Whoa, whoa, whoa there. What Dan Savage is doing is explicitly in line with the definition of tolerance. Is Dan Savage trying to make Rick Santorum's speech a crime? Is Dan Savage trying to make sure that Rick Santorum does not have equal protection under the law? Is Dan Savage trying to deny Rick Santorum his civil rights?
No. Those things would be intolerant. Those are the things Rick Santorum is doing to Dan Savage.
Dan Savage, on the other hand, is behaving exactly in line with what tolerance means: he recognizes the opposition view, discusses it honestly, understands it, and uses speech only to properly characterize it as wrong. That is tolerance.
If Rick wants to show Dan tolerance, this is how he can do it: I, Rick Santorum, think that homosexual acts are morally wrong. However, I will not try to subjugate homosexuals, I will not deny them the right to marry or participate in society in any way. The only thing I will do is tell people that I really honestly do believe that people should not have sex with members of their gender. That is tolerance, and Rick would do well to follow Dan's lead on learning what the word means.
Oh, okay, well it's fine for you to have a different opinion of what "good policy" and "a better country" mean. That's fine. What's not fine is misrepresenting your opposition as a bunch of starry-eyed jergoffs who think telephones are "rights". No. That is a fancy way for you to disparage some of your fellow voters unfairly. We merely think that the preponderance of the parts of the issue of access to telecommunications point toward the policy that the benefit of achieving universal access is worth the cost. It's not an unreasonable or untenable policy preference, so I thank you not to misrepresent it so.
For some strange reason in the US, we believe that you have a right to infrastructure no matter where you live.
Perhaps it's not that we believe people have a "right" to it, merely that helping to provide the infrastructure makes the whole country a better place, and that in a democracy we should pursue policies that make the country a better place. Have you ever considered that? or do you just spout bullshit about "rights" all the time?
That would be similar, but not the same; and yes, the decision could be right.
We have judges to determine things like plausibility. The judge in this case decided that this woman obviously does know the password, thus refusing to give it up is contempt. If a judge determined that a person did in fact have a gun, and was hiding it, then yes that decision would be fine. For the most part, however, judges are deferential to defendants, allowing them to get away with all sort of slights.
"A gun owned a long time ago, honestly no clue"? Probably the judge wouldn't render the same kind of decision as in this case, but maybe.
Compare this to a journalist who had a source who he refuses to 'give up'. The journalist could try to claim that he doesn't remember who the source was, but that is probably an implausible claim. Judges are responsible for deciding such things.
I said that it is not a defense, or at least, it isn't one accepted by courts.
Whether she entered such a defense in court is not relevant to whether it is a valid defense -- except for the fact that it is possible that the lawyer didn't enter the defense because it isn't a defense. Do you disagree and think that either it is a valid defense, or that the lawyer's use of it is relevant?
You are equalling a physical proof with a testimony.
Actually no, I am equating physical evidence with informational evidence. It is you who is equating 'abiding a warranted search' with 'bearing witness'. I suspect you are doing that because you interpret "witness" (the word in the Constitution) to mean something which it does not mean. To be a witness against yourself means that in trial, they call you to the bench and ask you questions; truly, they can't force you to do that. But, no court has ever found that the 5th amendment gives a person the right to stymie a police investigation's collection of evidence. That is, very simply, not what it means, despite your rhetorical wish for it to be so.
They can't make me say anything that would incriminate me
Well, they can and often do order you to speak the words, and if you ignore the court order, then you are in contempt -- just like this woman is. (Similarly, they can order you to submit a handwriting sample, or a DNA sample, or to do a voice lineup. Yes, really, they can and do.) To me that means they "can make you say anything", but to you maybe that means something different. Your right to remain silent does not extend to the destruction of evidence of a crime, nor to impeding a police investigation. Again, that's not what it means.
Still, I guess the prudent thing would be to give them a WRONG password. And claim with all confidence that this is the right password and they fucked up, messed the backups or something.
So, yeah, you could do that. In this case, the woman tried something similar, claiming to have forgotten the password. That's a viable defense when you can give to a court -- but a court can, will, often does, and in this case did decline to believe the woman. Thus, they found her in contempt.
It's all very straightforward, and you are desperately trying to make it into something it isn't, by trying to invent rights that don't exist and Constitutional interpretations which have never been legally valid in this country. I have grown tired of repeating myself, saying things that are true, and you repeating yourself, saying things that you wish to be true, but are not true. I'll go another round if you have any actual questions about reality, but if you just want to project fantasies, I think I've said all that can be said.
