You have it wrong. The rule is that states cannot make laws that are more lenient than federal law.
Example: If federal law says that drug smuggling is a 1st degree felony, state law can not make it a misdemeanor nor can it make it a 3rd degree felony.
But, a state law can be more restrictive, such as federal law saying possession is a misdemeanor and state law saying it is a felony. Or, as a real life example, salvia is legal at the federal and legal in the state of Florida, but it has been outlawed in Pasco County, Florida.
He stated that whether anyone likes something should be irrelevant to whether that thing is a crime.
Who cares if you are deprived of something? You do, that is it. You don't like it. But, I don't care and the person who took your stuff is happy. So, that cancels out your unhappiness.
Really? So, if whether or not you like something should have no bearing on legality of said thing? Using your reasoning, burgling your home should be legal because the only reason burglary is illegal is because the burgled do not like being burgled and that doesn't matter.
Again, would you like it if someone make a doll of you and sold it for a profit and made a lot of money and gave you none? Do you consider that right and fair?
Oh, and the general test is the average person, as in "Would the average person feel violated if..."
Sorry, but you fail by conflating two different situations; your comment is not even close to insightful and an example of a false dichotomy.
There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.
The choice is not between total control of one's image and/or likeness and no control at all.
Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission. Also, if someone were to make and sell a doll of you without your permission and without sharing any of the profits, would you try to stop them?
It is not in the Constitution and the U.N. charter of human rights doesn't matter. The right in question is a legal right granted by the state of California.
If one's likeness can be used to sell an item, including one's likeness, then one is a celebrity, i.e. a famous person.
Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.
Um, no. For most of history, churches have required a portion of a worshiper's income, known as a tithe. For most christian denomination, this is 10%. And, when the Church needed money to build all those cathedrals in Europe and the tithe was not enough, it sold indulgences, the right to sin.
Greenpeace is not a business and to be a member of Greenpeace one must donate to the cause.
See, the problem is that people, as a group, are assholes. Given the option of paying what they want, they will underpay or not pay at all, even if they can afford it.
Two women have come in and claimed that Assange had unprotected sex with them after they only agreed to protected sex; one via refusing to stop after a condom broke, the other by unprotected penetration while she was sleeping.
Individually, the stories are weak, but taken together, they show a pattern of behavior.
The claim is that she agreed to protected sex after denying him unprotected sex. Then, he engaged in unprotected sex with her while she slept. It is not that she said no to all sex, but rather, she stated she would not have unprotected sex with him and then he engaged in unprotected sex with her while she was unconscious.
While one can only speculate, the fact that he is an internationally famous person and that she originally agreed to protected sex makes prosecution unlikely. The fact that another woman made a claim that he engaged in unprotected sex with her against her consent bolsters her story. The story of one bolsters the story of the other by showing a pattern of conduct by Assange, to whit having protected sex with a woman then having unprotected sex with said woman against her will.
Yes. And, so the investigators can try to find a hole in either party's story. That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
No, it is not ironic. But, it does show an inconsistency in your beliefs and actions which throws doubt on your veracity in regards to both.
So, when someone is accused of a crime and he says "I didn't do it", all questioning should stop and the suspects word should be considered the unvarnished truth?
But, they did not co-ordinate their stories. There stories are very different as to what took place with each. But, together their stories support each other's claim. In order for their stories to be co-ordinated, both would have the same story, rather than different stories that show the same pattern of behavior and disregard for the rights and wishes of others.
That is why it needs to be investigated and he needs to be questioned.
And, in this case, the woman is claiming that she agreed to sex with a condom and after she was asleep, he had sex with her without a condom, something she did not agree to and reacted badly to upon waking.
The claim is as follows:
She stated she did not want to have unprotected sex. They had protected sex. After she went to sleep, he had unprotected sex with her even though she had already stated she did not want to do that.
It is irrelevant if she agreed to protected sex before hand because she specifically did not agree to unprotected sex. Sex without consent, especially after consent is denied, is rape.
If he was not trying to sidestep investigation, then why did he leave the country and refuse to return for questioning?
I claim they are opposing investigation because they are opposing investigation. That is what this is all about, investigating the claims and all I see here is a bunch of people complaining about how badly Assange is being treated by being made to go back to face questioning and investigation
Does the report say that, or are you making an assumption? I see nothing in the article that states that, nor have I been able to find a copy of the report.
Or, they behaved like average women going up against an internationally know and quite powerful man, meaning that each did not feel they could prevail until they learned of the other, knowing that they would have to contend with people like you?
Guilt can not be proven without investigation and, if warranted, trial. It is up to first the prosecutor and then the court to determine if the word of the two is worth more than the word of the one.
Or, do you argue that the presumption of innocence precludes investigation and trial?
Consider: You would not consider it rape if your girlfriend woke you up with a blowjob, but would you consider rape if your male roommate did so? Or, a male acquaintance did so after allowing him to stay over after a party? How about if your girlfriend woke you up by putting on a strap-on and fucking you in the ass with it?
Ask your girlfriend if she would consider it rape if she said "Only protected sex" and, while she was asleep, you started having unprotected sex with her.
Slashdot Mirror
You have it wrong. The rule is that states cannot make laws that are more lenient than federal law.
Example: If federal law says that drug smuggling is a 1st degree felony, state law can not make it a misdemeanor nor can it make it a 3rd degree felony.
But, a state law can be more restrictive, such as federal law saying possession is a misdemeanor and state law saying it is a felony. Or, as a real life example, salvia is legal at the federal and legal in the state of Florida, but it has been outlawed in Pasco County, Florida.
