Well, a government agency is debating whether or not these idiots can continue to be associated with said government agency based solely on the content of this speech. While not jail, it is still government punishment.
No, not all repercussions. Just government ones and bodily injury ones. We also have the right to choose whom we associate with and inherent in that right is choosing whom not to associate with so if I choose to not associate with someone based on the ideas they express, then I am completely within my rights and have not limited his rights. I gave him the right to speak his mind and made a judgement about that person. Are you suggesting that we cannot have free speech unless we deem every idea ever expressed as equally valid? We cannot have free speech unless we all agree that 2+2=7 or "all blacks must be killed" or "no black man would ever commit a crime". Free speech absolutely does not mean all expressed ideas must be accepted by all. What a load of crap.
No, just repercussions from the government. OU being a government institution and all should then mean that the university cannot punish the students for the speech. Should the students be socially shamed and ridiculed and used as an example of the wrong way to be, yes.
And the extension is that state congresses are also covered (and nearly every state constitution repeats most aspects of the federal one) so regardless of federal funding, the university in question is a (state) government run entity so the theory still applies.
What part of "I never want to pay for anything ever because I am an entitled asshole" are you not understanding? That seems to represent the viewpoint of the majority around here. They want all the best things and nobody ever pays for them because the magic fairies produce them. Or something like that. I'm not one that believes that way so I've been told I'm obviously to stupid to understand how the free lunch works.
I think by the time they are switched to autonomous, the operators are safe in assuming that no airliners are in the area as airlines generally try to avoid active war zones.
The constitution's ban on a standing army was not so much to prevent it being used as an aggressor against other countries as it was to prevent it being an aggressor against US citizens.
Well... can do X sometimes even when X is nearly universally understood to not be the intended result has been used as a war cry to ban lots of things, guns in general being the most obvious example. M855 in the US is another very recent example.
Big-game hunting rounds are nearly all, if not all, expanding rounds; that is, the projectile breaks apart or mushrooms open to create a larger wound path that will do more damage to vital organs. The purpose of this is to have a better chance at a quick death from massive blood loss instead of a slow death. It is considered a more humane way to kill large game.
Militaries are not allowed to use expanding ammunition mainly because it is more likely to cause a quick death.
Nope, the expectation of proportionality is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Once violence is initiated, the original victim has the legal right (in all civilized countries) to defend oneself by stopping the threat violence. That always requires an escalation.
Oh yes, the old "you failed because you didn't account for your product to be used in ways it was never intended to be used" reasoning. Many a good company has been bankrupted because juries have been convinced that your statement is actually logical.
Yeah because a movie where everybody dies with absolutely no drama is going to be very entertaining. Perhaps you should stick to the Hallmark channel; at least there you won't have any actual real-world experience or knowledge by which to judge the "realness" and you can then be entertained.
No, no, no!!! It is so that every movement of the pan can be tracked and all temperatures tracked just in case an employee or customer sues the restaurant. At least, that is what the lawyers and insurers will say.
because the Geneva Convention only governs militaries in declared wars between countries. It does not cover police forces dealing with citizens/subjects inside countries.
I'll agree that it is acceptable for police to have and use in limited circumstances but very limited circumstances and even then they should have no problem obtaining a warrant.
Well, if it could actually produce the type of image you are imagining it produces (but according to the summary does not produce) then your voyeurism would be illegal in most jurisdictions.
Wow, just wow, ganjadude. Plenty of people have used exactly that "incoherent" logic to claim all manner of crap. It has been used to claim that warrantless searching of email is okay, that warrantless search and seizure of electronically stored documents is okay, to claim that banning modern handguns and rifles is okay. It sounds very ridiculous the way it was written but completely legit when phrased properly, doesn't it.
Since the Geneva Convention was ever only intended to govern the interaction of opposing uniformed military forces, I don't see how any police force could ever be thought to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.
but that was infrared. You see, when it was visible light we didn't need warrants then a document was written that said they did. Then this infrared thing came along and they said that the constitution didn't cover infrared because it didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then the courts said that infrared requires a warrant. The interpretation is not infrared requires a warrant because a search is a search but because a court said so. Now we have this radar thing and it doesn't require a warrant because it wasn't around when the constitution was written and the court only said that infrared gets added to what was around when the constitution was written.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this particular university not a government agency? Hint: it is.
Well, a government agency is debating whether or not these idiots can continue to be associated with said government agency based solely on the content of this speech. While not jail, it is still government punishment.