Of course it did. It's in the first sentence of the article which defines the branch of government:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court"
Deciding the law is what "the judicial power" means. I mean, literally, that's what the words "the judicial power" means. The judicial power of the US, shall be vested in one Supreme Court: that court shall judge the laws.
The authors go on to greater detail: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties". How much more clear could it be? Judges judge the Constitution. It's right there in the plain text.
Here's a link to the Constitution so you can read it for yourself (Article 3):
I would ask you to explain yourself, but I made that mistake with you in the past. It led to too much nonsense for me to engage you again.
Suffice it to say, this woman is under court order. That makes it due process of law. This is not the case of a rogue sheriff confiscating goods and jailing people without trials, which is what that amendment protects against. She has a lawyer, she goes to court, she has hearings; that's due process of law.
You are denying the legal equivalence between the key and the password. This is a distinction which I do not see, and which apparently neither does this lower court. What if the "key" to the literal door was a voiceprint of you speaking a password? Would you say that the use of voiceprint technology privileges you to privacy behind that door, which is not the privilege of a person who uses a literal key?
But as you say, perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn this court order. I doubt it, but maybe the SC will decide that there is such a distinction after all.
Since courts are the arbiter of the Constitution, you might say no, courts tell you what is Constitutional. Perhaps a lower court could order something unconstitutional, which could then be overturned by a higher court, with the highest court eventually saying what the Constitution means.
Or, you could deny the prerogative of courts to arbitrate the Constitution. In that case the Constitution means whatever you think it means. This is nice and all, but doesn't go very far, except in the imaginations of kooks and krazies. This is often the last resort of people who are trying to make untenable legal arguments.
Yes, they can. The "demand" is in the form of a court order, and refusing the court order is called "contempt". That is the same (legally) as what is happening here.
Um, yeah duh. If you break the law, we put you in prison, but not without due process of law. If that means that your liberty isn't guaranteed, then, um, well then yeah your liberty isn't guaranteed. "Guaranteed liberty" would be, what, anarchy with might-makes-right? That's not the kind of liberty I want to live amongst.
I have a Nest and it is awesome. Don't buy it because it will save you money (it may reduce your montly cost a little, but it'll take a while to make up for the cost of the device), rather buy it because it is a fun toy. It's very well implemented, looks nice, the software is great, and you can do cool stuff like connect to it from your pod.
Fuck Honeywell. If their patents have been violated, then where are their Nest-like products? I smell another patent troll.
This entire story is about the fact that that is true. Shit, where the fuck do people get off with nonsense legal theories? Wanting the law to mean something doesn't make it mean that.
Sorry, you don't have the right against self-incrimination; you have the right not to be witness against yourself. That means in a court, when you raise your hand and are asked questions, you don't have to give answers which incriminate yourself. It's a narrow right, which doesn't apply to (say) destroying or hiding evidence.
If the body is stashed in a locked room in your house, the police can, and all the time do, demand the key.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* she's not held for a capital or infamous crime * she is not in double jeopardy * she is not a witness against herself because she is not testifying in court * her deprivation of life, liberty, and property is by due process of law * her property is not taken for public use
I don't see the problem. People are, of course, required to provide evidence when they are under investigation. That happens all the time -- you can be compelled to give up DNA evidence, or fingerprints, or to unlock a room in your house where you are hiding evidence. So it's obvious that none of those things is "witness against oneself". Perhaps you can make it more clear for me which part you object to.
If you feel one way, and the court feels the other way, and you decline to follow the directions of the court, then you go to jail for contempt. Because, in fact, that is exactly what it is: you do, actually, have contempt for the court, which is what it means to "feel they don't have a right to access it".
It's easy. You rule that she is lying. You do know that courts do that every day, right? You do know, of course, that defendants will lie to courts in the attempt to avoid incarceration? You do know, of course, that every day judges look miscreants in the eye, call them on their bullshit, and send them to jail, right? You aren't suffering under the illusion that if a defendant pleads not guilty, that they are released back into the public?
I seriously can't figure out what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that judges should be required to accept as true everything said by a criminal defendant?
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa, whoa, whoa there. What Dan Savage is doing is explicitly in line with the definition of tolerance. Is Dan Savage trying to make Rick Santorum's speech a crime? Is Dan Savage trying to make sure that Rick Santorum does not have equal protection under the law? Is Dan Savage trying to deny Rick Santorum his civil rights?
No. Those things would be intolerant. Those are the things Rick Santorum is doing to Dan Savage.
Dan Savage, on the other hand, is behaving exactly in line with what tolerance means: he recognizes the opposition view, discusses it honestly, understands it, and uses speech only to properly characterize it as wrong. That is tolerance.
