presume for a moment Rand Paul, if elected, would prove to be a President of integrity and principles
Rand Paul:
”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”
Rand Paul:
"It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation."
where is this "integrity" you are talking about? he has held both positions on a most important and significant issue
rand paul says that the civil rights act of 1965 should be revoked
he says that people should be forced to sit in the back of the bus because somehow this is "good" for them
one day he says "It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. "
another day he says ”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.” (Fortune magazine 3/11/2014)
you want accuracy and fairness? I copied and pasted those quotes directly.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
The past precedent is that Rand Paul will say inflammatory things that may or may not be true, in order to attract attention to himself.
the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.
The people trust the press to give them information about who to vote for. When the press is owned and operated by criminals, the citizens get false information and they vote based on that.
We can see the same thing with what happened in Iraq. The congress trusted the CIA and the administration to give them accurate information. When presented with lies, people will vote according to the lie.
In any event, the principal (at least according to TFA) is being an ass. Instead of sitting him down and discussing this rather complex real world issue, he / she (?) threatens with blackmail and suspensions. Not exactly role model material here.
This is a lot more than just being an ass. If his actions result in extra costs to the school from lawyer fees, or if his actions tarnish the reputation of the school, then he's probably in violation of his employment contract with the school and should be terminated.
otherwise every kid that snapped a picture or wrote an article that ended up in a yearbook or school newspaper would have a copyright claim. At some point they have to grant use to the school.
if the picture "ends up in the school newspaper" then the photographer has explicitly or implicitly granted the publication right to the yearbook. The pictures do not just magically appear there, the photographers must provide the yearbook with the pictures.
whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.
Students who understand and exercise their civil rights are not "more trouble than they are worth" if the student is pursuing a career in law or journalism.
It would be a reasonable general rule (that should be enforced as such and not just applied to one person) that you cannot publish photos of students on the Internet taken at school events.
if the football field or the students are visible from public property then there is no expectation of privacy, and no contract or agreement can change that.
If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues.
if people can take pictures of the students from a public place (the sidewalk surrounding the school) then there is no expectation of privacy by anyone, and any contracts asserting otherwise are moot.
The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.
so at football games and graduations, the press must get releases from the parents of all of the students who appear in their photographs? Do they really track down all of the spectators visible in the background of photos, determine whether or not they are current students, and then get releases from all of their parents?
They're claiming copyright over the rights of the venue.
Even still the photographer would have "fair use" rights to publish photographs that illustrate the football games. The posting of photographs of game action is "news reporting" and thus "fair use" would allow the photographer to publish the pictures.
because olympic events are privately events held by private entities on private property (leased for the event counts as private property)
everyone who participates in the olympics, athletes, press, etc. signs a contractual agreement that limits their rights
public high school students, have not signed any contractual agreements, are not able to sign any such agreement, and besides, they play on public property and the games are usually quite visible from the public sidewalk around the school, so there is no expectation of any sort of privacy
I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff.
so if a student comes up with the idea of a comic strip while sitting on the school bus, the comic belongs to the school?
Slashdot Mirror
presume for a moment Rand Paul, if elected, would prove to be a President of integrity and principles
Rand Paul:
”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”
Rand Paul:
"It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation."
where is this "integrity" you are talking about? he has held both positions on a most important and significant issue
rand paul says that the civil rights act of 1965 should be revoked
he says that people should be forced to sit in the back of the bus because somehow this is "good" for them
one day he says "It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression. "
another day he says ”Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea.”
(Fortune magazine 3/11/2014)
you want accuracy and fairness? I copied and pasted those quotes directly.
Rand Paul says that you have to sit in the back of the bus, because it's good for you
poor rand paul would be nothing without people like you to stick up for him
george w bush signed a pretty significant environmental protection bill that significantly reduces the amount of pollution from diesel locomotives
he did it because it generated windfall profits for GE who was the only company poised to sell the new locomotives
sometimes good things happen for bad reasons
"inflammatory" as defined by the ratings-based news outlets that rely on him for something to put on the air
Yes. Congress is typically quite industrious at violating the Constitution and destroying civil rights.
so you should be happy when congress is gridlocked or filibustered and unable to do any of those things
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
The answer is obviously yes, based on past behavior. Rand Paul has been one of the few people willing to go on record voting against things he does not agree with, instead of not voting at all.
