Then, there is the small fact that no one could be sentenced to not having internet access, regardless of the crime. Spammers, crackers, sexual predators, child molesters, child pornographers, and even generic criminals.
Personally I think preventing these kinds of sentences would be a good thing, but a Constitutional amendment to make Internet an "inalienable right" would do no such thing. It's already well-established law that the government can infringe on people's rights when convicted of crimes: Prisoners already have most if not all of their rights restricted if not outright taken away. Additionally, when someone is let out of prison on probation or parole, they're effectively agreeing to the terms of such release (in return for being let out), so the government prohibiting the use of the Internet in that context wouldn't even be seen as an infringement of someone's rights at all.
That said, I agree this amendment is a terrible idea. It sounds more like an attempt to get "net neutrality" (otherwise known as "geeks who are perfectly fine with regulating the Internet to death if it's regulation favorable to them") embedded in the constitution than anything else.
So maybe the solution is to break the monopoly rather than passing more regulations to fix existing unfair regulations. Or, when these new regulations don't work, we could just do the same thing over again and pass more regulations hoping it'll work this time. And when that still doesn't work, we can always pass more.
See the other replies to my post. We're talking about the court whose cases are often about determining what that law is, not the courts who are trying facts against the law.
The problem though is that the Constitution itself is open to interpretation. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended, and in the most pro-freedom, anti-government power manner possible, but there's nothing explicit in the Constitution that says it must be interpreted that way. So, other people have come up with other ways of interpreting the Constitution, such as the diametrically opposite "living document" theory. Unfortunately there's nothing you can point to that says such interpretations are factually wrong.
But, back to my original point, at least with the "living document", pro-huge government types, you can predict where they're going to fall on a case.
So, in other words, the judges on the Supreme Court are consistent: So consistent that you can determine exactly what "ideology" (read: principles) are guiding their decisions and replace them with a rote algorithm that would make decisions based on the same principles. Even if I don't agree with a judge's principles, I'd rather see them follow some principle consistently, rather than have them act like "flip-flopping" politicians, taking whatever position is pragmatic, expedient, or profitable at the moment.
That sounds like a great idea, until someone gets even a minor cut on a finger, has to hold their mouse differently for 2-3 days, and now can't identify themselves to their computer.
Would you be opposed to a DRM scheme that would allow you to totally and irrevocably delete a picture you posted to Facebook because it allows you to retain total ownership ?
Yup, I would be, just like I'm opposed to any examples of a false sense of security. Once a piece of information is out there, it's out there. Any attempt to delete it should be viewed as merely that: An attempt, with an assumption that there still are, and always will be, copies out there. Anything more and you're just kidding yourself. Even if there be software controls in place preventing copying, you can't assume that they weren't bypassed by someone trying to make a copy. Even if some form of encryption be used, you can't be sure someone hasn't illegitimately acquired the keys.
You want your data 100% private, don't distribute it on any "open" communication channels.
"Copy," "delete," and "ownership" being three points they're trying to address? Why does this sound like a submarine attempt to embed some sort of IP protection in the lowest levels and very concepts of files on computers, framing it all as merely a technical re-engineering of the "file" concept?
But if we just went with a few common-sense laws, instead of statute books containing millions of words and "administrative rules" containing ten times that many, how would our politicians justify convening their legislatures every year, nearly all year long, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so? How would our police departments justify spending millions of dollars constantly hiring more and more police officers and buying more and more cool toys for them to play with? How would our lawyers justify their exorbitant salaries (or their very existence)?
The ability to reconstruct shredded documents will potentially yield information that may save lives or offer critical information about an adversary's plans.
In other words, the government wants your help designing privacy-invading technologies.
And this is why you always burn, not shred, documents you want destroyed.
500,000 trucking accidents occur each year. Two crashes involving bee trucks, and this "Live science" rag tries to claim there's some sort of pattern here?
American companies that are used to charging ridiculous prices for solar equipment are upset that someone else is starting to produce the items cheaper and thus out-compete them, so they want the government to step in and protect them.
Uh huh. In other words, it's campaign season and promising to end the war in Iraq got him elected, so maybe he can fool everyone again four years later with the exact same claim.
These cartels don't get nearly as much coverage or visibility as the movie studios and record labels, but they're every bit as evil. These entities were pulling the same crap the RI/MPAA types were with "intellectual property" a couple centuries before the *AAs even came into existence.