No, not all repercussions. Just government ones and bodily injury ones. We also have the right to choose whom we associate with and inherent in that right is choosing whom not to associate with so if I choose to not associate with someone based on the ideas they express, then I am completely within my rights and have not limited his rights. I gave him the right to speak his mind and made a judgement about that person. Are you suggesting that we cannot have free speech unless we deem every idea ever expressed as equally valid? We cannot have free speech unless we all agree that 2+2=7 or "all blacks must be killed" or "no black man would ever commit a crime". Free speech absolutely does not mean all expressed ideas must be accepted by all. What a load of crap.
No, just repercussions from the government. OU being a government institution and all should then mean that the university cannot punish the students for the speech. Should the students be socially shamed and ridiculed and used as an example of the wrong way to be, yes.
And the extension is that state congresses are also covered (and nearly every state constitution repeats most aspects of the federal one) so regardless of federal funding, the university in question is a (state) government run entity so the theory still applies.
What part of "I never want to pay for anything ever because I am an entitled asshole" are you not understanding? That seems to represent the viewpoint of the majority around here. They want all the best things and nobody ever pays for them because the magic fairies produce them. Or something like that. I'm not one that believes that way so I've been told I'm obviously to stupid to understand how the free lunch works.
I think by the time they are switched to autonomous, the operators are safe in assuming that no airliners are in the area as airlines generally try to avoid active war zones.
The constitution's ban on a standing army was not so much to prevent it being used as an aggressor against other countries as it was to prevent it being an aggressor against US citizens.
Well... can do X sometimes even when X is nearly universally understood to not be the intended result has been used as a war cry to ban lots of things, guns in general being the most obvious example. M855 in the US is another very recent example.
Oh yes, we can always just run away and let the bully have everything they want. Or, we can stand up for ourselves which requires an escalation.
I'll rephrase... Winning always requires an escalation. Losing just requires submission to bullies.
Somewhat incorrect, there pardner...
Big-game hunting rounds are nearly all, if not all, expanding rounds; that is, the projectile breaks apart or mushrooms open to create a larger wound path that will do more damage to vital organs. The purpose of this is to have a better chance at a quick death from massive blood loss instead of a slow death. It is considered a more humane way to kill large game.
Militaries are not allowed to use expanding ammunition mainly because it is more likely to cause a quick death.
Nope, the expectation of proportionality is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Once violence is initiated, the original victim has the legal right (in all civilized countries) to defend oneself by stopping the threat violence. That always requires an escalation.
Oh yes, the old "you failed because you didn't account for your product to be used in ways it was never intended to be used" reasoning. Many a good company has been bankrupted because juries have been convinced that your statement is actually logical.
Yeah because a movie where everybody dies with absolutely no drama is going to be very entertaining. Perhaps you should stick to the Hallmark channel; at least there you won't have any actual real-world experience or knowledge by which to judge the "realness" and you can then be entertained.
Or SNL's Bag o' glass.
Cause he isn't an egghead.
No, no, no!!! It is so that every movement of the pan can be tracked and all temperatures tracked just in case an employee or customer sues the restaurant. At least, that is what the lawyers and insurers will say.
because the Geneva Convention only governs militaries in declared wars between countries. It does not cover police forces dealing with citizens/subjects inside countries.
I'll agree that it is acceptable for police to have and use in limited circumstances but very limited circumstances and even then they should have no problem obtaining a warrant.
Well, if it could actually produce the type of image you are imagining it produces (but according to the summary does not produce) then your voyeurism would be illegal in most jurisdictions.
Yes, yes you are. See my reply to ganjadude for an explanation of why.
Wow, just wow, ganjadude. Plenty of people have used exactly that "incoherent" logic to claim all manner of crap. It has been used to claim that warrantless searching of email is okay, that warrantless search and seizure of electronically stored documents is okay, to claim that banning modern handguns and rifles is okay. It sounds very ridiculous the way it was written but completely legit when phrased properly, doesn't it.
Since the Geneva Convention was ever only intended to govern the interaction of opposing uniformed military forces, I don't see how any police force could ever be thought to be in violation of the Geneva Convention.
True but nearly all large city mayors do take their marching orders directly from this commander-in-chief.
but that was infrared. You see, when it was visible light we didn't need warrants then a document was written that said they did. Then this infrared thing came along and they said that the constitution didn't cover infrared because it didn't exist when the constitution was written. Then the courts said that infrared requires a warrant. The interpretation is not infrared requires a warrant because a search is a search but because a court said so. Now we have this radar thing and it doesn't require a warrant because it wasn't around when the constitution was written and the court only said that infrared gets added to what was around when the constitution was written.