So while of course some element of it is PR, that is not the core reason as to why he did this.
The past precedent is that Rand Paul will say inflammatory things that may or may not be true, in order to attract attention to himself.
the people that reflexively vote for their party indifferent to whether the incumbent is a piece of shit... you're the problem.
The people trust the press to give them information about who to vote for. When the press is owned and operated by criminals, the citizens get false information and they vote based on that.
We can see the same thing with what happened in Iraq. The congress trusted the CIA and the administration to give them accurate information. When presented with lies, people will vote according to the lie.
But now that he is president he has changed his tune. Abuse of powers indeed.
Thanks for this information, I will be sure to avoid voting for him, the next time he runs for president.
he'll be gone soon enough
somehow throw a spanner in the works and cause a massive cost/delay to the government.
Are you asserting that congress would have actually gotten anything done during that time?
In any event, the principal (at least according to TFA) is being an ass. Instead of sitting him down and discussing this rather complex real world issue, he / she (?) threatens with blackmail and suspensions. Not exactly role model material here.
This is a lot more than just being an ass. If his actions result in extra costs to the school from lawyer fees, or if his actions tarnish the reputation of the school, then he's probably in violation of his employment contract with the school and should be terminated.
A state of affairs that will undoubtedly be "fixed" in the next Mickey Mouse law...
I don't think so, Disney rents cameras from Panavision and they probably don't want Panavision to own their copyrights.
They should have been at least making us mop up or something.
yeah violate child labor laws and the union contract with the employees, all at once
otherwise every kid that snapped a picture or wrote an article that ended up in a yearbook or school newspaper would have a copyright claim. At some point they have to grant use to the school.
if the picture "ends up in the school newspaper" then the photographer has explicitly or implicitly granted the publication right to the yearbook. The pictures do not just magically appear there, the photographers must provide the yearbook with the pictures.
whose job involves weeding out students who will be more trouble than they're worth.
Students who understand and exercise their civil rights are not "more trouble than they are worth" if the student is pursuing a career in law or journalism.
I doubt that vendors can just attend an event and sell something like hot dogs for instance without some kind of agreement.
taking pictures is not the same as engaging in commerce
no contract can trump the fact that things and people that are visible from public property have no expectation of privacy.
It would be a reasonable general rule (that should be enforced as such and not just applied to one person) that you cannot publish photos of students on the Internet taken at school events.
if the football field or the students are visible from public property then there is no expectation of privacy, and no contract or agreement can change that.
If the parents of the students participating in the game haven't signed a release to have their pictures taken, and someone is taking them, then the school could have major legal issues.
if people can take pictures of the students from a public place (the sidewalk surrounding the school) then there is no expectation of privacy by anyone, and any contracts asserting otherwise are moot.
they just can't be held responsible if they don't fill their end.
so in other words the school can't take down their pictures because they cannot hold the students responsible
The public school in Texas that my son attends states right in the school handbook that photos of students taken on school property require a release from the students parent before being published in a public forum.
so at football games and graduations, the press must get releases from the parents of all of the students who appear in their photographs? Do they really track down all of the spectators visible in the background of photos, determine whether or not they are current students, and then get releases from all of their parents?
They're claiming copyright over the rights of the venue.
Even still the photographer would have "fair use" rights to publish photographs that illustrate the football games. The posting of photographs of game action is "news reporting" and thus "fair use" would allow the photographer to publish the pictures.
because olympic events are privately events held by private entities on private property (leased for the event counts as private property)
everyone who participates in the olympics, athletes, press, etc. signs a contractual agreement that limits their rights
public high school students, have not signed any contractual agreements, are not able to sign any such agreement, and besides, they play on public property and the games are usually quite visible from the public sidewalk around the school, so there is no expectation of any sort of privacy
I work for a school district in the technology department. We clearly spell out in our usage agreements that everything created on district equipment is for educational purposes only, and not to be sold for profit by either students or staff.
so if a student comes up with the idea of a comic strip while sitting on the school bus, the comic belongs to the school?