"Multimedia Messaging Service, or MMS, is a standard way to send messages that include multimedia content to and from mobile phones. It extends the core SMS (Short Message Service) capability that allowed exchange of text messages only up to 160 characters in length."
They describe the action, then agree that it would be correctly characterized as the crime of "rape".
Then try to claim that she was speaking rhetorically and didn't mean the actual crime.
The criminal defense equivalent would be the attorney standing up in court saying "my client didn't do it, and if my client did do it it wasn't my client that did it."
And in a legal analogy, it's called alternative pleading. And it's a perfectly valid defense:
Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction.... if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.
...
Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog.
Here, the roads are generally arranged in rectangular grids. Most intersections have a stop sign in one direction, and the direction with the majority of the traffic doesn't have to stop at all. Intersections which are busy enough to need lights are typically every mile or so, and they can be timed so that the traffic hits a green light and doesn't need to stop. Many of the lights are on sensors so that you don't even have to wait at a red light for very long; it'll give you a short green light to allow you to proceed.
Citation needed. I have never heard your interpretation of that quote. The original quote clearly indicates that something in those six lines can be used to hang him, and I don't believe that meant the handwriting.
How is he supposed to determine which neighbor it belongs to? Sniff their packets until they enter personal information into an insecure webpage or something? Isn't that basically what Google got in trouble for doing accidentally?
Aside from the TSA member of staff, who considers it to be defamation.That seems to be a pretty strong sign that they contest what happened.
No. Wrong. They do not contest what happened. They contest whether what happened was "rape". They contest whether it was acceptable to call it that if it wasn't.
Um, no, the way I read it they were consistently trying to make the case that a reasonable person would consider it to be so much like actual rape that calling it rape was actually justified, if slightly hyperbolic.
I do not doubt that this particular TSA agent may have overstepped boundaries in this particular case. But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
If beginning to sob is "deliberately provocative and confrontational", then perhaps so (and yes, she apparently started sobbing on purpose). But that still doesn't come remotely close to justifying the TSA agent doing a little extra-invasive fingering of her vagina during the search.
And sobbing is a passive protest, not a provocative or confrontational one.
This is a serious accusation on the part of the blogger. If she's exaggerating, which sure as hell sounds to be the case, this is an up-and-down defamation case.
Her lawyer addressed that point. Perhaps you should have read TFA.
Furthermore, even if your client did not actually sexually assault my client, Ms. Alkon's statements to and about Ms. Magee would still be protected by the First Amendment. The word "rape" itself has been the subject of defamation cases by far more sympathetic Plaintiffs than your client. In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that a defendant's characterization of his neighbors' seeking an easement in his backyard as "raping [the defendant]" was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole. Of course, we need not seek out Hawai'i case law in order to debunk your unsupportable claims. Rhetorical hyperbole has a strong history of favorable treatment in defamation actions. See Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). This doctrine acknowledges our First Amendment right to express ourselves, even when employing literary license. Accordingly, even if your client's actions were not "rape," Ms. Alkon had every right to characterize them as such.
if the employee was doing her job the way she had to do it, why ruin her life?
The question isn't about whether she was lying. Nobody is contesting what the blogger has claimed to have happened. The question is about whether or not it's justifiable to call what happened "rape", and whether or not the right to call it that (even if it's hyperbole) is protected under the First Amendment.
No. For exact values of 2, 2 + 2 equals exactly 4, and 4 is not a small value of 5.
Unless you were doing something other than rounding to the nearest integer. But why would you be doing anything other than rounding to the nearest integer?
Irony: I read his first sentence perfectly fine the first time, and then re-read it 3 times because you'd had so much trouble with it that I wanted to make sure I hadn't parsed it incorrectly. Which I hadn't.
Slashdot Mirror
For those moments when the horn, high beams, and middle finger just aren't enough.
TSA: What Color is my Shirt
Man 1: Blue
TSA: Hold on... (Flips a switch) Now what color is my shirt
Man 1: Yellow.
I want a shirt like that.
Death, obviously.
" Multimedia Messaging Service , or MMS, is a standard way to send messages that include multimedia content to and from mobile phones. It extends the core SMS (Short Message Service) capability that allowed exchange of text messages only up to 160 characters in length."
They describe the action, then agree that it would be correctly characterized as the crime of "rape".
Then try to claim that she was speaking rhetorically and didn't mean the actual crime.
The criminal defense equivalent would be the attorney standing up in court saying "my client didn't do it, and if my client did do it it wasn't my client that did it."
And in a legal analogy, it's called alternative pleading. And it's a perfectly valid defense:
Alternative pleading permits a party in a court action to argue multiple possibilities that may be mutually exclusive by making use of legal fiction. ... if one of the claims or defenses are held invalid or insufficient, the other claims or defenses should still have to be answered.
