There is no proof that Hamilton County, OH prosecutor Scott Blauvelt, 35, who was arrested on Monday on two indecency charges stemming from alledged video survailance of his naked body after hours in a government building, was actually *not* released from jail pending a hearing a hearing in the court where he normally works.
BTW: Those "IFs" should have been answered by a findings of fact as determined by the discovery process. Though, since this is a default judgment - I'm not sure if the judge even bothered issuing a finding.
Nope, I am not a lawyer. Though there is at least one old-timer who still hangs out on/. that did go to law school and passed the bar. I forget his uid though. I am seriously considering law school though, and so have been researching it. I've also been studying for the LSAT.:) I'll make me a scum-sucking drain on society yet!
The award for judgment is a different matter, and will almost certainly be reduced. (IOW: I'm not interested in defending the award:) Given what's been reported in this account, however, it would appear a proper judgment. She didn't hire an attorney to defend herself, didn't show up for court to ask for a continuance (which she almost certainly would have recieved), and so she recieved a default judgment.
It would also appear, based on the article, that the Defendant did publish false and defamatory statements against the plaintiff. *shrug*
so apparently this bit of brain damage is somewhat contagious.
Yes, that bit of "... brain damage..." has several hundred years of legal precedent acting as the contagion. In that time is has spread throughout the western world. It may be too late for quarantine to be effective in stopping its spread.
May I note that this article refers not to a spamming case, but to an individual who published false and defamatory statements about another. The fact that it was published online doesn't relate the facts of this case to spamming whatsoever. So, while *you* may have a problem with spammers (as do I), your argument against efficacious court oversight of online behavior due to poor prosecution rates of spammers isn't valid. I can see two counterarguments (at least):
- CAN-SPAM (and other anti-spam legislation) is very new, while Defamation and Libel laws have been in effect since the US founding (and even before that, in England and when we were an English colony). Thus, Defamation and Libel laws have a long history of precedent for attorneys and judges to follow while anti-spam legislation is only a few years old.
- Spamming makes a better free speech case than Defamation because the spammer solicits an individual for commercial purposes, which is almost every other commercial situation is protected speech. That one cannot block advertisements prior to their being received can be reasonably argued as an SMTP protocol oversight and not a cause for prior restraint of speech. Defamation has *never* been protected speech, however.
Well, that's an opinion (even a worthy one). And it may even be relevant to this specific case. But that doesn't diminish my original point: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to Defame. Regardless of whether the defamation was published in print or online.
If the Defendant did as was claimed by the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff did suffer financial or personal harm to her reputation, then the court decision is proper. Meta-issues of fairness within court proceedings can be handled on apppeal.
Perceived efficacy of the court system is another matter. You are in good company with most anyone else who has ever stepped into a courtroom, for whatever reason. But get yourself into the eyesight of a suitably motivated prosecutor (or in this case, a private attorney with a highly motivated client), and the court system can be remarkably effective. Efficient? No. Effective - yes.
There may be facts regarding this case that support the contention that the Defendant could not get a fair hearing due to situations out of her control. If she is convinced of that, then she and her attorney should file an appeal.
The Court of Appeals of Virginia upheld yesterday what is believed to be the first conviction in the nation under a state anti-spamming law that makes it a felony to send unsolicited mass e-mails.
[...]
Virginia Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell said in a statement that his office will ask the court to revoke bond and order Jaynes to begin serving his sentence. The attorney general applauded the appeals court decision, saying the three-year-old anti-spam law helps keep Internet users "safe and secure."
"Today's ruling reinforces Virginia's anti-spam act and further protects the people of the commonwealth from identity thieves and cyber criminals," McDonnell said.
According to TFA the one woman wrote of another that she:...posted messages on the Internet accusing [the plaintiff] of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." The Defendant did, in fact, make public written claims about the plaintiff's character, business, and fraudulent behavior that were either demonstratably untrue or (at least) unproven. Therefore, it is entirely proper that she be sued in civil court, and that, upon losing the civil suit, a financial penalty be awarded to the plaintiff.
Why is this so hard to understand? You do not have the right to defame others simply because you believe yourself to be anonymous on the Internet. Not only are you not anonymous, but the legal system can most assuredly find you and exact penalties for misbehavior. And, frankly, it's about time the legal system catch up and bust a few folks who have been abusing message boards for fraudulent purposes, irresponsible anonymous claims, or even just sick kicks.
So... IMO, good: The Defendant got what she deserved.
Well, whatever. Somehow, I suspect some folks at Mozilla might reasonably take "iceweasel" as a disparaging term. And I wouldn't blame them if they did.
