While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
The Iranian government opresses its own people, which is definitely bad.
The U.S. government also oppresses its own people, albeit far more covertly than Iran, as well as oppressing the entire fucking world.
So, you're right, it is far from an accurate comparison - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a pacifist compared to the masters of our great empire, er, "nation."
If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.
Yea, having actually RTFA after making that comment, I see the issue: he was at a very public terminal, was asked to relocate to somewhere less public, and refused. What an asshat.
The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment.
Lol, reminds me of that old joke, "What's the difference between art and pornography? A government grant!"
The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute.
Just so we're clear on how Constitutional law is *supposed* to work: Nothing can legally 'trump' the Constitution or any of the Amendments, save an Amendment itself. All federal legislation that contradicts the Constitution and existing Amendments is, technically, not law./rant
In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.
Agreed; they definitely screwed the pooch (no pun intended) when the woman requested the librarians ask the man to move to a more private terminal and they refused. Changing to a less public terminal would not constitute a violation of his rights.
I just pray the inevitable court case doesn't end up setting a precedent for government censorship of library materials; those places, as necessary as they are to a free and educated society, have enough trouble staying open as it is.
"The man's right to access constitutionally protected information is fully protected (which I'm not in argument with), but our right not to be inadvertent viewers is not."
This.
While the library should be commended for refusing to prevent this person from viewing the material he wished to view, other patrons in the library should have the right not to see it. Asking him to move to a different computer in a less publicly visible location doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
This this.
We all have the right to free expression, but that doesn't mean we've got to be dicks to each other about it.
Naively assuming that Citigroup, Time Warner, Sony or Vivendi are going to sell their labels that make up the "big four" within the RIAA? Keep dreaming.
Hey, man, if they're as hard up for cash as they claim to be, they should be glad someone wants to buy!
Of course, alternatively, if they don't want to sell then they're probably having no trouble being profitable and thus have no need for pushing draconian anti-consumer legislation. A win-win for the People.
Seriously, the only way this will end is if someone puts a bullet in them. And by bullet, I mean hostile takeover. And by someone, I mean Google. And if Apple just so happens to take over another one of them a few days later, oh well. Maybe Microsoft would even like to own a music label? Hell, isn't EMI suffering and looking for a buyer?
Hey, now, you just gave me a great idea for the next Kickstarter project: crowdsourced purchasing of RIAA members!
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
What. A. Gigantic. Crock. Of. Bullshit.
I pray that the majority of people who read your comment have the intellelectual fortitude to see how full of shit you are. No problem with a state enslaving the populace? Seriously? Have you been smoking crack or watch FOX News? Or are you just one of those immature, self-important assholes who fancies themselves infallible and thinks their own shit smells like a fucking rose garden?
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
Ah, I see - the latter. Well, cockbag, just so you know, you are not the be-all-end-all expert on Constitutional law, not to mention are likely some 13 year old shut in in his momma's basement who doesn't even fucking know 10 people, so you can keep your ego maniacal bullshit fest to yourself.
Except the article you point to says he wants to privatize it:
Except that I didn't point to an articles specifically, but rather Google search results. If you want an actual article regarding Paul's platform regarding the TSA... I was going to provide a link, but then I noticed the last part of your post is pulled from that very reference:
The congressman from Lake Jackson said the TSA should be abolished and airport security should be privatized.
“Well, it shouldn’t be government,” he said. “You know, the people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, they’re private sources, you know. They have their police guards. They have their fences. And they have their security. And they do a very good job.
Just what is so far fetched about the concept of a private companies paying for and running their own security operations, anyway? How is it more rational that I, as a taxpayer who has never and, God willing, will never take a commercial flight, be forced to pay for the 'security' (and subsequent 4th Amendment violations) of those who do?
Why,/yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
No, it (the 14th) doesn't; The 14th Amendment establishes the following:
- Birthright citizenship [Section 1]
- Equal treatment [Section 1]
- Basis of representative apportioning (Congressional districting) [Section 2]
- Criminalization of insurrection [Section 3]
- That "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned." (so... no federal audits? how onerous...) [Section 4]
- Gives Congress blanket "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [Section 5]
Nothing in the 14th implies that states have lost any rights, outside the right to secede.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."
Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.
Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy
Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."
Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?
Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...
From the card: Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do
You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution, you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.
*sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...
You do realize that Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, is probably not the most accurate source for political positions? For example, within the link you posted you will find the following statement:
"In October 2011, Paul released a federal budget proposal for 2013, entitled the “Plan to Restore America.” The plan calls for cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, along with other measures which Paul says would balance the federal budget within 3 years. To achieve these ambitious goals, the plan would seek [to]... privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA"
That statement is a blatant lie, easily disputed by those who actually pay attention to the candidate's positions. Paul wants to eliminate the TSA, not privatize it.
One can only guess how much of that particular Wikipedia entry is also dubious.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.
Slashdot Mirror
What's next, they come to my home and tell me my computer is not secure? It's totally BS!