In fairness, the article just says the Ambulance Service "warned" them. It doesn't say some sort of formal "warning" was issued under some authority, like the parent post implied; it could've just been the Ambulance Service captain saying "I think this is dangerous."
There are plenty of real examples of Britain's insane nanny-statism without jumping to conclusions.
No, the separation of church and state is more than that, for example, the recognized priest-penitent privilege, where a person can confess a crime to a priest, and the priest cannot be used as a witness against the person.
In the United States, we're also (slowly) moving toward allowing churches to use certain substances in their rituals that would, in a non-religious setting, be considered "controlled substances." The most well-known example is peyote.
Many states now have a "religious freedom restoration act" on the books, which requires that all government regulations that would impinge upon religious freedom be tested against the "compelling state interest" standard. This would be pertinent to your example: A law preventing someone from outright harming children would apply to churches as much as to anyone else, but something such as controlled substances regulation or planning and zoning restrictions, probably wouldn't meet the "compelling state interest" standard.
Churches are also tax exempt. The practice of "sanctuary" (churches shielding people from apprehension by state authorities for civil crimes) is still recognized to some extent in some places. In many jurisdictions, church lands cannot be subject to adverse possession ("squatter's rights"). These are probably the strongest examples of a sort of partial sovereignty that religious organizations have from the state.
Separation of church and state means what it says for the most part, and works in both directions: Keep the church out of the government and keep the government out of the church.
I also wonder if placing these mandatory reporting requirements on religious institutions and personnel would run afoul of the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The priest-penitent privilege -- priests being able to keep secret from the State things that individuals confess to them -- is recognized as a protected religious practice, and this situation is only one step different than that, being about the secrecy of priest-priest interactions instead of priest-penitent. In any event, the State trying to place these mandatory reporting requirements on private religious institutions should be seen as an attempt by the government to regulate religious practices and a violation of separation of church and state.
More broadly, government mandating that anyone must snitch on other people is a hallmark of tyranny, whether or not it be constitutional. Considering the moral panic surrounding pedophilia nowadays, I'm sure a court would find some reason to rule that forced snitching is perfectly legal.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I think preventing these kinds of sentences would be a good thing, but a Constitutional amendment to make Internet an "inalienable right" would do no such thing. It's already well-established law that the government can infringe on people's rights when convicted of crimes: Prisoners already have most if not all of their rights restricted if not outright taken away. Additionally, when someone is let out of prison on probation or parole, they're effectively agreeing to the terms of such release (in return for being let out), so the government prohibiting the use of the Internet in that context wouldn't even be seen as an infringement of someone's rights at all.
That said, I agree this amendment is a terrible idea. It sounds more like an attempt to get "net neutrality" (otherwise known as "geeks who are perfectly fine with regulating the Internet to death if it's regulation favorable to them") embedded in the constitution than anything else.
So maybe the solution is to break the monopoly rather than passing more regulations to fix existing unfair regulations. Or, when these new regulations don't work, we could just do the same thing over again and pass more regulations hoping it'll work this time. And when that still doesn't work, we can always pass more.
And your point is? Every kind of wealth storage has its flaws, some of them just as fatal, e.g., storing your wealth as cash and having it stolen.
"Activist" judges are what people call judges who disagree with them.
See the other replies to my post. We're talking about the court whose cases are often about determining what that law is, not the courts who are trying facts against the law.
The problem though is that the Constitution itself is open to interpretation. I'm a strong supporter of the idea of interpreting the Constitution as it was originally intended, and in the most pro-freedom, anti-government power manner possible, but there's nothing explicit in the Constitution that says it must be interpreted that way. So, other people have come up with other ways of interpreting the Constitution, such as the diametrically opposite "living document" theory. Unfortunately there's nothing you can point to that says such interpretations are factually wrong.
But, back to my original point, at least with the "living document", pro-huge government types, you can predict where they're going to fall on a case.
So, in other words, the judges on the Supreme Court are consistent: So consistent that you can determine exactly what "ideology" (read: principles) are guiding their decisions and replace them with a rote algorithm that would make decisions based on the same principles. Even if I don't agree with a judge's principles, I'd rather see them follow some principle consistently, rather than have them act like "flip-flopping" politicians, taking whatever position is pragmatic, expedient, or profitable at the moment.
That sounds like a great idea, until someone gets even a minor cut on a finger, has to hold their mouse differently for 2-3 days, and now can't identify themselves to their computer.
Nope. But I don't think "[t]his is the same justice system" either, which was the specific assertion being refuted.
