It is only thanks to the thoughtful regulation by the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats, that the giant and heartless KKKorporation$ can be forced to improve services and lower costs.
Constitutional rights don't give you the right to break other laws. In the case you mention, people entered a Federal building in disguise and fiddled with the phones. Those actions are themselves illegal, regardless of what legal or protected activities went on.
Very true, yes. Which only confirms, that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this — the actions of the video-taper are illegal or not depending on whether or not his video-taping (or any accompanying activity, such as entering under false pretenses or disobeying police order to stop) is illegal or not. That is, his video-taping is currently legal simply because there is no law making it illegal — not because it is somehow covered by the First Amendment.
And if the State of Texas — or the city of Fort Worth — ever make it illegal to record police activity, Phillip Turner's future such actions will become just as illegal as those of James O'Keefe.
Once again, I do not dispute that Phillip's actions were legal, and James' were not (in the case cited). Just that neither had anything to do with the First Amendment...
It's the playback and that certainly goes under free speech
Yes, the playback is/should be protected, no doubt. But the taping itself? As I already asked in this thread — is everything done in order to talk about it in the future protected by the First Amendment?
Closer to TFA, should this guy have claimed First Amendment protection of his evidence-gathering?
But “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” News-gathering, for example, “is entitled to first amendment protection, for ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,’” even though this right is not absolute.
We are making the full circle, but let's try one more time. If it is the gathering of information (meant for later publication) that places video-taping under the protective wing of the First Amendment, why was not this guy's activity under the same protection?
What I do not understand — as should be obvious from the very title of my post — is how/why is filming considered in any way protected by (or even related to) the First Amendment.
Put another way, even Google with their near-bottomless buckets of money has said it's too hard for them.
Exactly the example I wanted to cite. Google can count. They know, what cables cost and how hard it is to run it. But the costs and, more importantly, the intangible difficulties of obtaining the permits can not be estimated in advance.
And so it follows, that it were these government-imposed costs and difficulties, that scuttled Google Fiber — because, had it been anything else, they wouldn't have even attempted. Indeed, we already know it quite well, that the real barrier for having nice Internet-connectivity is not the ISPs, who want your money, but the local mayors and city councils, who want free stuff and favors.
And you would notice too, that where they started (and continue to operate) is not exactly the thickly settled — and thus Illiberal-dominated — coastal city... Even though "thickly settled" is the most attractive part for an ISP.
As long as the government can throttle an upstart ISPs — such as by holding them to the letter of some regulation, however imprecise and unclear — the incumbent, who can take the President for a round of golf, will thrive. Thrive without improving service and lower prices.
It's worth noting that both the AN124 and 225 are operating in a market completely separated from Airbus and Boeing.
There is a different meaning to the word "separation". Firms like FedEx and UPS may be happy to use a giant plane like Mria for their own busy routes — still need the same crew, but can take a lot more load. A single such AN can replace a number of Boeings and/or Airbuses, which could be used for human travelers.
If only Antonov actually managed to move to actually building those planes, rather than merely designing them. Hopefully, the Saudi and the Chinese investments — as well as the reduced/eliminated Russian influence — will help.
I'm merely informing you that the definition of race has improved since the 19th century when everyone was either Caucasian, Negroid or Mongoloid
I don't believe in either of your claims: neither that the definition has actually changed, nor that the change you assert would've been for the better, had it actually happened.
Race is most certainly not a "social construct" — the very reason, discrimination based on it is wrong (and illegal) is that it is immutable. A human being does not choose to be of particular race.
Now, there has always been the other meaning for the same word — a homonym, really — which would, indeed, make any grouping of people, including fans of a particular sports team, or cat-lovers, or Emacs-users a "race". That meaning is not at all new — it certainly existed in the 19th century — but it, quite clearly and self-evidently, is not what the anti-discrimination laws mean. A FreeBSD-bigot like myself can not claim "racial discrimination" after being turned away from an all-Windows shop, for example.
