Independent of free speech issues, it forces us to confront the contents of the video. Jordan now appears to be balls deep in the conflict because of that video.
I'm not saying it's the duty of every person to confront evil in the world, petty or explicit, but a lot of us can handle it and wouldn't opt out. Just create a non-porn 18+ filter that 18+ can opt in for. Apply the filter after a couple thousand video reports.
The EFF seems to think that compelling speech is harder than limiting speech. Without positive action by service provider, the canary dies. I'd trust the EFF on this, but some service providers have lawyers that have reached an opposite conclusion.
Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).
Correct, I'm not assert that 'legality' alters the fabric of reality so as to compel only action that comports with what is legal. But doing something illegal is not subject to 'leeway', you're breaking the law. Unless you're arguing that 'leeway' simply encompasses any action that could be undertaken by a being with free will, which I guess I can get on board with.
But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.
Had it passed, it could have been declared illegal by the court. That was a confrontation that did not actually occur. The FDR packing plan only supports an assertion that it has been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.
Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.
And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.
I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed. SCOTUS appointment procedure as it stands is as close to allowing the democratic majority to influence the judiciary as it should probably get. People don't just 'get in'. Look at the stinkers Bush floated by Congress before arriving at Roberts.
And, again, when SCOTUS says it, it is law, and Constitutional. If you have a problem with a SCOTUS decision, then you can talk to your congress critter about changing the law or amending the Constitution. That is what you can do when SCOTUS does something that -you- disagree with, but SCOTUS cannot make an unconstitutional decision, by its very nature. Been that way since Marbury v. Madison.
Unless you're filing an actual lawsuit, instead of just unilaterally not following the law because it conflicts with your interpretation of the constitution.
Unless you're planning on armed revolution or starting your own country with its own constitution on garbage island, the only thing a different interpretation of the constitution will get you is jail time. Just ask Wesley Snipes.
You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution. The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.
Yes, society has evolved since the constitution was drafted, which in turn has led to the legislature altering the constitution or the laws which were interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that was widely disliked. Yes, SCOTUS has overruled its own decisions in the past because the people that composed it changed, or the minds of the people that composed it were changed.
But gun law and the Second Amendment is on the wrong side of things for there to be a sudden turn around. The McDonald decision was 5-4, and only one of the dissenting judges was actually concerned about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. So you don't really have to worry about SCOTUS going after the Second Amendment (though it would be interesting if they examined the currently deprecated militia language), and it seems unlikely that the government's ability to place 'reasonable restraints' on gun ownership is going to change anytime soon.
It may be worth your time to actually investigate the law that has been derived from the Second Amendment, as that is more relevant to your current concerns than the actual wording of the Second Amendment at this point.
That's exactly what it means. I suppose you could question whether or not its 'right' in a moral sense, but when SCOTUS says its the law, its the law. That's their entire role within the government.
SCOTUS says the government can place reasonable restraints on gun ownership. Lots of states (and the feds) have laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people adjudicated as mentally infirm. Whether or not those people (or felons, for that matter) are buying guns at gun shows is, I think, within the sphere of legitimate government interest and probably wouldn't require an amendment to the Constitution. Mind, I'd rather have sellers running background checks on buyers, because that might actually prevent something. This bullshit proposal by the DEA doesn't sound like it would ever stop anything, because the government has constantly shown itself to be incapable of preventing anything with the harvest of big data.
If the only way you can get a conviction is with access to encrypted documents, the law you're enforcing is probably unconstitutional... Or the prosecutor is REALLY bad at their job.
And remember kids, the DOJ is executive, not judiciary. They can think whatever dumb shit they want. That doesn't mean a judge is going to agree with them.
It says more against JJ Abrams' last go at this (or whoever wrote it), than an endorsement of Pegg's writing acumen, that I find this a neutral factor....shit, I'm lying. It's a plus. Pegg might have an actual idea about what makes Star Trek work.
"These data do not necessarily mean that 82% (78% + 4%) of housing units have two or three competitive options for wireline broadband service—the data used here do not provide adequate information on price and performance to determine if multiple providers present in a given area compete head-to-head."