Dearest Debian Leaders: Why insult those who provide you (and everyone else) with important software? So there is a minor issue with the trademark name and Debian Free Guidelines. Is this something worth getting nasty over? I use Debian server side at work. I like stable - it is justly named. Please, focus on a new stable release and drop the interproject bickering.
and a Sean Kelly multicart that has just about every vectrex game ever produced. Still, what's most desirable in the Vectrex world are those colored overlays to place over the screen. *Very* hard -- and expensive -- to obtain. But the game system is remarkably fun to play if you dig old vector games like Asteroids, Star Castle, or Tempest.
Uh, hello aliens. This is what we look like. See, we're soft and squishy on the outside and crunchy on the inside. We still use radio waves to communicate and we can barely reach out of our atmospheric envelope. Hey, wanna come over and play?
Thanks for the reply. I could stick a beta on any random box, but I can't put it into production for our AFS file and db servers without the approval of a committee. So we'll have to wait. I will say that stable has been remarkably just that. Which is why I would not recommend to the committee that we migrate from Sarge to a beta anyway. But -- yeah -- we need better SATA support in a big way.:)
Once you've worked out all the political wrangling over the "Firefox" trademark, et all, could you please get decent SATA support in Stable? Because, I'm having trouble finding decent servers that ship with parallel IDE support these days, and where I work we happen to have _need_ for that. Debian is our preferred server distribution, but seeing as how I'm the dude who decided these things - that can change. And, frankly, without SATA support in Stable, it may _have_ to change.
Where I work we regularly ship back dead Seagate IDE and SATA drives after RAID failures. Without these long warranties we'd lose far more money than is the case. Further, since these longer warranties have become standard, the MBTF and hardiness of consumer IDE drives have increased dramatically. I used to expect consumer disk to die within a year or two of regular (personal) use. In a heavily RAID array, they would often die within six months to a year. Now, they last much longer. Often, a year or two.
Of course, commercial SCSI / fiberchannel disks still last a good five years of hard constant use. So, as is always, you get what you pay for. But, as it happens, these days you get more reliability on the consumer side than previously. I mean, who remembers the IBM disk fiasco a few years back? The warranties have helped.
The length of the copyright term within the United States was extended by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which made the copyright term the life of the author plus 70 years for works created after January 1, 1978. In the case of a work of corporate authorship (also known as "Work for Hire") the term will be 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation, whichever expires first. This legislation was challenged in court and affirmed by the US Supreme Court in the landmark copyright decision, Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003), in which the Supreme Court agreed that the length of the copyright term (ie, during which the copyright holder has a monopoly on its exploitation) could be extended by Congress after the original act of creation and beginning of the copyright term, as long as the extension itself was limited instead of perpetual. The duration of U.S. copyright for works created before 1978 is a complex matter; however, works published before 1923 are all in the public domain.
Based on this, if one assumes 1980-1990 as the baseline for most ATARI games, they should fall out of copyright into the public domain sometime around 2200 - 2210. Yup, seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no proof that Hamilton County, OH prosecutor Scott Blauvelt, 35, who was arrested on Monday on two indecency charges stemming from alledged video survailance of his naked body after hours in a government building, was actually *not* released from jail pending a hearing a hearing in the court where he normally works.
ROR!
BTW: Those "IFs" should have been answered by a findings of fact as determined by the discovery process. Though, since this is a default judgment - I'm not sure if the judge even bothered issuing a finding.
Nope, I am not a lawyer. Though there is at least one old-timer who still hangs out on /. that did go to law school and passed the bar. I forget his uid though. I am seriously considering law school though, and so have been researching it. I've also been studying for the LSAT. :) I'll make me a scum-sucking drain on society yet!
The award for judgment is a different matter, and will almost certainly be reduced. (IOW: I'm not interested in defending the award :) Given what's been reported in this account, however, it would appear a proper judgment. She didn't hire an attorney to defend herself, didn't show up for court to ask for a continuance (which she almost certainly would have recieved), and so she recieved a default judgment.
It would also appear, based on the article, that the Defendant did publish false and defamatory statements against the plaintiff. *shrug*
so apparently this bit of brain damage is somewhat contagious.
..." has several hundred years of legal precedent acting as the contagion. In that time is has spread throughout the western world. It may be too late for quarantine to be effective in stopping its spread.
Yes, that bit of "... brain damage
May I note that this article refers not to a spamming case, but to an individual who published false and defamatory statements about another. The fact that it was published online doesn't relate the facts of this case to spamming whatsoever. So, while *you* may have a problem with spammers (as do I), your argument against efficacious court oversight of online behavior due to poor prosecution rates of spammers isn't valid. I can see two counterarguments (at least):
- CAN-SPAM (and other anti-spam legislation) is very new, while Defamation and Libel laws have been in effect since the US founding (and even before that, in England and when we were an English colony). Thus, Defamation and Libel laws have a long history of precedent for attorneys and judges to follow while anti-spam legislation is only a few years old.