I'm not too familiar with the case [of Rachel Dolezal -mi]
Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.
she resigned from her job because she had been caught lying about her background
Obviously, had she not lied, they would not have hired her in the first place — even though she was, obviously, qualified — it is Ok, for some reason, for Blacks to discriminate against Whites.
We try to fix this over time, but some people think that going back to the 'good old days , whenever they were supposed to be, will solve all of this.
What? Does this, somehow, justify the discrimination against Whites and Asians manifested by NAACP?
The First Amendment protects him because any law that purported to prohibit what he was doing would be unconstitutional due to 1A protections of his rights.
Please, explain your line of reasoning. One-liners do not cut it.
Having screamed for anti-immigrant violence and sexual assault becoming common place because of Trump, Illiberals could never offer any actual evidence. Maybe, this guy is what they need. Finally...
Only if your definition of race comes from the 19th century, which in itself is a little racist.
If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.
Because, unless the law has explicitly changed in between — as in, passed by Legislature and signed by the Executive — what was legal at one point shall remain legal at another.
These days race is a social or cultural construct
Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP... Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others. Had she been fired for being Black while masquerading as White, she and her team of lawyers would've all been millionaires by now.
Then what is the advantage over living in an artificial environment in space?
Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet. The colonists may need to adapt it, but they may also find it easier to make some adaptations to themselves — meeting the planet half-way, as it were.
If Escimo and Inuit and related peoples adapted to the environment unlivable for their African predecessors naturally — even if they still can not live there naked, we may be able to make similar adaptations faster (in fewer generations) to make Martian environment suck less. But, as often point out, Antarctica ought to be first — much closer and much cosier for humans than Mars.
But, hey, adapting to life in space (low-to-no gravity, low air pressure) may take place in parallel. Stephenson — in SevenEves — explores this subject in some detail.
Nazis are so out fashion, dumbass, you really should try to do a better job hiding it... Not that you can do a better job at anything, even/. trolling.
the only reason police stopped the plaintiff was because he was recording video in a public place.
Sure. I accept and wholeheartedly agree, that the guy's recording is legal and should've been unmolested.
I just don't see, how the First Amendment protects him in the slightest. Doing, what is not expressly prohibited by law is legal in a free country — you do not need it to be expressly allowed by an Amendment or anything else.
The only possible charge I could see is disobeying a police order — had they ordered him to stop and he continued, they could've charged him with such disobeying, even if the order itself were later found invalid.
So which organism are you going to lift genes from which is comfortable (i.e. can breed) at Martian temperatures and pressures?
It does not have to be comfortable enough to breed — or even survive — unaided by other technology. But if it can be made more comfortable than an unmodified human — requiring a lesser oxygen tank and/or a lighter suit and/or an easier-to-build shelter — that'd be a win already.
It is neither computer nor software. It is a plane. US still flies B-52s (since 1955) and F-15s (since 1976).
and only one was ever built.
Yep — because Socialism of the USSR was not conductive to proper mass production.
The Netherlands, the Congo, the Philippines, the Bahamas etc...
If you want to use the short names of the countries, then it is, respectively: Holland, Congo-Kinshasa (or Congo-Brazzaville — in your ignorance, you aren't even aware there are two), Philippines, Bahamas. "The" may be part of a long name of a country, such as The Kingdom of The Netherlands...
Wrong. The name of the country is Sudan. The Sudan is a name of a geographic region. Face it, your English really sucks and you are most uncultured.
The Netherlands.
Some countries have a long name and a short name. The article is not used in front of the short name. The Kingdom of The Netherlands is the long name, Holland (no "the") is the short name.