Right. I invented it in the OP you responded to. That dictated the context. Since this appears to have gone outside that context, I decline to respond further. See my other response on the ways in which data is different, and the "is it speech" split on 5th Amendment protections.
Even more relevant to your "data is physical evidence" is this:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014...
In the context of 4th Amendment and search pursuant arrest, the court found that data is NOT simply the contents of a locked container that police would ordinarily be able to search without a warrant. Data is different, and there's no consensus on whether 5th Amendment protections shield someone defying a court order to decrypt something.
Data is an abstraction of physical objects that can't be interpreted without the help of a machine. An encryption key usually takes the form of language that enables mathematical way of interpreting otherwise inscrutable contents. Imagine you're being arrested for possession of pot, but your back yard appears to be filled with ferns, and some magic word would change the contents like an old-style speakeasy. And that ain't even touching on the implications of deniable partitions.
And this doesn't really address at all my main point: if encrypted data is your only source of evidence, you're either really bad at your job or prosecuting a thought crime.
It seems like this might be one part "make the Republicans look like terrorist-loving pedophiles by mindlessly opposing me," and one part "make sure even the stupids want encryption."
Also, if encrypted information is required to convict someone? The prosecutor is either REALLY bad (and then the person should go free anyway), or the law under which that person is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. Encryption takes speech and makes it secret. We have very few exceptions to free speech, and all of them involve generating eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. A competent prosecutor could make a case without it.
We are not yet in a single-payer system, which means the market remains in the driver's seat. Where it can go and what it might do have been limited compared to what came before, but the government has principally limited the market in places where the market, if left to its own devices, would simply take advantage of those that need it the most. The market's treatment of pre-existing conditions is a known black mark against those that argue that free market forces will fix everything. They won't. Free market sees the uninsured being denied access to emergency rooms and the elderly being discharged when their incipient deaths are no longer profitable, or when a more profitable disease comes along and the space is needed. That is what free market health care looks like. It is not something any democratic majority (or any particular collection of sane people) would want. The health care market needs the government to give it some paved roads to drive on, to extend your driver's seat analogy. Otherwise it'll just be driving through human lives and accumulated wealth with indifference. Also, when a collection of laws creates a health entity (ACO) that is exempt from regulation, that's allowing the market more freedom, not less.
You're going to need to explain the FU bit about cost controllers. It forced an administrative/medical care ratio on insurance companies. That means that insurance companies can't pile on administrative costs forever. It also increased the minimum requirements of insurance so that what "insruance" is isn't $25 a month feel-good, get-sick-and-die policy. Is that your complaint? That insurance companies are now required to offer something that can actually be substantively described as "insurance"?
As I said, this bill did a lot-lot. Most of which isn't something a non-legal or non-health observer would necessarily notice. We don't necessarily need more doctors (just allow nurses to practice within the scope of their training, that's one of several quick fixes) or more hospitals. Just because you cannot see or understand the difference doesn't mean the difference isn't there. Your nonsense about buck-passing might apply to the Medicare changes (a fraction of the PPACA), but not to much else. The President and the Democrats and a couple Republicans actually -did- something. If its a buck passed, then its a buck that no one else has bothered or managed to pass in the history of the US.
And speaking as a healthy white 30-something male, the exact type of person who is now being forced to participate in a collective risk pool my age group has traditionally opted out of: fine. I get it. This is part of being a community, and paying taxes sucks, but this is the least horrible option available that the government was actually able to pass. (And full disclosure: my plan is not subsidized by premium tax credits.)
If nothing else, it gave the market, which has long proported to be capable of self-management (an earnest lie, health is an infinite good and doctor/nurse shortages are a realistic concern) a last chance to prove it. And it was a step forward, and the only step forward that was available at the time. More specifically, it granted the federal Medicaid authority methods for managing costs in experimental programs, promulgated a form of health entity exempt from kickback and stark for purposes of experimentation, unified risk pools, and at least put the mechanism in place to incentivize large employer insurance -- even if the current fine attached to non-providing is generally less than the cost of providing (because it wasn't properly matched to an index). The Medicaid Expansion SCOTUS opinion (which is incoherent, given Medicaid's history) also complicated things, and the current SCOTUS challenge related to poor drafting also didn't help.