Yes, that is the logical next step. After all, there's no legal distinction between businesses and private citizens anymore (Thanks, SCOTUS fucks).
This sort of legislation passing is akin to hosing the slippery slope with a nice thick layer of Teflon.
Next thing you know, Americans will start labeling things with Arabic numerals!
While what you say is more or less true, comparing the "oppression" from the US government to the oppression from the Iranian leadership is not really accurate. For example, I don't see a whole lot of homosexuals being hung from cranes in the US.
The Iranian government opresses its own people, which is definitely bad.
The U.S. government also oppresses its own people, albeit far more covertly than Iran, as well as oppressing the entire fucking world.
So, you're right, it is far from an accurate comparison - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a pacifist compared to the masters of our great empire, er, "nation."
I really could give a shit about who likes what. If someone is a threat, they are gonna have to answer to the rest of us.
Typical government lapdog mentality: If we rattle a saber at someone and they don't flinch, they are a threat and must be cowed.
If that computer screen is sitting on top of a desk, and is a reasonably large size, and facing an open public space, what makes you think there's any expectation of privacy there? It's not a question of minding your own business, it's a question of public display of pornographic material.
Yea, having actually RTFA after making that comment, I see the issue: he was at a very public terminal, was asked to relocate to somewhere less public, and refused. What an asshat.
The Washington State Human Rights Commission says, quite plainly that such a display of pornographic material is sexual harassment.
Lol, reminds me of that old joke, "What's the difference between art and pornography? A government grant!"
The US First Amendment guarantees free speech, yes, but there are numerous cases where it is trumped by another statute.
Just so we're clear on how Constitutional law is *supposed* to work: Nothing can legally 'trump' the Constitution or any of the Amendments, save an Amendment itself. All federal legislation that contradicts the Constitution and existing Amendments is, technically, not law. /rant
In other words, the library is wrong in this case. They are creating a hostile environment by allowing sexual harassment to continue, and they had better hope they have a *really* good lawyer if this woman decides to take it further.
Agreed; they definitely screwed the pooch (no pun intended) when the woman requested the librarians ask the man to move to a more private terminal and they refused. Changing to a less public terminal would not constitute a violation of his rights.
I just pray the inevitable court case doesn't end up setting a precedent for government censorship of library materials; those places, as necessary as they are to a free and educated society, have enough trouble staying open as it is.
Titanium is inert in the body.
For now. But I'm sure the medical malpractice attorneys who advertise in between infomercials will find a way to claim otherwise in short time.
Impresos en 3D el fracaso de titanio del implante? Marque cinco cinco cinco, cinco cinco cinco cinco!
"The man's right to access constitutionally protected information is fully protected (which I'm not in argument with), but our right not to be inadvertent viewers is not."
This.
While the library should be commended for refusing to prevent this person from viewing the material he wished to view, other patrons in the library should have the right not to see it. Asking him to move to a different computer in a less publicly visible location doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
This this.
We all have the right to free expression, but that doesn't mean we've got to be dicks to each other about it.
Do you really think some woman wants to look over and see some anal sex video on the screen?
Let that be a lesson to the bitch for not minding her own damn business.
Since when does it matter what's spelled out in the constitution? Seems it's been awhile, at least when it's inconvenient to the executive branch.
Since the American people became so complacent as to allow the federal government to over step it's bounds.
Nuke Poland from orbit
FTFY
Naively assuming that Citigroup, Time Warner, Sony or Vivendi are going to sell their labels that make up the "big four" within the RIAA? Keep dreaming.
Hey, man, if they're as hard up for cash as they claim to be, they should be glad someone wants to buy!
Of course, alternatively, if they don't want to sell then they're probably having no trouble being profitable and thus have no need for pushing draconian anti-consumer legislation. A win-win for the People.
Hah, the largest nuclear stockpile on the planet would like to see them try to collect.
FTFY.
Seriously, the only way this will end is if someone puts a bullet in them. And by bullet, I mean hostile takeover. And by someone, I mean Google. And if Apple just so happens to take over another one of them a few days later, oh well. Maybe Microsoft would even like to own a music label? Hell, isn't EMI suffering and looking for a buyer?
Hey, now, you just gave me a great idea for the next Kickstarter project: crowdsourced purchasing of RIAA members!
How fucking BOSS would that be?
Sure, we could try to run our country based on competing interpretations of their surviving writings. But that's not politics, it's religion.
Lol, sometimes, considering the vitriolic way people tend to react to political topics, I fail to see any difference.
If you can provide source citation for that snippet I would appreciate it.
Gun laws and related news are always of interest to me.
Paul would be perfectly OK with a state having no environmental protections, even though the resulting pokluttion would flow into other states.
He would have no problem with a state making it illegal to travel to another state to get an abortion.
He would have no problem with a state deciding to enslave a portion of their population.
What.
A.
Gigantic.
Crock.
Of.
Bullshit.