Like Germany, Ukraine has no "long name" — since it stopped being merely a region of the delightfully dead USSR and became and independent state, the "the" in front of it is inappropriate although frequently used to insult by the Russian assholes. Which is exactly what you did — and are.
gathering evidence in support of one's claims -- particularly against the government -- is an integral part of the freedoms of speech and seeking redress
Actually, no, I don't think that's a valid explanation. For example, this guy — who merely wanted to gather exactly the evidence you are talking about — was convicted of "entering a federal building under false pretenses". By the logic you are putting forth, all his actions should be covered by the First Amendment...
Similarly, the computer hacking for stuff to publicly disclose later is merely "gathering evidence" for future speech... Heck, just about anything done in order to talk about it in the future must be protected by the First Amendment — rape and murder included — if we follow the proposed line of reasoning.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that gathering evidence in support of one's claims -- particularly against the government -- is an integral part of the freedoms of speech
Is that it? Gathering evidence?.. Well, OK...
Would that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted just as liberally as the 1st though...
While I totally support the right to record, whatever one can legally observe, I struggle to understand the commonly-used argument, that such making recordings — made silently and without expression — is somehow equivalent to speech.
The way I KNOW it works, where I live. Fixed that for you. Comcast sends their promotions monthly, and FiOS is well aware of it...
Your anecdotal evidence may be different and I do not doubt your truthfulness. But absence of ISP-choice is in itself the government's fault — it is too easy for the local mayors and city councils to block an ISP. So easy, even the mighty Google gave up.
USA health costs per person is about $8000 whereas that bastion of capitalist competition, Sweden, is $4000 (you can check it out if you know how to use this thing called the internet).
Citation needed. The US does not have "Single Payer" halthcare — yet. Nor do we have a properly free market for it either — things were pretty bad and then became even worse with Obamacare.
Why is this not happening with pizzerias or sneakers?
Why am I paying the same price for 75 Mbps up/down today, that I used to pay for 35 Mpbs up/down 6 years ago?
The answer: competition. It is competition, that keeps the services improving and/or the prices dropping.
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
How fucking stupid do you think we are, anyway?
Only because you asked... I think you are unbelievably dumb and uneducated. Quite obviously, you also lack manners and any semblance of class.
Slashdot Mirror
It is only thanks to the thoughtful regulation by the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats, that the giant and heartless KKKorporation$ can be forced to improve services and lower costs.
Had Trump won, he would've appointed a RethugliKKKan to head the FCC and the consumer would've gotten butt-raped again!
So nice to have a sensible woman at the helm instead!
Very true, yes. Which only confirms, that the First Amendment has nothing to do with this — the actions of the video-taper are illegal or not depending on whether or not his video-taping (or any accompanying activity, such as entering under false pretenses or disobeying police order to stop) is illegal or not. That is, his video-taping is currently legal simply because there is no law making it illegal — not because it is somehow covered by the First Amendment.
And if the State of Texas — or the city of Fort Worth — ever make it illegal to record police activity, Phillip Turner's future such actions will become just as illegal as those of James O'Keefe.
Once again, I do not dispute that Phillip's actions were legal, and James' were not (in the case cited). Just that neither had anything to do with the First Amendment...
Yes, the playback is/should be protected, no doubt. But the taping itself? As I already asked in this thread — is everything done in order to talk about it in the future protected by the First Amendment?
Closer to TFA, should this guy have claimed First Amendment protection of his evidence-gathering?
Which was precisely nothing. Thank you.
We are making the full circle, but let's try one more time. If it is the gathering of information (meant for later publication) that places video-taping under the protective wing of the First Amendment, why was not this guy's activity under the same protection?
What I do not understand — as should be obvious from the very title of my post — is how/why is filming considered in any way protected by (or even related to) the First Amendment.
Exactly the example I wanted to cite. Google can count. They know, what cables cost and how hard it is to run it. But the costs and, more importantly, the intangible difficulties of obtaining the permits can not be estimated in advance.