...
Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog.
Here, the roads are generally arranged in rectangular grids. Most intersections have a stop sign in one direction, and the direction with the majority of the traffic doesn't have to stop at all. Intersections which are busy enough to need lights are typically every mile or so, and they can be timed so that the traffic hits a green light and doesn't need to stop. Many of the lights are on sensors so that you don't even have to wait at a red light for very long; it'll give you a short green light to allow you to proceed.
I stand by my previous statement.
Citation needed. I have never heard your interpretation of that quote. The original quote clearly indicates that something in those six lines can be used to hang him, and I don't believe that meant the handwriting.
How is he supposed to determine which neighbor it belongs to? Sniff their packets until they enter personal information into an insecure webpage or something? Isn't that basically what Google got in trouble for doing accidentally?
Aside from the TSA member of staff, who considers it to be defamation.That seems to be a pretty strong sign that they contest what happened.
No. Wrong. They do not contest what happened. They contest whether what happened was "rape". They contest whether it was acceptable to call it that if it wasn't.
Nixon tried that one already.
Um, no, the way I read it they were consistently trying to make the case that a reasonable person would consider it to be so much like actual rape that calling it rape was actually justified, if slightly hyperbolic.
I do not doubt that this particular TSA agent may have overstepped boundaries in this particular case. But I'm also pretty sure, reading about this self-professed behavior on Ms. Alkon's part, that she's also a drama queen just looking for some new controversy to embroil herself in, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she was also deliberately provocative and confrontational, making the situation more tense than it needed to be, and blowing events out of proportion with histrionics.
If beginning to sob is "deliberately provocative and confrontational", then perhaps so (and yes, she apparently started sobbing on purpose). But that still doesn't come remotely close to justifying the TSA agent doing a little extra-invasive fingering of her vagina during the search.
And sobbing is a passive protest, not a provocative or confrontational one.
This is a serious accusation on the part of the blogger. If she's exaggerating, which sure as hell sounds to be the case, this is an up-and-down defamation case.
Her lawyer addressed that point. Perhaps you should have read TFA.
Furthermore, even if your client did not actually sexually assault my client, Ms. Alkon's statements to and about Ms. Magee would still be protected by the First Amendment. The word "rape" itself has been the subject of defamation cases by far more sympathetic Plaintiffs than your client. In Gold v. Harrison, 962 P.2d 353 (Haw. 1998), cert denied, 526 U.S. 1018 (1999), the Hawai'i Supreme Court held that a defendant's characterization of his neighbors' seeking an easement in his backyard as "raping [the defendant]" was not defamatory. This speech was protected as rhetorical hyperbole. Of course, we need not seek out Hawai'i case law in order to debunk your unsupportable claims. Rhetorical hyperbole has a strong history of favorable treatment in defamation actions. See Greenbelt Cooperative Pub. Ass'n v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14 (1970). This doctrine acknowledges our First Amendment right to express ourselves, even when employing literary license. Accordingly, even if your client's actions were not "rape," Ms. Alkon had every right to characterize them as such.
if the employee was doing her job the way she had to do it, why ruin her life?
Are you trying to Godwin this article?
The question isn't about whether she was lying. Nobody is contesting what the blogger has claimed to have happened. The question is about whether or not it's justifiable to call what happened "rape", and whether or not the right to call it that (even if it's hyperbole) is protected under the First Amendment.
We're comparing 1W lasers, not individual photons.
Per watt?
Never mind, I was talking about manual transmissions. An automatic should go into neutral automatically when you stop.
The only time you'd probably need to put an automatic transmission into neutral is if you need to push it or get it onto a tow truck.
No. For exact values of 2, 2 + 2 equals exactly 4, and 4 is not a small value of 5.
Unless you were doing something other than rounding to the nearest integer. But why would you be doing anything other than rounding to the nearest integer?
The number they gave him was of an Apple employee whose title is "senior investigator" and who previously worked for the San Jose PD.
Maybe they were real cops. Maybe he called in an unofficial favor...
I'm a bit confused as to who you think is disagreeing with whom (or what) exactly.
The missing question here is how come he can find art tools in his sleep? Are his eyes actually open? What about other sleep walkers?
Yes.
IANAL, so could you explain why it "pretends to be" but isn't really a DMCA notice?
No.
Irony: I read his first sentence perfectly fine the first time, and then re-read it 3 times because you'd had so much trouble with it that I wanted to make sure I hadn't parsed it incorrectly. Which I hadn't.
I guess I was just lucky, then, to have stuff explained to me in detail (and forced to learn it) before I was given magic shortcuts.
He might have done it on purpose.