I pray that the majority of people who read your comment have the intellelectual fortitude to see how full of shit you are. No problem with a state enslaving the populace? Seriously? Have you been smoking crack or watch FOX News? Or are you just one of those immature, self-important assholes who fancies themselves infallible and thinks their own shit smells like a fucking rose garden?
And just so you know, I would be surprised if there where more the 10 people on slashdot that have studied the constitution, it' creation,it's context, and the letters more then I have. SO keep your fucking flip comment about reading the constitution to yourself,
Ah, I see - the latter. Well, cockbag, just so you know, you are not the be-all-end-all expert on Constitutional law, not to mention are likely some 13 year old shut in in his momma's basement who doesn't even fucking know 10 people, so you can keep your ego maniacal bullshit fest to yourself.
Except the article you point to says he wants to privatize it:
Except that I didn't point to an articles specifically, but rather Google search results. If you want an actual article regarding Paul's platform regarding the TSA... I was going to provide a link, but then I noticed the last part of your post is pulled from that very reference:
The congressman from Lake Jackson said the TSA should be abolished and airport security should be privatized.
“Well, it shouldn’t be government,” he said. “You know, the people who protect very dangerous chemical plants, they’re private sources, you know. They have their police guards. They have their fences. And they have their security. And they do a very good job.
Just what is so far fetched about the concept of a private companies paying for and running their own security operations, anyway? How is it more rational that I, as a taxpayer who has never and, God willing, will never take a commercial flight, be forced to pay for the 'security' (and subsequent 4th Amendment violations) of those who do?
Why, /yes/, it was. See: 14th Amendment, which made the Bill of Rights explicitly apply to the states, and the 13th, which said the states can't make slavery the law anymore,
It's been taken too far in various places, but the Civil War forever settled whether the states or the federal government had supremacy.
No, it (the 14th) doesn't; The 14th Amendment establishes the following:
- Birthright citizenship [Section 1]
- Equal treatment [Section 1]
- Basis of representative apportioning (Congressional districting) [Section 2]
- Criminalization of insurrection [Section 3]
- That "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned." (so... no federal audits? how onerous...) [Section 4]
- Gives Congress blanket "power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [Section 5]
Nothing in the 14th implies that states have lost any rights, outside the right to secede.
Yeah, unfortunately some of their lofty ideals had dirty, dirty undertones, and we had to fight a war to sort those out. States Rights lost that war.
So, then, the Constitution was changed to reflect that?
If you have a source citation for that info I would appreciate it.
I was merely parroting what I heard on NPR the other morning.
Fair 'nuff.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Yes, you are; and apparently quite the drama queen to boot.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
Ooh, a high-and-mighty drama queen, even better!
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
It doesn't; According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" What part of that statement are you having trouble comprehending?
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions."
Again, read the Constitution. It states very clearly that the federal government is prohibited from passing laws in regard to religion; it does not, however, extend that limitation to the states. Therefore, if, say, Texas wanted to become a theocracy, that's Texas' business.
Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy
Only because either A) you lack a basic understanding of context and the English language, or B) you disagree with it.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Source citation or it didn't happen.
Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Ron Paul quote from the aforementioned cards:
I will stand against unconstitutional federal power grabs and will fight to protect each State's right not to be forced to recognize same-sex marriage against the will of the people."
Sounds like more of a state's rights issue to me. Nice misrepresentation there, tho; The question is, was your mistake intentional or out of ignorance?
Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Well, surely you're right on this one, and not again misrepresenting Paul's platform to support your own agenda... let's see...
From the card:
Ron Paul's "We The People Act" effectively repeals Roe v. Wade and would prevent activist judges from interfering with state decisions to protect life.
So again, we see that you are (likely intentionally) misrepresenting Paul's words to make his platform of state's rights seem more onerous than it actually is.
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Yea, sounds like it; unless, of course, you're an abject failure at the basic art of proofreading... since surely someone who thinks as highly of themselves as you do
He's a States Rights-er.
You say that as if you think that's a bad thing; it's not. In fact, if you actually read the damn Constitution, you'll note that the founders were also big supporters of state's rights and limited federal government.
*sigh* How far we've fallen from the lofty ideals of our Republic's fathers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
You do realize that Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia" that anyone can edit, is probably not the most accurate source for political positions? For example, within the link you posted you will find the following statement:
"In October 2011, Paul released a federal budget proposal for 2013, entitled the “Plan to Restore America.” The plan calls for cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget in the first year, along with other measures which Paul says would balance the federal budget within 3 years. To achieve these ambitious goals, the plan would seek [to]... privatize the Federal Aviation Administration and the TSA"
That statement is a blatant lie, easily disputed by those who actually pay attention to the candidate's positions. Paul wants to eliminate the TSA, not privatize it.
One can only guess how much of that particular Wikipedia entry is also dubious.
At least the Republicans will allow one the tools to defend oneself or to forcefully change things --- ``Fast and Furious'' and ``Operation Gunrunner'' are a travesty of justice
For the record, Operation Gunrunner was started by the (G.W.) Bush administration; it wasn't until a border patrol agent was killed that it garnered public attention.