And so it follows, that it were these government-imposed costs and difficulties, that scuttled Google Fiber — because, had it been anything else, they wouldn't have even attempted. Indeed, we already know it quite well, that the real barrier for having nice Internet-connectivity is not the ISPs, who want your money, but the local mayors and city councils, who want free stuff and favors.
And you would notice too, that where they started (and continue to operate) is not exactly the thickly settled — and thus Illiberal-dominated — coastal city... Even though "thickly settled" is the most attractive part for an ISP.
As long as the government can throttle an upstart ISPs — such as by holding them to the letter of some regulation, however imprecise and unclear — the incumbent, who can take the President for a round of golf, will thrive. Thrive without improving service and lower prices.
There is a different meaning to the word "separation". Firms like FedEx and UPS may be happy to use a giant plane like Mria for their own busy routes — still need the same crew, but can take a lot more load. A single such AN can replace a number of Boeings and/or Airbuses, which could be used for human travelers.
If only Antonov actually managed to move to actually building those planes, rather than merely designing them. Hopefully, the Saudi and the Chinese investments — as well as the reduced/eliminated Russian influence — will help.
I don't believe in either of your claims: neither that the definition has actually changed, nor that the change you assert would've been for the better, had it actually happened.
Race is most certainly not a "social construct" — the very reason, discrimination based on it is wrong (and illegal) is that it is immutable. A human being does not choose to be of particular race.
Now, there has always been the other meaning for the same word — a homonym, really — which would, indeed, make any grouping of people, including fans of a particular sports team, or cat-lovers, or Emacs-users a "race". That meaning is not at all new — it certainly existed in the 19th century — but it, quite clearly and self-evidently, is not what the anti-discrimination laws mean. A FreeBSD-bigot like myself can not claim "racial discrimination" after being turned away from an all-Windows shop, for example.
Of course, you aren't — Blacks are given a pass by all your news-sources, when they discriminate or even murder based on race.
Obviously, had she not lied, they would not have hired her in the first place — even though she was, obviously, qualified — it is Ok, for some reason, for Blacks to discriminate against Whites.
What? Does this, somehow, justify the discrimination against Whites and Asians manifested by NAACP?
Please, explain your line of reasoning. One-liners do not cut it.
Having screamed for anti-immigrant violence and sexual assault becoming common place because of Trump, Illiberals could never offer any actual evidence. Maybe, this guy is what they need. Finally...
Meanwhile the number of victims of the "Black Lives Matter" assholes — the very foundation of their movement based on a lie — uncounted scores.
If you wish to redefine the meaning of "race" (or "sex" for that matter), you need to change the law that bans discrimination based on it.
Because, unless the law has explicitly changed in between — as in, passed by Legislature and signed by the Executive — what was legal at one point shall remain legal at another.
Funny, this argument — But I identify as Black! — didn't help certain Ms. Dolezal keep her job at, of all places, NAACP... Evidently, some races — whatever the term means — are more equal than others. Had she been fired for being Black while masquerading as White, she and her team of lawyers would've all been millionaires by now.
Creating such an artificial environment in space "from scratch" may be much harder, than using the readily-made planet. The colonists may need to adapt it, but they may also find it easier to make some adaptations to themselves — meeting the planet half-way, as it were.
If Escimo and Inuit and related peoples adapted to the environment unlivable for their African predecessors naturally — even if they still can not live there naked, we may be able to make similar adaptations faster (in fewer generations) to make Martian environment suck less. But, as often point out, Antarctica ought to be first — much closer and much cosier for humans than Mars.
But, hey, adapting to life in space (low-to-no gravity, low air pressure) may take place in parallel. Stephenson — in SevenEves — explores this subject in some detail.
Nazis are so out fashion, dumbass, you really should try to do a better job hiding it... Not that you can do a better job at anything, even /. trolling.
Sure. I accept and wholeheartedly agree, that the guy's recording is legal and should've been unmolested.
