California Senate Bill (SB) 1161 sought to make dissemination of scientifically inaccurate or misleading information by businesses and organizations an offense covered by California's unfair competition law.
Small comfort, though — because what is and what is not "scientifically inaccurate" will be up to the prosecutors (and then juries).
I'm certainly not going to want you shut down by legal means.
Most generous of you. There is, however, a sizeable minority, which sees it differently — and these Constitution-undermining proposals reach as high as pages of New York Times. And the far-Left is particularly against it — openly and unabashedly advocating violence against holders of certain opinions. Just as the subject of this thread says...
Don't take my word for it — the "classical" Liberals are appalled by these alt-Left's trends as well, even if their argument against it boils down to the self-serving "it will backfire" warnings...
In United States v. Jones, we held that “the Government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search.’ ”. We stressed the importance of the fact that the Government had “physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information.”
No such occupying private property took place in the case in TFA, which fully invalidates your argument.
Pervasive surveillance used to require a warrant. A stingray is pervasive surveillance.
I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.
Police in public places limited to things they can see and hear
you should publish it even if it was inconclusive.
Huh? Why?.. What would the publishing of an inconclusive study have achieved? It was not paid for from some secret account, it was possible to obtain it — indeed, TFA explicitly says, it was obtained by perfectly legal means...
And, BTW, TFA alleges attempts to "bury" the study, but offers no evidence to support the allegations...
If they had cause to suspect someone, they could probably go get a warrant.
A warrant requires probable cause — a fairly high standard to meet. A suspicion does not — and using a lower standard may be justified. Or no standard at all, as is the case in TFA.
Are you ok with the city cops keeping a database of everyone's [cellular phone -mi] location at all times?
I certainly prefer not to think about it, but I don't see, how it is different from officers with phenomenal visual memory patrolling the streets — and sharing their observations with each other in the evening.
If that does not require a warrant for every person observed, the use of computers (which do have phenomenal memory) should not either...
And once I buy a real good, say a chair, who cares what the creator thinks? It's my chair
Yep. It is now yours — because the creator sold it to you. It is now yours — and you are entitled to control, who sits in it.
A composer can (or ought to be able to) sell rights to a song just as well — and/or will it to his children, etc.
if someone cures Cancer with a single pill, but only wants it given to people with a valid South Korean citizenship...
His right...
how warm do your morals make you feel while your spouse dies of cancer
It may, some times, be possible to justify theft by saving lives, yes. However, we are talking about entertainment here — movies, music, video-games...
D.C. Court of Appeals determined the use of the cell-site simulator "to locate a person through his or her cellphone invades the person's actual, legitimate and reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location information and is a search."
That's seems like an overreach...
It would make sense, that police can not use such methods to intercept the target's communications. But to make even locating the suspect illegal this way is an overreach. An active cell-phone is no different in this regard from a person shouting, for example. Heck, if it is Ok for an officer to recognize a face, it ought to be Ok for a machine to recognize a phone...
A lie. If this were true, Conservatives wouldn't have opposed assisted suicides. That's just one counter-example, but it crashes this part of your argument utterly.
child has rights to health care.
Another lie. Nobody has a right to health care — to assert such a right is to advocate slavery.
The individual right to proper health care overrides parental rights.
Even if we were to stipulate for a second, that a child has a right to health care, that's irrelevant. The child is not capable of exercising that right even if it did exist — someone else must do it for him. Illiberals insist, that someone can and should be the government — that same government, which could not (in their opinion) defend even his very life 10 minutes ago...
As usual, your post is full of fallacies and outright lies. knew, I should've stuck to my policy of ignoring you...
This is not even relevant. If the creator does not want you to use his creation for whatever reason — or even without reason — you should not use it. Same goes for whatever strings he chooses to attach to it. If you find his position wrong/ridiculous/racist/profiteering/whatever, your only morally-acceptable recourse is to not use it.
The multi-billion corporations want you to travel by air, however damaging it is — or may be — to your health and that of the planet. Oh, you say, it is a traveler's choice? No, it is not — though it was once an option, is now a necessity.
Abortion is killing, that's true. Whether it is murder — a prosecutable kind of killing — is up to the laws to define.
