Watchmen can't be done in 90-120 minutes with Big Name Actors. Leastwise, it can't be done right, and if it can't be done right, it shouldn't be done at all.:(
You know what? This is exactly what a lot of fans said when they first heard about the little-known director Peter Jackson taking on Lord of the Rings.
Peter Jackson wasn't stupid enough to try to squeeze LotR into 90-120 minutes, so I don't see what your statement has to do with the subject at hand.
Brain surgery has not reached the
level of advancement needed to be precise about
fixing the issues there, so that won't work
without simply killing the rapist.
I hate spammers as much as the next guy, but I can not agree that the punishment should be equal to crimes of violence such as rape, murder, and assault.
And, in fact, the punishment for such crimes of violence is far more severe than the punishment for spamming. Anyone who raped, murdered, or assaulted large numbers of people (a necessary component to make the crime comparable to spamming) would surely get more than nine years. (Indeed, any violent criminal who victimized 0.01% of the number of people targeted by the typical spam run would probably get the death penalty in those jurisdictions where it is available).
I would submit that the nature of the crime of spamming is to make a profit that the primary punishment should be a fine.
That won't work; spammers are either successful con artists (in which case they know how to hide the money) or not (in which case they don't have the money). That puts you right back at square one, with the options of letting them off the hook (clearly unacceptable) or throwing them in jail.
I hate spammers as much as anyone but is this really who we want filling up our federal prisons?
Yes, I want people who premeditate and execute attacks on millions of people's private property to fill up our prisons. (I'd prefer Abu Ghirab, but prison will do.) Make room by letting out the people convicted of victimless "crimes" (e.g. drug posession).
He gave Bush a five-page, handwritten letter in which he stated, 'The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.
I thought that it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that did that....
His lawyer did advance the preposterous defense that the state had failed to prove that the mailings were unsolicited (this after CDs containing several million AOL addresses were introduced into evidence). This is about as credible as a burglar defending himself by arguing that the court had failed to prove that he didn't have permission to enter people's houses and remove stuff.
About 10 years ago in Denver, a man was arrested as he staggered out of a meat-packer's warehouse with a heavy box of meat. It turned out to be beef rectums.
As I recall, his response was: "I can't believe I'm going to jail for a bunch of assholes." (Or maybe it was G. Gordon Liddy who said that. I forget.)
The practical difference between illicit drugs and spam is that there are millions of people who want to buy and consume drugs, but there are not millions of people who want to send spam or pay someone to do so. Thus, a straightforward crackdown is much more effective against the latter than against the former.
(There's also the philosophical difference (the former is a voluntary transaction, the latter is theft of service), but that doesn't really touch upon your argument.)
Illegal spam's fine, and even with killer fines... but not as a felony.
Why not? If somebody subverts a bank computer to transfer a penny from everybody else's account into his, that's a felony (and a very good analogy to the theft of resources and computer cracking routinely committed by spammers).
anyone who sent SPAM, even for a legitimate business
Except in the case of "joe jobs" (somebody sends spam claiming to represent X without X's knowledge, much less consent), this is a contradiction in terms.
I'll continue to defend John Ashcroft against unfair, unwarranted and asinine "criticisms".
That statement is not relevant here. Ashcroft insisted on preventing the Democrats from substituting another name. Therefore, sneering at him for "losing to a dead guy" is a fair, warranted, and clever criticism, and he brought it upon his own head.
There's a big difference between outright theft and merely getting your foot in the door.
Er, "getting your foot in the door" against the express prohibition of the property owner (which is clearly indicated by the presence of a TeleZapper[tm]) is recognized as a crime in and of itself, even if you don't take anything.
Er, nope. The fact that one TV channel has stuff you don't want to see does not prevent your from seeing stuff you do want to see on another channel. However, turning off the phone to avoid telemarketers does prevent you from receiving legitimate calls. As I said, the two cases are fundamentally different, and your analogy is therefore worthless.
By having a phone plugged into a public network, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited calls.
By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.
Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door.
The telemarketing industry has done precisely that (developed and used techniques for evading protective devices such as the TeleZapper[tm]). Through such actions, they made the Do Not Call list necessary.
if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right
Nonsense. It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts and that individuals do not. If your attempt to equate the two without this context were valid, it would also be acceptable for men to slide dollar bills into the clothing of any woman they met on the street (making no distinction between women in general and strippers who solicit such tips).
I don't think that would be constitutional. I think it would be too much of a hinderance on free speech. It would be like saying that no cable television show could have nudity unless all the subscribers put their name on a "WANT NUDITY" list.
The two cases are fundamentally different. Junk television programs are incapable of creating a nuisance unless you take a deliberate action (turn on the TV and tune in that channel); junk phone calls are capable of creating a nuisance without any such action on your part (indeed, the only way to avoid the nuisance is to disconnect the phone, which simply creates a different nuisance of being unable to receive legitimate calls).
What FTC should have done is to have a DO CALL LIST, in which telemarketer can only contact those on the list, and must delete every info for the client who are not in the list.
No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster.
Why not? I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent". The latter is well-settled law.