- Spamming makes a better free speech case than Defamation because the spammer solicits an individual for commercial purposes, which is almost every other commercial situation is protected speech. That one cannot block advertisements prior to their being received can be reasonably argued as an SMTP protocol oversight and not a cause for prior restraint of speech. Defamation has *never* been protected speech, however.
Well, that's an opinion (even a worthy one). And it may even be relevant to this specific case. But that doesn't diminish my original point: Freedom of Speech is not Freedom to Defame. Regardless of whether the defamation was published in print or online.
If the Defendant did as was claimed by the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff did suffer financial or personal harm to her reputation, then the court decision is proper. Meta-issues of fairness within court proceedings can be handled on apppeal.
Perceived efficacy of the court system is another matter. You are in good company with most anyone else who has ever stepped into a courtroom, for whatever reason. But get yourself into the eyesight of a suitably motivated prosecutor (or in this case, a private attorney with a highly motivated client), and the court system can be remarkably effective. Efficient? No. Effective - yes.
Heh.
There may be facts regarding this case that support the contention that the Defendant could not get a fair hearing due to situations out of her control. If she is convinced of that, then she and her attorney should file an appeal.
Anti-Spam Conviction Is Upheld: N.C. Man Flooded AOL Customers With Unsolicited E-Mail:
[...]
According to TFA the one woman wrote of another that she: ...posted messages on the Internet accusing [the plaintiff] of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." The Defendant did, in fact, make public written claims about the plaintiff's character, business, and fraudulent behavior that were either demonstratably untrue or (at least) unproven. Therefore, it is entirely proper that she be sued in civil court, and that, upon losing the civil suit, a financial penalty be awarded to the plaintiff.
Why is this so hard to understand? You do not have the right to defame others simply because you believe yourself to be anonymous on the Internet. Not only are you not anonymous, but the legal system can most assuredly find you and exact penalties for misbehavior. And, frankly, it's about time the legal system catch up and bust a few folks who have been abusing message boards for fraudulent purposes, irresponsible anonymous claims, or even just sick kicks.
So... IMO, good: The Defendant got what she deserved.
Well, whatever. Somehow, I suspect some folks at Mozilla might reasonably take "iceweasel" as a disparaging term. And I wouldn't blame them if they did.
Dearest Debian Leaders: Why insult those who provide you (and everyone else) with important software? So there is a minor issue with the trademark name and Debian Free Guidelines. Is this something worth getting nasty over? I use Debian server side at work. I like stable - it is justly named. Please, focus on a new stable release and drop the interproject bickering.
and a Sean Kelly multicart that has just about every vectrex game ever produced. Still, what's most desirable in the Vectrex world are those colored overlays to place over the screen. *Very* hard -- and expensive -- to obtain. But the game system is remarkably fun to play if you dig old vector games like Asteroids, Star Castle, or Tempest.
Which is exactly why we should build a space elevator instead. Wait.
????
Uh, hello aliens. This is what we look like. See, we're soft and squishy on the outside and crunchy on the inside. We still use radio waves to communicate and we can barely reach out of our atmospheric envelope. Hey, wanna come over and play?
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll take them into consideration.
Thanks for the reply. I could stick a beta on any random box, but I can't put it into production for our AFS file and db servers without the approval of a committee. So we'll have to wait. I will say that stable has been remarkably just that. Which is why I would not recommend to the committee that we migrate from Sarge to a beta anyway. But -- yeah -- we need better SATA support in a big way. :)
Once you've worked out all the political wrangling over the "Firefox" trademark, et all, could you please get decent SATA support in Stable? Because, I'm having trouble finding decent servers that ship with parallel IDE support these days, and where I work we happen to have _need_ for that. Debian is our preferred server distribution, but seeing as how I'm the dude who decided these things - that can change. And, frankly, without SATA support in Stable, it may _have_ to change.
Where I work we regularly ship back dead Seagate IDE and SATA drives after RAID failures. Without these long warranties we'd lose far more money than is the case. Further, since these longer warranties have become standard, the MBTF and hardiness of consumer IDE drives have increased dramatically. I used to expect consumer disk to die within a year or two of regular (personal) use. In a heavily RAID array, they would often die within six months to a year. Now, they last much longer. Often, a year or two.
Of course, commercial SCSI / fiberchannel disks still last a good five years of hard constant use. So, as is always, you get what you pay for. But, as it happens, these days you get more reliability on the consumer side than previously. I mean, who remembers the IBM disk fiasco a few years back? The warranties have helped.
Better be first in line for them life-extension drugs!
Need a coffee! (and preview) That's 2100 - 2110.
Based on this, if one assumes 1980-1990 as the baseline for most ATARI games, they should fall out of copyright into the public domain sometime around 2200 - 2210. Yup, seriously.
I still remember the music track from the Atari 800 version. What a great game.
Ultima III