If Rick wants to show Dan tolerance, this is how he can do it: I, Rick Santorum, think that homosexual acts are morally wrong. However, I will not try to subjugate homosexuals, I will not deny them the right to marry or participate in society in any way. The only thing I will do is tell people that I really honestly do believe that people should not have sex with members of their gender. That is tolerance, and Rick would do well to follow Dan's lead on learning what the word means.
"If he wanted to avoid criticism, he could have simply retired quite comfortably to his home in Pennsylvania."
Yep, that would be one way.
Another way would be to, you know, not be a monstrously bigoted asshole. But you know, people choose different ways to get through life.
Hey, are you pretty happy that you squeezed out a short post to make it to the top of the comments, even though the post is inane and un-insightful?
Next time just type "first post".
Oh, okay, well it's fine for you to have a different opinion of what "good policy" and "a better country" mean. That's fine. What's not fine is misrepresenting your opposition as a bunch of starry-eyed jergoffs who think telephones are "rights". No. That is a fancy way for you to disparage some of your fellow voters unfairly. We merely think that the preponderance of the parts of the issue of access to telecommunications point toward the policy that the benefit of achieving universal access is worth the cost. It's not an unreasonable or untenable policy preference, so I thank you not to misrepresent it so.
You just won a Slashdot Achievement for getting a +5, Informative mod on what is clearly a -1, Troll.
In the end, a judge will decide. Is that what you are saying? Because that's what I'm saying.
Make sure not to mistake "reasonable doubt" for "shadow of a doubt".
For some strange reason in the US, we believe that you have a right to infrastructure no matter where you live.
Perhaps it's not that we believe people have a "right" to it, merely that helping to provide the infrastructure makes the whole country a better place, and that in a democracy we should pursue policies that make the country a better place. Have you ever considered that? or do you just spout bullshit about "rights" all the time?
That would be similar, but not the same; and yes, the decision could be right.
We have judges to determine things like plausibility. The judge in this case decided that this woman obviously does know the password, thus refusing to give it up is contempt. If a judge determined that a person did in fact have a gun, and was hiding it, then yes that decision would be fine. For the most part, however, judges are deferential to defendants, allowing them to get away with all sort of slights.
"A gun owned a long time ago, honestly no clue"? Probably the judge wouldn't render the same kind of decision as in this case, but maybe.
Compare this to a journalist who had a source who he refuses to 'give up'. The journalist could try to claim that he doesn't remember who the source was, but that is probably an implausible claim. Judges are responsible for deciding such things.
The AC said that "I forgot" is a defense.
I said that it is not a defense, or at least, it isn't one accepted by courts.
Whether she entered such a defense in court is not relevant to whether it is a valid defense -- except for the fact that it is possible that the lawyer didn't enter the defense because it isn't a defense. Do you disagree and think that either it is a valid defense, or that the lawyer's use of it is relevant?
You are equalling a physical proof with a testimony.
Actually no, I am equating physical evidence with informational evidence. It is you who is equating 'abiding a warranted search' with 'bearing witness'. I suspect you are doing that because you interpret "witness" (the word in the Constitution) to mean something which it does not mean. To be a witness against yourself means that in trial, they call you to the bench and ask you questions; truly, they can't force you to do that. But, no court has ever found that the 5th amendment gives a person the right to stymie a police investigation's collection of evidence. That is, very simply, not what it means, despite your rhetorical wish for it to be so.
They can't make me say anything that would incriminate me
Well, they can and often do order you to speak the words, and if you ignore the court order, then you are in contempt -- just like this woman is. (Similarly, they can order you to submit a handwriting sample, or a DNA sample, or to do a voice lineup. Yes, really, they can and do.) To me that means they "can make you say anything", but to you maybe that means something different. Your right to remain silent does not extend to the destruction of evidence of a crime, nor to impeding a police investigation. Again, that's not what it means.
Still, I guess the prudent thing would be to give them a WRONG password. And claim with all confidence that this is the right password and they fucked up, messed the backups or something.
So, yeah, you could do that. In this case, the woman tried something similar, claiming to have forgotten the password. That's a viable defense when you can give to a court -- but a court can, will, often does, and in this case did decline to believe the woman. Thus, they found her in contempt.
It's all very straightforward, and you are desperately trying to make it into something it isn't, by trying to invent rights that don't exist and Constitutional interpretations which have never been legally valid in this country. I have grown tired of repeating myself, saying things that are true, and you repeating yourself, saying things that you wish to be true, but are not true. I'll go another round if you have any actual questions about reality, but if you just want to project fantasies, I think I've said all that can be said.