I just don't see, how the First Amendment protects him in the slightest. Doing, what is not expressly prohibited by law is legal in a free country — you do not need it to be expressly allowed by an Amendment or anything else.
The only possible charge I could see is disobeying a police order — had they ordered him to stop and he continued, they could've charged him with such disobeying, even if the order itself were later found invalid.
It does not have to be comfortable enough to breed — or even survive — unaided by other technology. But if it can be made more comfortable than an unmodified human — requiring a lesser oxygen tank and/or a lighter suit and/or an easier-to-build shelter — that'd be a win already.
The categories aren't without overlaps. If Ukraine takes a bite from the cargo-plane market, then Boeing can produce more passenger jets.
Just what FedEx or UPS might want then, right?
Boeing 767 was also created in 1981 — and they still can't make enough of them.
It is neither computer nor software. It is a plane. US still flies B-52s (since 1955) and F-15s (since 1976).
Yep — because Socialism of the USSR was not conductive to proper mass production.
If you want to use the short names of the countries, then it is, respectively: Holland, Congo-Kinshasa (or Congo-Brazzaville — in your ignorance, you aren't even aware there are two), Philippines, Bahamas. "The" may be part of a long name of a country, such as The Kingdom of The Netherlands...
Wrong. The name of the country is Sudan. The Sudan is a name of a geographic region . Face it, your English really sucks and you are most uncultured.
Some countries have a long name and a short name. The article is not used in front of the short name. The Kingdom of The Netherlands is the long name, Holland (no "the") is the short name.
Like Germany, Ukraine has no "long name" — since it stopped being merely a region of the delightfully dead USSR and became and independent state, the "the" in front of it is inappropriate although frequently used to insult by the Russian assholes. Which is exactly what you did — and are.
Actually, no, I don't think that's a valid explanation. For example, this guy — who merely wanted to gather exactly the evidence you are talking about — was convicted of "entering a federal building under false pretenses". By the logic you are putting forth, all his actions should be covered by the First Amendment...
Similarly, the computer hacking for stuff to publicly disclose later is merely "gathering evidence" for future speech... Heck, just about anything done in order to talk about it in the future must be protected by the First Amendment — rape and murder included — if we follow the proposed line of reasoning.
Is that it? Gathering evidence?.. Well, OK...
Would that the 2nd Amendment was interpreted just as liberally as the 1st though...
While I totally support the right to record, whatever one can legally observe, I struggle to understand the commonly-used argument, that such making recordings — made silently and without expression — is somehow equivalent to speech.
Could someone, please, explain?
The way I KNOW it works, where I live. Fixed that for you. Comcast sends their promotions monthly, and FiOS is well aware of it...
Your anecdotal evidence may be different and I do not doubt your truthfulness. But absence of ISP-choice is in itself the government's fault — it is too easy for the local mayors and city councils to block an ISP. So easy, even the mighty Google gave up.
Citation needed. The US does not have "Single Payer" halthcare — yet. Nor do we have a properly free market for it either — things were pretty bad and then became even worse with Obamacare.
But in primary education the market is cornered by the monopoly called Department of Education. And, according to their own figures (see, how citations are done with thing called "HTML"?), since 1950-ies the per-pupil costs of public school education quadrupled : from $3k to $13k (inflation-adjusted). Has the quality gone up? No, most unlikely — only 30% of the nation's 8th-graders, for example, are deemed "proficient" in reading .
I do not. You make a claim, you cite supporting evidence.
Why is this not happening with pizzerias or sneakers?
Why am I paying the same price for 75 Mbps up/down today, that I used to pay for 35 Mpbs up/down 6 years ago?
The answer: competition. It is competition, that keeps the services improving and/or the prices dropping.
Once you have a monopoly — such as "Single Payer" education, or healthcare, or Internet-Service provision — the price goes up and the quality goes down.
Only because you asked... I think you are unbelievably dumb and uneducated. Quite obviously, you also lack manners and any semblance of class.