If these are "free textbooks," why does the legislature have to fund it?
How about we be honest, eh? No one is providing "free" textbooks. No one is volunteering to create these things and give them away. The taxpayers will be forced to pay for these books rather than their actual users.
And hopefully he ends up a very rich dirtbag after a successful First Amendment lawsuit over this. "Dirtbags" have the same right to freedom of speech as you do in this country.
In other words, it's legal harassment. Hopefully if there's any provable connection between his arrest and the video, this turns into a multi-million dollar First Amendment lawsuit.
I think the guy's a bigot. But bigots have a right to be bigots in this country whether the political establishment likes it or not.
Southern New Hampshire, especially along the seacoast, has a mild climate. It's probably not as mild as the Northwest, but it's not the "six months of winter" that the northern parts of New Hampshire are known for.
You should come up and visit sometime and see what the climate is really like here. You can contact me here if you'd like.
The smoking ban passed before any freestaters had been seriously involved in politics. I think it passed in 2006, the same year the first freestater was elected to the Legislature. We now have 12-15 freestaters in there. I don't think anyone's tried to roll back that particular law yet, but here's a list of the pro-liberty bills that passed this year, compiled by Republican Liberty Caucus member and State Representative Paul Mirski:
NH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SESSION ACCOMPLISHMENTS 2011-2012
In November, 2010, the New Hampshire House of Representatives received a mandate from the voters of New Hampshire to promote economic development and create jobs; to cut state spending; to reduce taxes and fees; to return fiscal sanity to the state; to fix a state retirement system that was structurally deficient; to provide our children with an education based on excellence; to protect the personal rights and freedoms of its citizens; and to maintain transparency in state government. Those mandates reflected our promises to New Hampshire. Listed here is a compilation of new laws the 2011-2012 New Hampshire House of Representatives passed keeping those promises.
Setting an example for our citizens by "living within our means":
Passed a budget 11% smaller than the prior budget, reducing spending by over $1.2 billion and general fund spending by $536 million, or 18%. (HBs 1&2)
Passed a state budget that includes no new or increased taxes or fees. (HBs 1&2)
Reversed past two terms budgets' accounting gimmicks by passing a budget that does not bond any operating costs or sell assets from one state agency to another to claim fictitious revenue, while using responsible revenue estimates. (HBs 1&2)
The state returned $1 million in ObamaCare funds to the federal government with instructions to use the money for debt reduction. (HB 601)
Passed an education funding formula that maintains existing levels of aid to communities and allows additional targeted aid to needy cities and towns. (HB 337)
Requires for future state budgets that state agencies to submit budgets that actually reduce spending in addition to any request to expand state government. (SB 146)
Reducing and Reforming Taxes:
Eliminated the auto registration surcharge, which was costing our residents and small businesses between $30 and $75 every year for each vehicle they registered, putting $90 million back in our citizens' pockets. (HB 1&2)
To fulfill our commitment to reduce the highest business tax rate in the nation, new laws offer 10 forms of tax relief to employers to help them grow their business: including reforming the burden of proof for reasonable compensation, and doubling the carry-forward period for the BET. (SB 125)
Two new statutes help our retailers, particularly those in border communities, become more competitive and grow: eliminating the gambling winnings tax and repealing the most recent of the four tobacco taxes in the past six years. (HB 229 & HB 2)
The legislature also cut a number of fees on restaurants, hotels, motel, pet stores, fishing enthusiasts, those selling condominiums, and people getting married. (HBs 2 & 571)
Cities and towns that are impacted by fire or other major acts of nature are now eligible for community revitalization tax relief to allow for the repair or rebuilding of damaged structures.
Directed the Business Finance Authority to establish an innovation business job growth initiative to promote investment in New Hampshire employers and to coordinate venture capital with startups statewide. (HB 605)
Increased the net operating loss carryforward under the business profits tax (BPT) from $1 million to $10 million, which reduces the tax burden on our businesses and makes our state more competitive in attracting and retaining employers. (HB 242)
Extended the research and development tax credit encouraging businesses
Because a simple mechanical device failed? Wow, that's news. Because the safety measured at the plant functioned exactly as designed? Yup, that's certainly news. Because the residents in the area heard a loud noise? Stop the presses!
Or because when anything happens at a nuclear power plant---including it functioning exactly as designed---the anti-nuclear luddites and other assorted fearmongers leap on the (non-)story in order to push their agenda?
You could always move to a state that doesn't engage in such privacy invasions, such as New Hampshire. Here, you can actually check off a box on the license application form requiring them to not even store your photo in their database.
The New Hampshire Legislature also prohibited its DMV from implementing the federal "Real ID" program which is what's driving a lot of this crap. The state also prohibits its agencies and localities from implementing red light cameras, license plate readers, &c., too.
This is the sort of batshit insane idea that ensures that Libertarians will never be taken seriously.
CP wasn't outlawed until 1973 in the United States. So the people of 1972 were what... all batshit insane? If this law is so necessary, how ever did our society survive until 1973?
