invented by bankers, for bankers, which has no relevance at all to the working person. Saying we're in a recovery now is like saying we have no combat troops in Iraq. Nothing but weasel words.
The real problem is the plurality system which excludes any voices besides the two major parties. Until Americans can vote for a 3rd party without handing the country over to the other side as happened in 2000 our political problems will remain intractable. Of course that can't happen unless the Constitution is amended, which would require the two major parties to cooperate to undermine their own power.
The voters collectively know that, despite any propaganda you get out of the media. If the economy was actually improving the voters would not have voted as they did.
This is a classic case of begging the question. The voters voted how the did because they know that the economy sucks. We know the economy sucks because of the way the voters voted.
So why did they take those Republican amendments? This is why voter turn out from young progressives was so poor. They realized they couldn't count on Obama to fight for anything.
Obama should have brought the public option to the table, pushed it through, and lost. THEN started to make compromises.
Well I do agree with you here. It's certainly possible that people can be taught to be more critical of the psychological tricks they use. But it hasn't happened yet, which is why I had to disagree with your statement that the people were too smart to vote against their interests. Honestly, that's probably a more effective means of facilitating change than advocating for any specific candidate.
I expect the next two years to be hard on Boehner. He'll be facing stiff opposition for sure. But maybe there will be a happy ending if he doesn't cock it up. Otherwise the Republicans will be getting the sack for sure.
As a day trader you know shit about the real economy. The economy will be improving when people start making money doing real work, instead of just shuffling money around.
These poor stupid people *are* lead around by the nose and told what to do. It's called marketing.
If they can find you. If you're sitting at a public wifi hotspot with a custom temporary MAC, how exactly would they track you down?
If you think the SCOTUS doesn't consider the real world implications of their decisions, then you're an idiot. Whether they should or shouldn't is debatable, but they do. If they didn't, the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" would never have come about.
Isn't that the same thing?
Yeah it happens. What's your point? That Google is supposed to stop you from trusting people?
the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
The majority of Americans do vote diametrically opposite their actual interests quite often.
So all we have to do is analogize content we don't like to porn and we can ban it at will?
Personally I think the obscenity exemption to the first amendment is an egregious violation of our constitutional rights. I've seen a lot of horrible things on the internet, and nothing disgusts me more than censorship.
Not allowing a child to purchase something that may or may not be considered speech does not suppress the child's right to free speech.
Yes it does. Complementary to the right to speak as you wish is the right to listen as you wish. The right to speak is meaningless if your target audience is forbidden from listening.
Possibly, but society tends to generally agree tthat some levels of censorship are important with respect to age.
Censorship on the part of the parent, not the government. It is not the place of the government to decide what is appropriate for children.
Failing to cast a vote is consent to be ruled by anyone. Casting a vote is consent to be ruled by the winner. What course of action do you recommend to someone who wishes to withhold consent?
Obama always made it clear that he supported the Afghanistan war but not the Iraq war. He's fulfilled his promise to withdraw from Iraq in a rapid by responsible way.
No he didn't. There are still combat troops in Iraq. If they are trained for combat, equipped for combat, and receiving combat pay then they are combat troops. Anyone who tries to spin it otherwise is lying.
Obama also tried to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay but he was blocked by Congress.
Congress blocked funding. Surely the Commander in Chief in a time of war can find enough funds to open the doors, turn off the lights, and walk away. It can't be any more expensive to close the base than it is to keep it open. Use those funds.
You're right, it would probably be more accurate to refer to them as "fuckers".