And they can define it as a killing of a born human. Both sides of the abortion debate are remarkably inconsistent:
Those, who'd like it banned
These people tend to be Conservative and are appalled at the efforts to insert the government into other aspects of parent-child relationship (such as mandatory schooling, vaccinations and other medical treatments).
Those, who insist, it is "Constitutionally protected"
These so called "Liberals" are Ok with the mother outright killing the child a minute before birth, but want her prosecuted (and the child taken away to the gentle care of government employees) should she decline administration of a government-mandated vaccine or a hearing-test a minute after.
Since when is disagreeing with someone the same thing as hating free speech?
Since the moment it becomes illegal to say certain things. Not only is your opponent wrong when he says it, he should be prosecutedfor saying it. That's when.
In 2010 you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":
One must be careful not to dismiss the truth because it's delivered by an "ass".
But now that your precious Hillary has blamed him, you are not only call him names yourself, but do dismiss the truth he delivers... Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?..
Or all those resulting from the government-imposed "War on Fat"... Why, shouldn't it be criminal to even produce the murderous butter, much less offer it to children?
A single tiny town is all you can cite? That's bullshit — compared to the actually torched to ground major cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden.
Heck, my own dear Kyiv suffered worse destruction during German occupation and in the process of subsequent retaking — and that was a major city, either second or third in significance to the entire USSR!..
At some point you've been corrected enough
Nope. Whoever is making a claim is to cite evidence — best to do so preemptively so as not to sideline the conversation.
My original point stands — the Scandinavian countries, so frequently cited to illustrate the success of Socialism, have actually shown rather mediocre performance despite suffering no (or little) destruction in the WW2 and not spending very much on military. So mediocre, in fact, they should be cited as examples of Socialism failures — like Venezuela.
But not Sweden, Denmark, and Norway... And yet, their performance is rather unremarkable — matching, rather than vastly exceeding America's. Only Norway does much better than US — but it also does much better than others, so it can't be the Socialism (it is oil).
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. And none of it was “physically occupied” by the government...
Sure. And that asking betrays the author's desire for "hate speech" being banned.
Ah, yes, yes, sure. As Snopes said:
Small comfort, though — because what is and what is not "scientifically inaccurate" will be up to the prosecutors (and then juries).
Most generous of you. There is, however, a sizeable minority, which sees it differently — and these Constitution-undermining proposals reach as high as pages of New York Times. And the far-Left is particularly against it — openly and unabashedly advocating violence against holders of certain opinions. Just as the subject of this thread says...
Don't take my word for it — the "classical" Liberals are appalled by these alt-Left's trends as well, even if their argument against it boils down to the self-serving "it will backfire" warnings...
USSC did conclude, that the use of GPS-trackers requires a warrant (see, this is how you cite things.)
But that — unanimous — decision explicitly said:
No such occupying private property took place in the case in TFA, which fully invalidates your argument.
I don't know, how you define the term "pervasive surveillance". But I do know, that use of stingray to target a suspect's phone is no different from following a suspect on the street. And that does not require a warrant — and never did.
Citations?
Huh? Why?.. What would the publishing of an inconclusive study have achieved? It was not paid for from some secret account, it was possible to obtain it — indeed, TFA explicitly says, it was obtained by perfectly legal means...
And, BTW, TFA alleges attempts to "bury" the study, but offers no evidence to support the allegations...
Distinction without difference.
In the context, they are synonyms. The very title says "report that said piracy isn't harmful" — yet another way to state exactly the same thing.
Huh? The two aren't tied together.
A warrant requires probable cause — a fairly high standard to meet. A suspicion does not — and using a lower standard may be justified. Or no standard at all, as is the case in TFA.
I certainly prefer not to think about it, but I don't see, how it is different from officers with phenomenal visual memory patrolling the streets — and sharing their observations with each other in the evening.
If that does not require a warrant for every person observed, the use of computers (which do have phenomenal memory) should not either...
Yep. It is now yours — because the creator sold it to you. It is now yours — and you are entitled to control, who sits in it.
A composer can (or ought to be able to) sell rights to a song just as well — and/or will it to his children, etc.
His right...
It may, some times, be possible to justify theft by saving lives, yes. However, we are talking about entertainment here — movies, music, video-games...