It also closed the authorization window for Medicare that people were using to defraud the government.
This bill did a lot-lot. Most of which isn't something a non-legal or non-health observer would necessarily notice. That doesn't mean the bill's architects and the president that actually got it passed don't deserve mad props.
Obamacare was the most radical healthcare reform in a century. And also probably fifty years overdue. Regardless of the difficulties of implementation, it was a law we needed, and he got it passed.
Mind you, every right-thinking person ought to find the scales just about even with this domestic spying bullshit. The man was a Constitutional professor, and instead of thinking like an academic -- who would have known the direction SCOTUS was heading and that bullshit like the third party doctrine had no place justifying the disclosure of involuntarily produced records -- and instead thinks like a lawyer -- who did something because there was no case law directly on point that said he couldn't. That's a dick move. Even if Bush put it in place, Obama defended it. Total dick move.
Ideally, the FCC would assert all authority related to the regulation of broadband, supplanting any local rules. IIRC there are already rulings to that effect, but they've never been applied specifically to regulation of municipal broadband.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/27/...
Assuming this is honest, it seems amazing. Mortality rate down to 13%. When you're talking epidemic, throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks seems like the only way to do it. You think they have problems getting people to go to the hospital now, imagine how hard it would be if word went around that you might wind up in a control group?
Slashdot Mirror
Does the VPN industry push for this shit?
Independent of free speech issues, it forces us to confront the contents of the video. Jordan now appears to be balls deep in the conflict because of that video.
I'm not saying it's the duty of every person to confront evil in the world, petty or explicit, but a lot of us can handle it and wouldn't opt out. Just create a non-porn 18+ filter that 18+ can opt in for. Apply the filter after a couple thousand video reports.
Little confused why he told that anecdote while unvieling regulations that won't unbundle last mile. Is that a threat of some kind?
The EFF seems to think that compelling speech is harder than limiting speech. Without positive action by service provider, the canary dies. I'd trust the EFF on this, but some service providers have lawyers that have reached an opposite conclusion.
Legally. Illegally, there's still quite a number of options, including a fair number of non-violent ones (since we have people here who appear to be concerned about gun violence).
Correct, I'm not assert that 'legality' alters the fabric of reality so as to compel only action that comports with what is legal. But doing something illegal is not subject to 'leeway', you're breaking the law. Unless you're arguing that 'leeway' simply encompasses any action that could be undertaken by a being with free will, which I guess I can get on board with.
But it didn't fail because it was illegal, it failed merely because FDR didn't get enough votes. This remains a ready path for someone who already controls two branches of government to control the last.
Had it passed, it could have been declared illegal by the court. That was a confrontation that did not actually occur. The FDR packing plan only supports an assertion that it has been tried unsuccessfully in the past.
Given that every US citizen is responsible for upholding the US Constitution, that implies legally leeway in interpreting it as well.
Nope. You can file a court challenge if you want, but that's all the 'leeway' a US citizen gets in going against something that has been ruled on point by SCOTUS.
And what happens when the Supreme Court makes unconstitutional decisions? This is not a hypothetical situation. It's not that hard a thing to stack with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description and that has been attempted.
I'm confused. You said it isn't hard to stack SCOTUS with people who don't have an interest in fulfilling the job description, then you link to an effort to do that which failed. SCOTUS appointment procedure as it stands is as close to allowing the democratic majority to influence the judiciary as it should probably get. People don't just 'get in'. Look at the stinkers Bush floated by Congress before arriving at Roberts.
And, again, when SCOTUS says it, it is law, and Constitutional. If you have a problem with a SCOTUS decision, then you can talk to your congress critter about changing the law or amending the Constitution. That is what you can do when SCOTUS does something that -you- disagree with, but SCOTUS cannot make an unconstitutional decision, by its very nature. Been that way since Marbury v. Madison.
Unless you're filing an actual lawsuit, instead of just unilaterally not following the law because it conflicts with your interpretation of the constitution.
Unless you're planning on armed revolution or starting your own country with its own constitution on garbage island, the only thing a different interpretation of the constitution will get you is jail time. Just ask Wesley Snipes.