Yup, I would be, just like I'm opposed to any examples of a false sense of security. Once a piece of information is out there, it's out there. Any attempt to delete it should be viewed as merely that: An attempt, with an assumption that there still are, and always will be, copies out there. Anything more and you're just kidding yourself. Even if there be software controls in place preventing copying, you can't assume that they weren't bypassed by someone trying to make a copy. Even if some form of encryption be used, you can't be sure someone hasn't illegitimately acquired the keys.
You want your data 100% private, don't distribute it on any "open" communication channels.
"Copy," "delete," and "ownership" being three points they're trying to address? Why does this sound like a submarine attempt to embed some sort of IP protection in the lowest levels and very concepts of files on computers, framing it all as merely a technical re-engineering of the "file" concept?
But if we just went with a few common-sense laws, instead of statute books containing millions of words and "administrative rules" containing ten times that many, how would our politicians justify convening their legislatures every year, nearly all year long, and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to do so? How would our police departments justify spending millions of dollars constantly hiring more and more police officers and buying more and more cool toys for them to play with? How would our lawyers justify their exorbitant salaries (or their very existence)?
Uh huh. If a moral panic about laser pointers wasn't currently underway, these confused pilots would probably just be claiming they saw a UFO.
But why should someone be responsible for their own safety when they can just demand the government ban things? It's so much easier!
In other words, the government wants your help designing privacy-invading technologies.
And this is why you always burn, not shred, documents you want destroyed.
500,000 trucking accidents occur each year. Two crashes involving bee trucks, and this "Live science" rag tries to claim there's some sort of pattern here?
American companies that are used to charging ridiculous prices for solar equipment are upset that someone else is starting to produce the items cheaper and thus out-compete them, so they want the government to step in and protect them.
Uh huh. In other words, it's campaign season and promising to end the war in Iraq got him elected, so maybe he can fool everyone again four years later with the exact same claim.
These cartels don't get nearly as much coverage or visibility as the movie studios and record labels, but they're every bit as evil. These entities were pulling the same crap the RI/MPAA types were with "intellectual property" a couple centuries before the *AAs even came into existence.
In fairness, the article just says the Ambulance Service "warned" them. It doesn't say some sort of formal "warning" was issued under some authority, like the parent post implied; it could've just been the Ambulance Service captain saying "I think this is dangerous."
There are plenty of real examples of Britain's insane nanny-statism without jumping to conclusions.
No, the separation of church and state is more than that, for example, the recognized priest-penitent privilege, where a person can confess a crime to a priest, and the priest cannot be used as a witness against the person.
In the United States, we're also (slowly) moving toward allowing churches to use certain substances in their rituals that would, in a non-religious setting, be considered "controlled substances." The most well-known example is peyote.
Many states now have a "religious freedom restoration act" on the books, which requires that all government regulations that would impinge upon religious freedom be tested against the "compelling state interest" standard. This would be pertinent to your example: A law preventing someone from outright harming children would apply to churches as much as to anyone else, but something such as controlled substances regulation or planning and zoning restrictions, probably wouldn't meet the "compelling state interest" standard.
Churches are also tax exempt. The practice of "sanctuary" (churches shielding people from apprehension by state authorities for civil crimes) is still recognized to some extent in some places. In many jurisdictions, church lands cannot be subject to adverse possession ("squatter's rights"). These are probably the strongest examples of a sort of partial sovereignty that religious organizations have from the state.
Separation of church and state means what it says for the most part, and works in both directions: Keep the church out of the government and keep the government out of the church.
Essentially, yes. Justice should be about making the victims whole, not placating some abstraction. Restorative justice.
I also wonder if placing these mandatory reporting requirements on religious institutions and personnel would run afoul of the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The priest-penitent privilege -- priests being able to keep secret from the State things that individuals confess to them -- is recognized as a protected religious practice, and this situation is only one step different than that, being about the secrecy of priest-priest interactions instead of priest-penitent. In any event, the State trying to place these mandatory reporting requirements on private religious institutions should be seen as an attempt by the government to regulate religious practices and a violation of separation of church and state.
More broadly, government mandating that anyone must snitch on other people is a hallmark of tyranny, whether or not it be constitutional. Considering the moral panic surrounding pedophilia nowadays, I'm sure a court would find some reason to rule that forced snitching is perfectly legal.
Why? If the victim is satisfied with the outcome, why should you or the courts or anyone else have any input on the situation?
So the government is supposed to force people to be "noble" now?