That's seems like an overreach...
It would make sense, that police can not use such methods to intercept the target's communications. But to make even locating the suspect illegal this way is an overreach. An active cell-phone is no different in this regard from a person shouting, for example. Heck, if it is Ok for an officer to recognize a face, it ought to be Ok for a machine to recognize a phone...
A lie. If this were true, Conservatives wouldn't have opposed assisted suicides. That's just one counter-example, but it crashes this part of your argument utterly.
Another lie. Nobody has a right to health care — to assert such a right is to advocate slavery.
Even if we were to stipulate for a second, that a child has a right to health care, that's irrelevant. The child is not capable of exercising that right even if it did exist — someone else must do it for him. Illiberals insist, that someone can and should be the government — that same government, which could not (in their opinion) defend even his very life 10 minutes ago...
As usual, your post is full of fallacies and outright lies. knew, I should've stuck to my policy of ignoring you...
This is not even relevant. If the creator does not want you to use his creation for whatever reason — or even without reason — you should not use it. Same goes for whatever strings he chooses to attach to it. If you find his position wrong/ridiculous/racist/profiteering/whatever, your only morally-acceptable recourse is to not use it.
vs.
As we all know, absence of proof is not a proof of the opposite. Indeed, the quoted report explicitly says:
I would not blame anyone for not publishing a study that's so inconclusive...
The multi-billion corporations want you to travel by air, however damaging it is — or may be — to your health and that of the planet. Oh, you say, it is a traveler's choice? No, it is not — though it was once an option, is now a necessity.
Bad for you, bad for the planet, bad for mom-and-pop operated vacation spots. Let's ban airtravel and boycott Boeing for enabling it!
Abortion is killing, that's true. Whether it is murder — a prosecutable kind of killing — is up to the laws to define.
And they can define it as a killing of a born human. Both sides of the abortion debate are remarkably inconsistent:
Those, who'd like it banned These people tend to be Conservative and are appalled at the efforts to insert the government into other aspects of parent-child relationship (such as mandatory schooling, vaccinations and other medical treatments). Those, who insist, it is "Constitutionally protected" These so called "Liberals" are Ok with the mother outright killing the child a minute before birth, but want her prosecuted (and the child taken away to the gentle care of government employees) should she decline administration of a government-mandated vaccine or a hearing-test a minute after.Since the moment it becomes illegal to say certain things. Not only is your opponent wrong when he says it, he should be prosecuted for saying it. That's when.
In 2010 you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":
But now that your precious Hillary has blamed him, you are not only call him names yourself, but do dismiss the truth he delivers... Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?..
Or all those resulting from the government-imposed "War on Fat"... Why, shouldn't it be criminal to even produce the murderous butter, much less offer it to children?
Sure, of course. But their reach was not sufficient — and the article helps the organizers inform far wider audience of their plans.
This article is a barely disguised advertisement of the event. Guardian's "journalists" are making this story instead of merely reporting it....
Strangely enough, no one complains about this incident of foreign meddling in the America's political process.
A single tiny town is all you can cite? That's bullshit — compared to the actually torched to ground major cities like Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Dresden.
Heck, my own dear Kyiv suffered worse destruction during German occupation and in the process of subsequent retaking — and that was a major city, either second or third in significance to the entire USSR!..
Nope. Whoever is making a claim is to cite evidence — best to do so preemptively so as not to sideline the conversation.
My original point stands — the Scandinavian countries, so frequently cited to illustrate the success of Socialism, have actually shown rather mediocre performance despite suffering no (or little) destruction in the WW2 and not spending very much on military. So mediocre, in fact, they should be cited as examples of Socialism failures — like Venezuela.
GDP (per capita) matters too, I suppose... But do propose some other criteria — the only requirement is that it be objectively measurable...
Citations?
Which is why I make a point to avoid anything marked with "Fair Trade" and similar Leftist labels...
Don't be name-calling, asshole...
But not Sweden, Denmark, and Norway... And yet, their performance is rather unremarkable — matching, rather than vastly exceeding America's. Only Norway does much better than US — but it also does much better than others, so it can't be the Socialism (it is oil).
Yep. A powerful cliche with many applications.