Of course it did. It's in the first sentence of the article which defines the branch of government:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court"
Deciding the law is what "the judicial power" means. I mean, literally, that's what the words "the judicial power" means. The judicial power of the US, shall be vested in one Supreme Court: that court shall judge the laws.
The authors go on to greater detail: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties". How much more clear could it be? Judges judge the Constitution. It's right there in the plain text.
Here's a link to the Constitution so you can read it for yourself (Article 3):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
I would ask you to explain yourself, but I made that mistake with you in the past. It led to too much nonsense for me to engage you again.
Suffice it to say, this woman is under court order. That makes it due process of law. This is not the case of a rogue sheriff confiscating goods and jailing people without trials, which is what that amendment protects against. She has a lawyer, she goes to court, she has hearings; that's due process of law.
You are denying the legal equivalence between the key and the password. This is a distinction which I do not see, and which apparently neither does this lower court. What if the "key" to the literal door was a voiceprint of you speaking a password? Would you say that the use of voiceprint technology privileges you to privacy behind that door, which is not the privilege of a person who uses a literal key?
But as you say, perhaps the Supreme Court will overturn this court order. I doubt it, but maybe the SC will decide that there is such a distinction after all.
That depends on how you define it.
Since courts are the arbiter of the Constitution, you might say no, courts tell you what is Constitutional. Perhaps a lower court could order something unconstitutional, which could then be overturned by a higher court, with the highest court eventually saying what the Constitution means.
Or, you could deny the prerogative of courts to arbitrate the Constitution. In that case the Constitution means whatever you think it means. This is nice and all, but doesn't go very far, except in the imaginations of kooks and krazies. This is often the last resort of people who are trying to make untenable legal arguments.
You just compared a learning thermostat to a programmable thermostat. That leads me to this question:
Nest $249
Oranges $1.29/pound
So who is more expensive?
Wow dude. You got an unfair troll mod for that.
Yes, they can. The "demand" is in the form of a court order, and refusing the court order is called "contempt". That is the same (legally) as what is happening here.
Um, yeah duh. If you break the law, we put you in prison, but not without due process of law. If that means that your liberty isn't guaranteed, then, um, well then yeah your liberty isn't guaranteed. "Guaranteed liberty" would be, what, anarchy with might-makes-right? That's not the kind of liberty I want to live amongst.
I have a Nest and it is awesome. Don't buy it because it will save you money (it may reduce your montly cost a little, but it'll take a while to make up for the cost of the device), rather buy it because it is a fun toy. It's very well implemented, looks nice, the software is great, and you can do cool stuff like connect to it from your pod.
Fuck Honeywell. If their patents have been violated, then where are their Nest-like products? I smell another patent troll.
This entire story is about the fact that that is true. Shit, where the fuck do people get off with nonsense legal theories? Wanting the law to mean something doesn't make it mean that.
Sorry, you don't have the right against self-incrimination; you have the right not to be witness against yourself. That means in a court, when you raise your hand and are asked questions, you don't have to give answers which incriminate yourself. It's a narrow right, which doesn't apply to (say) destroying or hiding evidence.
If the body is stashed in a locked room in your house, the police can, and all the time do, demand the key.
He has? No shit. Can you point it out?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* she's not held for a capital or infamous crime
* she is not in double jeopardy
* she is not a witness against herself because she is not testifying in court
* her deprivation of life, liberty, and property is by due process of law
* her property is not taken for public use
I don't see the problem. People are, of course, required to provide evidence when they are under investigation. That happens all the time -- you can be compelled to give up DNA evidence, or fingerprints, or to unlock a room in your house where you are hiding evidence. So it's obvious that none of those things is "witness against oneself". Perhaps you can make it more clear for me which part you object to.
If you feel one way, and the court feels the other way, and you decline to follow the directions of the court, then you go to jail for contempt. Because, in fact, that is exactly what it is: you do, actually, have contempt for the court, which is what it means to "feel they don't have a right to access it".
That's what.
It's easy. You rule that she is lying. You do know that courts do that every day, right? You do know, of course, that defendants will lie to courts in the attempt to avoid incarceration? You do know, of course, that every day judges look miscreants in the eye, call them on their bullshit, and send them to jail, right? You aren't suffering under the illusion that if a defendant pleads not guilty, that they are released back into the public?
I seriously can't figure out what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that judges should be required to accept as true everything said by a criminal defendant?
A better analogy is being compelled to give a DNA sample, which is done all the time.
People who claim that this is a violation of the woman's self-incrimination rights, don't understand self-incrimination rights.