You aren't responsible for interpreting the constitution. The judiciary is, and SCOTUS is the final authority on the matter. You probably don't want to go around making absolute statements about what is and is not constitutional unless you have a current SCOTUS opinion to back you up, because you start to look crazy.
Yes, society has evolved since the constitution was drafted, which in turn has led to the legislature altering the constitution or the laws which were interpreted by SCOTUS in a way that was widely disliked. Yes, SCOTUS has overruled its own decisions in the past because the people that composed it changed, or the minds of the people that composed it were changed.
But gun law and the Second Amendment is on the wrong side of things for there to be a sudden turn around. The McDonald decision was 5-4, and only one of the dissenting judges was actually concerned about the interpretation of the Second Amendment as a fundamental right. So you don't really have to worry about SCOTUS going after the Second Amendment (though it would be interesting if they examined the currently deprecated militia language), and it seems unlikely that the government's ability to place 'reasonable restraints' on gun ownership is going to change anytime soon.
It may be worth your time to actually investigate the law that has been derived from the Second Amendment, as that is more relevant to your current concerns than the actual wording of the Second Amendment at this point.
That's exactly what it means. I suppose you could question whether or not its 'right' in a moral sense, but when SCOTUS says its the law, its the law. That's their entire role within the government.
SCOTUS says the government can place reasonable restraints on gun ownership. Lots of states (and the feds) have laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people adjudicated as mentally infirm. Whether or not those people (or felons, for that matter) are buying guns at gun shows is, I think, within the sphere of legitimate government interest and probably wouldn't require an amendment to the Constitution. Mind, I'd rather have sellers running background checks on buyers, because that might actually prevent something. This bullshit proposal by the DEA doesn't sound like it would ever stop anything, because the government has constantly shown itself to be incapable of preventing anything with the harvest of big data.
If the only way you can get a conviction is with access to encrypted documents, the law you're enforcing is probably unconstitutional... Or the prosecutor is REALLY bad at their job.
And remember kids, the DOJ is executive, not judiciary. They can think whatever dumb shit they want. That doesn't mean a judge is going to agree with them.
If you can legally discriminate based on smoking status and weight, you should be able to discriminate based on disease vector status as well.
It says more against JJ Abrams' last go at this (or whoever wrote it), than an endorsement of Pegg's writing acumen, that I find this a neutral factor. ...shit, I'm lying. It's a plus. Pegg might have an actual idea about what makes Star Trek work.
From the actual article:
"These data do not necessarily mean that 82% (78% + 4%) of housing units have two or three competitive options for wireline broadband service—the data used here do not provide adequate information on price and performance to determine if multiple providers present in a given area compete head-to-head."
So that's kinda a big fat nothing statistic.
Right. I invented it in the OP you responded to. That dictated the context. Since this appears to have gone outside that context, I decline to respond further. See my other response on the ways in which data is different, and the "is it speech" split on 5th Amendment protections.
Even more relevant to your "data is physical evidence" is this: http://www.scotusblog.com/2014... In the context of 4th Amendment and search pursuant arrest, the court found that data is NOT simply the contents of a locked container that police would ordinarily be able to search without a warrant. Data is different, and there's no consensus on whether 5th Amendment protections shield someone defying a court order to decrypt something.
Data is an abstraction of physical objects that can't be interpreted without the help of a machine. An encryption key usually takes the form of language that enables mathematical way of interpreting otherwise inscrutable contents. Imagine you're being arrested for possession of pot, but your back yard appears to be filled with ferns, and some magic word would change the contents like an old-style speakeasy. And that ain't even touching on the implications of deniable partitions. And this doesn't really address at all my main point: if encrypted data is your only source of evidence, you're either really bad at your job or prosecuting a thought crime.
It seems like this might be one part "make the Republicans look like terrorist-loving pedophiles by mindlessly opposing me," and one part "make sure even the stupids want encryption."
Also, if encrypted information is required to convict someone? The prosecutor is either REALLY bad (and then the person should go free anyway), or the law under which that person is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. Encryption takes speech and makes it secret. We have very few exceptions to free speech, and all of them involve generating eyewitness testimony and physical evidence. A competent prosecutor could make a case without it.
