The feeling of a right to privacy is a luxury in a free society, and taking it away just adds in its place a feeling of oppressiveness. It shouldn't be tossed away lightly.
To be harrassed by police because you are black in a white neighborhood (what? there are no "white neighborhoods") or because you wear punk clothes and ride a bike (what? rich teenages dress weird too) effectively takes away your right to do such things or be in such places. It's not just the threat of being thrown in jail, it's the threat of harassment as well.
I'm sure many people would disagree with your implication that everyone "belongs" somewhere and "doesn't belong" somewhere else, also.
The people feel safer when they are left alone by the police, not when they are constantly checked up on by them.
Well, I'm not sure this entire thing rests on a "balancing of interests." The Court merely stated that Nevada has this law, and in your specific case, it did not violate your rights. No "in general", no rule-make, no rights-interpreting, just an application of this specific law to this specific case.
Did making this man give that cop his name in this situation violate his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? Nope, because it's not a search nor a seizure.
Did making this man give that cop his name in this situation violate his rights against forced self-incrimination? Nope, because he wasn't incriminated.
Through a literal view of the Constitution, "Fire!" is speech, and therefore you have the right to do it. That's the view being discussed above.
But to provide another example, burning draft cards was illegal during the Vietnam war. The Court held that draft cards were valuable to the State, as they held the Selective Service # of the individual, as well as provided a receipt of registration. If everyone burned their cards, the administrative side of things would become so overburdened with lost #s and such that it would cause harm to the war effort. The State's interest in its war effort was balanced against protestors' free speech rights.
Yeah, I would agree that the officer didn't to too hot a job here. But I don't think the plaintiff was contending that he thought he had to give up his driver's license and refused on that basis, so the Court didn't consider it.
It doesn't matter if they plan on arresting you or not. Your name is still not incriminating evidence.
The only time your name would be incriminating is if you were a well-known wanted criminal, and telling a cop that your name is "Usama Bin Laden" would lead to certain arrest. Those are unusual circumstances, and they weren't brought up in this case.
You can be a criminal and still not be incriminated by your name. The only real time giving your name would be incriminating is if you were Saddam in disguise.
It's the classic case of falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It balances your right to free speech against the State's interest in preserving order. And the State's interest is overwhelmingly greater, since they have lives to protect, and you're just being an ass.
"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"
The officer used the word "identification", which was vague, true, but by law, the guy only had to give his name. The officer didn't demand written ID.
"reasonable cause" is practiced by the officer, and defined by the court afterwards. If a cop asked for my name without reasonable suspicion of a crime, and I refused, I wouldn't get fined. That's what the SC just said.
The right to remain silent is the right to prevent self-incrimination.
From the decision:
"In this case petitioner's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute" him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951). As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business."
If there was the fear of self-incrimination present in the case, they would have taken that issue up as well.
"If they're going to arrest you for not giving your name, they're just looking for an excuse to do it anyways."
Note that the Court distinguished this fact in this case:
"The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an ef-fort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence."
This was not a broad rule-setting decision, this was a narrow decision ruling on this situation only (although yes, it does set a precedent, albeit a narrow one).
What? This doesn't even make any sense. Google is running an algorithm over your e-mail to extract keywords, then using those keywords to feed you ads on the side. Nobody's sitting there reading your e-mail, and I'm sure they've already said that they don't store the results of their searches.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been wondering about this: is there a project to create a competitive OSS game engine? Or any commercial games produced with such a thing?
Is it because it's freakin' hard?
No, another one who knows that we aren't compelled to produce "papers" to the government on demand.
Well, I'll have to take offense at that.
The feeling of a right to privacy is a luxury in a free society, and taking it away just adds in its place a feeling of oppressiveness. It shouldn't be tossed away lightly.
To be harrassed by police because you are black in a white neighborhood (what? there are no "white neighborhoods") or because you wear punk clothes and ride a bike (what? rich teenages dress weird too) effectively takes away your right to do such things or be in such places. It's not just the threat of being thrown in jail, it's the threat of harassment as well.