Got it?
I didn't say "absolute control". Perhaps you should go back to school and learn reading comprehension.
No matter how hard you try to frame the argument in absolute terms, you will fail because this is not a case of absolutes.
He stated that whether anyone likes something should be irrelevant to whether that thing is a crime.
Who cares if you are deprived of something? You do, that is it. You don't like it. But, I don't care and the person who took your stuff is happy. So, that cancels out your unhappiness.
Really? So, if whether or not you like something should have no bearing on legality of said thing? Using your reasoning, burgling your home should be legal because the only reason burglary is illegal is because the burgled do not like being burgled and that doesn't matter.
Again, would you like it if someone make a doll of you and sold it for a profit and made a lot of money and gave you none? Do you consider that right and fair?
Oh, and the general test is the average person, as in "Would the average person feel violated if..."
So you wouldn't mind if someone made a doll of you without your permission and sold said doll making lots of money and didn't share any of it for you?
Sorry, but you fail by conflating two different situations; your comment is not even close to insightful and an example of a false dichotomy.
There is a major difference between a news report containing factual information and a picture of a person and a someone making a doll of celebrity for the sole purpose of making money of the celebrity's image.
The choice is not between total control of one's image and/or likeness and no control at all.
Please explain why someone should be able to make money off the likeness of another person without said second person's knowledge and/or permission. Also, if someone were to make and sell a doll of you without your permission and without sharing any of the profits, would you try to stop them?
It is not in the Constitution and the U.N. charter of human rights doesn't matter. The right in question is a legal right granted by the state of California.
If one's likeness can be used to sell an item, including one's likeness, then one is a celebrity, i.e. a famous person.
Now, would you like someone else to make money off of a doll made in your image? Remember, you get none of the money and they did not ask your permission.
Um, no. For most of history, churches have required a portion of a worshiper's income, known as a tithe. For most christian denomination, this is 10%. And, when the Church needed money to build all those cathedrals in Europe and the tithe was not enough, it sold indulgences, the right to sin.
Greenpeace is not a business and to be a member of Greenpeace one must donate to the cause.
See, the problem is that people, as a group, are assholes. Given the option of paying what they want, they will underpay or not pay at all, even if they can afford it.
Two women have come in and claimed that Assange had unprotected sex with them after they only agreed to protected sex; one via refusing to stop after a condom broke, the other by unprotected penetration while she was sleeping.
Individually, the stories are weak, but taken together, they show a pattern of behavior.
The claim is that she agreed to protected sex after denying him unprotected sex. Then, he engaged in unprotected sex with her while she slept. It is not that she said no to all sex, but rather, she stated she would not have unprotected sex with him and then he engaged in unprotected sex with her while she was unconscious.
While one can only speculate, the fact that he is an internationally famous person and that she originally agreed to protected sex makes prosecution unlikely. The fact that another woman made a claim that he engaged in unprotected sex with her against her consent bolsters her story. The story of one bolsters the story of the other by showing a pattern of conduct by Assange, to whit having protected sex with a woman then having unprotected sex with said woman against her will.
Yes. And, so the investigators can try to find a hole in either party's story. That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
No, it is not ironic. But, it does show an inconsistency in your beliefs and actions which throws doubt on your veracity in regards to both.
So, when someone is accused of a crime and he says "I didn't do it", all questioning should stop and the suspects word should be considered the unvarnished truth?
The accusations have been made and the summary only states Assange's side, leaving the claims against him a murky "sexual misconduct".
Please provide a link to the leaked police report that states what you have stated above.
Yet, you state he should not be returned to be questioned, so how can there be an investigation?
The evidence is their word. His defense is his word. Who knows what other evidence there is? Perhaps they have the broken condom with his and her DNA.
But, they did not co-ordinate their stories. There stories are very different as to what took place with each. But, together their stories support each other's claim. In order for their stories to be co-ordinated, both would have the same story, rather than different stories that show the same pattern of behavior and disregard for the rights and wishes of others.
That is why it needs to be investigated and he needs to be questioned.
The claim is as follows:
It is irrelevant if she agreed to protected sex before hand because she specifically did not agree to unprotected sex. Sex without consent, especially after consent is denied, is rape.
If he was not trying to sidestep investigation, then why did he leave the country and refuse to return for questioning?
I claim they are opposing investigation because they are opposing investigation. That is what this is all about, investigating the claims and all I see here is a bunch of people complaining about how badly Assange is being treated by being made to go back to face questioning and investigation
You don't support Assange, yet here you are defending him and stating he should not even be investigated.
Does the report say that, or are you making an assumption? I see nothing in the article that states that, nor have I been able to find a copy of the report.
Or, they behaved like average women going up against an internationally know and quite powerful man, meaning that each did not feel they could prevail until they learned of the other, knowing that they would have to contend with people like you?
Guilt can not be proven without investigation and, if warranted, trial. It is up to first the prosecutor and then the court to determine if the word of the two is worth more than the word of the one.
Or, do you argue that the presumption of innocence precludes investigation and trial?
It states what Assange claims but does not state what the claims are against him. Both are equally known so why not state both?
Sex without consent is rape.
Consider: You would not consider it rape if your girlfriend woke you up with a blowjob, but would you consider rape if your male roommate did so? Or, a male acquaintance did so after allowing him to stay over after a party?
How about if your girlfriend woke you up by putting on a strap-on and fucking you in the ass with it?
Ask your girlfriend if she would consider it rape if she said "Only protected sex" and, while she was asleep, you started having unprotected sex with her.