We are not yet in a single-payer system, which means the market remains in the driver's seat. Where it can go and what it might do have been limited compared to what came before, but the government has principally limited the market in places where the market, if left to its own devices, would simply take advantage of those that need it the most. The market's treatment of pre-existing conditions is a known black mark against those that argue that free market forces will fix everything. They won't. Free market sees the uninsured being denied access to emergency rooms and the elderly being discharged when their incipient deaths are no longer profitable, or when a more profitable disease comes along and the space is needed. That is what free market health care looks like. It is not something any democratic majority (or any particular collection of sane people) would want. The health care market needs the government to give it some paved roads to drive on, to extend your driver's seat analogy. Otherwise it'll just be driving through human lives and accumulated wealth with indifference. Also, when a collection of laws creates a health entity (ACO) that is exempt from regulation, that's allowing the market more freedom, not less.
You're going to need to explain the FU bit about cost controllers. It forced an administrative/medical care ratio on insurance companies. That means that insurance companies can't pile on administrative costs forever. It also increased the minimum requirements of insurance so that what "insruance" is isn't $25 a month feel-good, get-sick-and-die policy. Is that your complaint? That insurance companies are now required to offer something that can actually be substantively described as "insurance"?
As I said, this bill did a lot-lot. Most of which isn't something a non-legal or non-health observer would necessarily notice. We don't necessarily need more doctors (just allow nurses to practice within the scope of their training, that's one of several quick fixes) or more hospitals. Just because you cannot see or understand the difference doesn't mean the difference isn't there. Your nonsense about buck-passing might apply to the Medicare changes (a fraction of the PPACA), but not to much else. The President and the Democrats and a couple Republicans actually -did- something. If its a buck passed, then its a buck that no one else has bothered or managed to pass in the history of the US.
And speaking as a healthy white 30-something male, the exact type of person who is now being forced to participate in a collective risk pool my age group has traditionally opted out of: fine. I get it. This is part of being a community, and paying taxes sucks, but this is the least horrible option available that the government was actually able to pass. (And full disclosure: my plan is not subsidized by premium tax credits.)
If nothing else, it gave the market, which has long proported to be capable of self-management (an earnest lie, health is an infinite good and doctor/nurse shortages are a realistic concern) a last chance to prove it. And it was a step forward, and the only step forward that was available at the time. More specifically, it granted the federal Medicaid authority methods for managing costs in experimental programs, promulgated a form of health entity exempt from kickback and stark for purposes of experimentation, unified risk pools, and at least put the mechanism in place to incentivize large employer insurance -- even if the current fine attached to non-providing is generally less than the cost of providing (because it wasn't properly matched to an index). The Medicaid Expansion SCOTUS opinion (which is incoherent, given Medicaid's history) also complicated things, and the current SCOTUS challenge related to poor drafting also didn't help.
It also closed the authorization window for Medicare that people were using to defraud the government.
This bill did a lot-lot. Most of which isn't something a non-legal or non-health observer would necessarily notice. That doesn't mean the bill's architects and the president that actually got it passed don't deserve mad props.
Obamacare was the most radical healthcare reform in a century. And also probably fifty years overdue. Regardless of the difficulties of implementation, it was a law we needed, and he got it passed.
Mind you, every right-thinking person ought to find the scales just about even with this domestic spying bullshit. The man was a Constitutional professor, and instead of thinking like an academic -- who would have known the direction SCOTUS was heading and that bullshit like the third party doctrine had no place justifying the disclosure of involuntarily produced records -- and instead thinks like a lawyer -- who did something because there was no case law directly on point that said he couldn't. That's a dick move. Even if Bush put it in place, Obama defended it. Total dick move.
Ideally, the FCC would assert all authority related to the regulation of broadband, supplanting any local rules. IIRC there are already rulings to that effect, but they've never been applied specifically to regulation of municipal broadband.
...all the tricked out all wheel pickup trucks with tricked out suspension and a Confederate flag in the back window tooling around the lake.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/27/...
Assuming this is honest, it seems amazing. Mortality rate down to 13%. When you're talking epidemic, throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks seems like the only way to do it. You think they have problems getting people to go to the hospital now, imagine how hard it would be if word went around that you might wind up in a control group?