I'm sure many people would disagree with your implication that everyone "belongs" somewhere and "doesn't belong" somewhere else, also.
The people feel safer when they are left alone by the police, not when they are constantly checked up on by them.
Well, I'm not sure this entire thing rests on a "balancing of interests." The Court merely stated that Nevada has this law, and in your specific case, it did not violate your rights. No "in general", no rule-make, no rights-interpreting, just an application of this specific law to this specific case.
Did making this man give that cop his name in this situation violate his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures? Nope, because it's not a search nor a seizure.
Did making this man give that cop his name in this situation violate his rights against forced self-incrimination? Nope, because he wasn't incriminated.
Shuttle too. They come in backwards for the first part of reentry.
Through a literal view of the Constitution, "Fire!" is speech, and therefore you have the right to do it. That's the view being discussed above.
But to provide another example, burning draft cards was illegal during the Vietnam war. The Court held that draft cards were valuable to the State, as they held the Selective Service # of the individual, as well as provided a receipt of registration. If everyone burned their cards, the administrative side of things would become so overburdened with lost #s and such that it would cause harm to the war effort. The State's interest in its war effort was balanced against protestors' free speech rights.
Yeah, I would agree that the officer didn't to too hot a job here. But I don't think the plaintiff was contending that he thought he had to give up his driver's license and refused on that basis, so the Court didn't consider it.
It doesn't matter if they plan on arresting you or not. Your name is still not incriminating evidence.
The only time your name would be incriminating is if you were a well-known wanted criminal, and telling a cop that your name is "Usama Bin Laden" would lead to certain arrest. Those are unusual circumstances, and they weren't brought up in this case.
No, this is the same SCOTUS that stopped the arbitrary and hopelessly disorganized Florida recount.
You can be a criminal and still not be incriminated by your name. The only real time giving your name would be incriminating is if you were Saddam in disguise.
It's the classic case of falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It balances your right to free speech against the State's interest in preserving order. And the State's interest is overwhelmingly greater, since they have lives to protect, and you're just being an ass.
From the decision:
"The suspect is not required to provide private details about his background, but merely to state his name to an officer when reasonable suspicion exists"
The officer used the word "identification", which was vague, true, but by law, the guy only had to give his name. The officer didn't demand written ID.
Since this was modded "Insightful", I'll respond.
No, we don't.
"reasonable cause" is practiced by the officer, and defined by the court afterwards. If a cop asked for my name without reasonable suspicion of a crime, and I refused, I wouldn't get fined. That's what the SC just said.
What? This isn't about "online" vs. "street". This is about a traffic stop after a 911 call, in which the cop asked the guy his name.
If your laws in Florida are much more restrictive than the ones in question, file yourself a complaint, you have a case.
Mine too (USA). I don't live in Nevada.
The right to remain silent is the right to prevent self-incrimination.
From the decision:
"In this case petitioner's refusal to disclose his name was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it "would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute" him. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951). As best we can tell, petitioner refused to identify himself only because he thought his name was none of the officer's business."
If there was the fear of self-incrimination present in the case, they would have taken that issue up as well.
"If they're going to arrest you for not giving your name, they're just looking for an excuse to do it anyways."
Note that the Court distinguished this fact in this case:
"The request in this case was a commonsense inquiry, not an ef-fort to obtain an arrest for failure to identify after a Terry stop yielded insufficient evidence."
This was not a broad rule-setting decision, this was a narrow decision ruling on this situation only (although yes, it does set a precedent, albeit a narrow one).
Isn't that what .name was created for? I haven't heard much out of them... is it still going strong? I wouldn't mind first@last.name.
What? This doesn't even make any sense. Google is running an algorithm over your e-mail to extract keywords, then using those keywords to feed you ads on the side. Nobody's sitting there reading your e-mail, and I'm sure they've already said that they don't store the results of their searches.
Me too! See my email addy above.
Nothing, according to Spybot. Just realsched.exe in the background for updates.
Haha, their camera guy is stuck behind some guy's head.
Try the BBC feed (see above)
LIFTOFF!