And I'm not a "Libertarian."
If you bothered to read the article, it looks like it was written by a pedophile trying to justify legalization.
Yes, I read the whole article, including this: "The Swedish Association of Journalists has taken a clear stand against the child pornography legislation, which prohibits possession of works classified as child pornography." So the Swedish Association of Journalists are just a bunch of pedophiles trying to rationalize their bad behavior? "Oh, please," as you put it.
Branding an entire generation sex offenders? Oh, please,...
Yes, this is happening. Look up the term "sexting" and the moral panic and legal cases surrounding it. Just like most teenagers have sex before the age of consent, most are "sexting" nowadays, too. It is illegal to produce or possess sexually explicit images of minors, even if that person is your partner, or yourself, and thus an entire generation is being criminalized. (Remember a person is a "criminal" merely for committing a criminal act, even if they're not caught. And hundreds of teenagers are being caught, and are being treated like pedophiles by the law.)
It's an extremely complex moral area, and the law has to cut through the crap by applying somewhat arbitrary limits.
The law does nothing of the kind. If anything, it just makes the situation more complex. Read my state's for example.
But it's also nonsense that driving with 799mg/L of alcohol in your blood is fine, while driving with 800mg/L is wrong. But the only manageable way to codify this stuff into law is to draw a line at some arbitrary point somewhere near where the public consensus is.
How about simply codifying that if someone causes an accident, they're responsible for all the consequences? Why not do that, rather than outlawing victimless behavior (i.e., driving intoxicated without having actually caused an accident) and then coming up with arbitrary concentration standards that will (a) unfairly punish people who can handle liquor better than others, and (b) in other cases not punish people who are more sensitive to alcohol and become inebriated more quickly.
Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, it's the same thing. Mature, responsible people (or their partners) are unfairly punished because they're below an arbitrary age like 16, while someone who takes advantage of an immature 19-year-old isn't. How about instead we go after people who actually victimize someone?
Well, I'm glad you posted citations, and was going to ask you to do so myself, not because I wanted to argue, but because I like to respond to the "[some sexual behavior] is sick; we need to treat it" morons in the manner you did, but with citations, and I'd never heard of the bonobo thing you mentioned before. Bonobos are often useful to bring up in discussions about human prudery toward sex but the pedophilia thing was news to me. Thanks.
This is the slippery slope. Think this MP would have ever been able to seriously propose this law if, first actual child pornography hadn't already been outlawed decades ago, followed by virtual/cartoon CP more recently?
It is the slow steady creep of laws passed to stop actual, physical crimes turning into laws to restrict thought.
Indeed. The premise that a restrictive language could restrict thought was based on a mostly now obsolete theory of language called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Of course that doesn't mean politicians don't try to do such things, it just isn't really that effective.
Abstract: This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.
It's being used exactly as designed, not "abused." In most of these places "abusing" the software, spying on dissidents falls well within "law enforcement" as defined there. What, the creators expected it only to be used to enforce laws they agree with?
And by the way, spying on dissidents is something the noble, enlightened U.S. Government does regularly---and it falls well within their legal "law enforcement" powers, too. Oh, you thought only the evil countries do that?
Yeah, it's a "threat" all right. It's a threat to their control over people. But then again, privacy and the freedom it brings is always a threat to governments, isn't it?
Not open source, but an awful lot less "evil" than Google in other ways: Startpage. Their results come from Google, but they don't track your identity at all. They're not trying to make the Panopticon a reality like Google seems to be, and they're not pulling asinine political stunts like this.
Taking something from someone without their consent is stealing no matter what sort of legal or mental gymnastics you try to perform to make it not so.
Slashdot Mirror
If these are "free textbooks," why does the legislature have to fund it?
How about we be honest, eh? No one is providing "free" textbooks. No one is volunteering to create these things and give them away. The taxpayers will be forced to pay for these books rather than their actual users.
Yup, he's a dirtbag.
And hopefully he ends up a very rich dirtbag after a successful First Amendment lawsuit over this. "Dirtbags" have the same right to freedom of speech as you do in this country.
In other words, it's legal harassment. Hopefully if there's any provable connection between his arrest and the video, this turns into a multi-million dollar First Amendment lawsuit.
I think the guy's a bigot. But bigots have a right to be bigots in this country whether the political establishment likes it or not.
"We need to try something different." Because throwing money at a problem hoping that will fix it is such a novel idea.
Southern New Hampshire, especially along the seacoast, has a mild climate. It's probably not as mild as the Northwest, but it's not the "six months of winter" that the northern parts of New Hampshire are known for.
You should come up and visit sometime and see what the climate is really like here. You can contact me here if you'd like.
The smoking ban passed before any freestaters had been seriously involved in politics. I think it passed in 2006, the same year the first freestater was elected to the Legislature. We now have 12-15 freestaters in there. I don't think anyone's tried to roll back that particular law yet, but here's a list of the pro-liberty bills that passed this year, compiled by Republican Liberty Caucus member and State Representative Paul Mirski:
Why is this a story?