Slashdot Mirror
You know what? This is exactly what a lot of fans said when they first heard about the little-known director Peter Jackson taking on Lord of the Rings.
Peter Jackson wasn't stupid enough to try to squeeze LotR into 90-120 minutes, so I don't see what your statement has to do with the subject at hand.
And this is a problem because...?
Rape is more a function of a twisted mind than of sexuality.
That said, removing the offending body part (the brain) works for me.
And, in fact, the punishment for such crimes of violence is far more severe than the punishment for spamming. Anyone who raped, murdered, or assaulted large numbers of people (a necessary component to make the crime comparable to spamming) would surely get more than nine years. (Indeed, any violent criminal who victimized 0.01% of the number of people targeted by the typical spam run would probably get the death penalty in those jurisdictions where it is available).
I would submit that the nature of the crime of spamming is to make a profit that the primary punishment should be a fine.
That won't work; spammers are either successful con artists (in which case they know how to hide the money) or not (in which case they don't have the money). That puts you right back at square one, with the options of letting them off the hook (clearly unacceptable) or throwing them in jail.
Yes, I want people who premeditate and execute attacks on millions of people's private property to fill up our prisons. (I'd prefer Abu Ghirab, but prison will do.) Make room by letting out the people convicted of victimless "crimes" (e.g. drug posession).
Yep. The Commonwealth of Virginny doesn't do parole.
I thought that it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that did that....
There are one or two things that raise a "caution" flag for really young kids (most notably, the dead body of one of Syndrome's victims).
His lawyer did advance the preposterous defense that the state had failed to prove that the mailings were unsolicited (this after CDs containing several million AOL addresses were introduced into evidence). This is about as credible as a burglar defending himself by arguing that the court had failed to prove that he didn't have permission to enter people's houses and remove stuff.
Not in Virginia, he won't.
As I recall, his response was: "I can't believe I'm going to jail for a bunch of assholes." (Or maybe it was G. Gordon Liddy who said that. I forget.)
Because it threatens to destroy our ability to send and receive legitimate e-mail.
(There's also the philosophical difference (the former is a voluntary transaction, the latter is theft of service), but that doesn't really touch upon your argument.)
Why not? If somebody subverts a bank computer to transfer a penny from everybody else's account into his, that's a felony (and a very good analogy to the theft of resources and computer cracking routinely committed by spammers).
Except in the case of "joe jobs" (somebody sends spam claiming to represent X without X's knowledge, much less consent), this is a contradiction in terms.
That's exactly what he did, and exactly what he was convicted of -- RTFA and note the part about how his spamming operation "masks its origin".
That statement is not relevant here. Ashcroft insisted on preventing the Democrats from substituting another name. Therefore, sneering at him for "losing to a dead guy" is a fair, warranted, and clever criticism, and he brought it upon his own head.
Er, "getting your foot in the door" against the express prohibition of the property owner (which is clearly indicated by the presence of a TeleZapper[tm]) is recognized as a crime in and of itself, even if you don't take anything.
Puh-leeze. By this "logic", a bicycle thief could get off scot-free by arguing that they owner's defective lock did not secure his property.
so long as what they do is not fraudulent
Er, cracking past the TeleZapper[tm] IS fraudulent -- the TeleZapper[tm] was clearly put there to keep you out, and you willfully broke in anyway.
You've just conceded my argument by admitting that bypassing the TeleZapper[tm] constitutes an illicit intrusion.
The telemarketing industry forfeited this line of defense when they started cracking past the TeleZapper[tm].
Er, nope. The fact that one TV channel has stuff you don't want to see does not prevent your from seeing stuff you do want to see on another channel. However, turning off the phone to avoid telemarketers does prevent you from receiving legitimate calls. As I said, the two cases are fundamentally different, and your analogy is therefore worthless.
By having a house connected to the public sidewalks, you're implicitly accepting unsolicited visitors.
Trepassing would be if they forced you to answer, or broke through your door.
The telemarketing industry has done precisely that (developed and used techniques for evading protective devices such as the TeleZapper[tm]). Through such actions, they made the Do Not Call list necessary.
if people have no right to call other people, then when you call business X, they could sue you for trespass by calling them, unless you give them the right to make unsolicited calls to you, and to give others that same right
Nonsense. It is clear that businesses publish their phone numbers for the purpose of receiving business contacts and that individuals do not. If your attempt to equate the two without this context were valid, it would also be acceptable for men to slide dollar bills into the clothing of any woman they met on the street (making no distinction between women in general and strippers who solicit such tips).
The two cases are fundamentally different. Junk television programs are incapable of creating a nuisance unless you take a deliberate action (turn on the TV and tune in that channel); junk phone calls are capable of creating a nuisance without any such action on your part (indeed, the only way to avoid the nuisance is to disconnect the phone, which simply creates a different nuisance of being unable to receive legitimate calls).
No, because that would not have passed constitutional muster.
Why not? I fail to see the fundamental distinction between "you can't use my phone to distribute your message without my express consent" and "you can't use my printing press to distribute your message without my express consent". The latter is well-settled law.