Because a simple mechanical device failed? Wow, that's news. Because the safety measured at the plant functioned exactly as designed? Yup, that's certainly news. Because the residents in the area heard a loud noise? Stop the presses!
Or because when anything happens at a nuclear power plant---including it functioning exactly as designed---the anti-nuclear luddites and other assorted fearmongers leap on the (non-)story in order to push their agenda?
You could always move to a state that doesn't engage in such privacy invasions, such as New Hampshire. Here, you can actually check off a box on the license application form requiring them to not even store your photo in their database.
The New Hampshire Legislature also prohibited its DMV from implementing the federal "Real ID" program which is what's driving a lot of this crap. The state also prohibits its agencies and localities from implementing red light cameras, license plate readers, &c., too.
I mean, why should someone working on the public's dime be accountable to the public?
CP wasn't outlawed until 1973 in the United States. So the people of 1972 were what... all batshit insane? If this law is so necessary, how ever did our society survive until 1973?
And I'm not a "Libertarian."
Yes, I read the whole article, including this: "The Swedish Association of Journalists has taken a clear stand against the child pornography legislation, which prohibits possession of works classified as child pornography." So the Swedish Association of Journalists are just a bunch of pedophiles trying to rationalize their bad behavior? "Oh, please," as you put it.
Yes, this is happening. Look up the term "sexting" and the moral panic and legal cases surrounding it. Just like most teenagers have sex before the age of consent, most are "sexting" nowadays, too. It is illegal to produce or possess sexually explicit images of minors, even if that person is your partner, or yourself, and thus an entire generation is being criminalized. (Remember a person is a "criminal" merely for committing a criminal act, even if they're not caught. And hundreds of teenagers are being caught, and are being treated like pedophiles by the law.)
The law does nothing of the kind. If anything, it just makes the situation more complex. Read my state's for example.
How about simply codifying that if someone causes an accident, they're responsible for all the consequences? Why not do that, rather than outlawing victimless behavior (i.e., driving intoxicated without having actually caused an accident) and then coming up with arbitrary concentration standards that will (a) unfairly punish people who can handle liquor better than others, and (b) in other cases not punish people who are more sensitive to alcohol and become inebriated more quickly.
Bringing this back to the discussion at hand, it's the same thing. Mature, responsible people (or their partners) are unfairly punished because they're below an arbitrary age like 16, while someone who takes advantage of an immature 19-year-old isn't. How about instead we go after people who actually victimize someone?
Well, I'm glad you posted citations, and was going to ask you to do so myself, not because I wanted to argue, but because I like to respond to the "[some sexual behavior] is sick; we need to treat it" morons in the manner you did, but with citations, and I'd never heard of the bonobo thing you mentioned before. Bonobos are often useful to bring up in discussions about human prudery toward sex but the pedophilia thing was news to me. Thanks.
This is the slippery slope. Think this MP would have ever been able to seriously propose this law if, first actual child pornography hadn't already been outlawed decades ago, followed by virtual/cartoon CP more recently?
It is the slow steady creep of laws passed to stop actual, physical crimes turning into laws to restrict thought.
Indeed. The premise that a restrictive language could restrict thought was based on a mostly now obsolete theory of language called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Of course that doesn't mean politicians don't try to do such things, it just isn't really that effective.
Something this fool of a politician should read: Three reasons possession of child porn must be re-legalized in the coming decade by Rickard Falkvinge.
Actually, if you record them, you're likely to be charged with a felony in many places. Latest example.
Sounds like South Africa has their own version of the FDA. Millions will die while they wait for the bureaucrats, but at least they die safely!
It's being used exactly as designed, not "abused." In most of these places "abusing" the software, spying on dissidents falls well within "law enforcement" as defined there. What, the creators expected it only to be used to enforce laws they agree with?
And by the way, spying on dissidents is something the noble, enlightened U.S. Government does regularly---and it falls well within their legal "law enforcement" powers, too. Oh, you thought only the evil countries do that?
Move to New Hampshire. It is illegal for government agents to use these things here.
Yeah, it's a "threat" all right. It's a threat to their control over people. But then again, privacy and the freedom it brings is always a threat to governments, isn't it?
Excellent. Although I'm surprised Apple didn't use some proprietary encryption into which they would have built a backdoor for the government to use.
Neat, I didn't know about that one. I use "inurl:..." to similar effect.
Not open source, but an awful lot less "evil" than Google in other ways: Startpage. Their results come from Google, but they don't track your identity at all. They're not trying to make the Panopticon a reality like Google seems to be, and they're not pulling asinine political stunts like this.
Include "site:thepiratebay.se" or similar in your search query. You can even create a Firefox bookmark like this:
Give it a keyword (e.g., "tpb") and then when you type in the URL bar:
Firefox will search for "FOO" at thepiratebay.se. Problem solved.
Taking something from someone without their consent is stealing no matter what sort of legal or mental gymnastics you try to perform to make it not so.