At 59 years old, statistically Mr. Stenn isn't going to live long enough to maintain NTP for another 30 years. Perhaps something so crucial should be a voluntary communal effort?
From the sounds of it he wouldn't mind a bunch of young Turks with tons of relevant experience saying "Hey, I 'd like to help and am not only willing to do it for free but front some of the costs out of pocket. BTW, I'd love to put in some crazy hours at times where a critical patch needs to come out and get bitched at by people who didn't do anything to help but feel free to complain when they don't like what I did." As others point out, another issue is what happens when he stops doing this? Who takes over? My guess is if he really does throw in the towel, as soon as some company starts having problems or losing money they will come hat in hand offering to pay for his consulting services. If, as the article points out, large banks and brokerage firms depend on it to prove they complied with the law, coughing up a few million will be no problem. Of course, then they'll decide what needs fixing and may not care what problems other companies have that need to be fixed to keep their machines or companies running well.
I am not so sure. I know plenty of conservatives who would like to keep their guns while denying that right to those who don't look like them. Then again, anecdote doen't equal data in any case.
I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.
I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue. I know many liberals who either own guns or have no problem with guns. Personally, I appreciate a well made weapon and enjoy target shooting with a fine weapon. I also realize the importance of securing a weapon so that it doen't used in an inappropriate manner and believ the 2cd is a god amendment. A gun is a tool to be used properly and not some replacement for a functional penis. To me, owning a gun and supporting liberal ideals is not an existential contradiction, nor requires some bullshit rational to justify such a position. It's simply a choice I have aright to make. Some like to point to Switzerland as an example of why gun ownership doesn't mean guns are bad yet ignore the many liberal concepts the Swiss also embrace, such as universal healthcare or safe free abortions. To argue one point while ignoring the other is an existential conridiction to my admitly simple mind. YMMV. HAND.
And this differs from cash, how? And...what's so untraceable about bitcoin, considering every transaction *permanently and publicly stored*. It's such a pain in the ass to anonymize, that even Dread Pirate Roberts seemingly got sick of it.
WhilenI agre with your comments re: Bitcoin anonymity it does differ from ash in that I need to actually hand you cash rather than make a payment from McD's via free WiFi. cash transactions are limited by the need to to a face to face exchange.
If that were true, Timex would have destroyed the Swiss watch industry. Yet Patek, AP et al are doing fine. That market isn't about telling time but making a statement. A Patek says I appreciate a finely crafted timeless design and don't need to blast "look at me" by wearing a Rolex. It's not copied by every mass market brand yet those who appreciate a fine watch knows what it is; and is a watch that you will pass down from generation to generation. In addition, people who buy numerous watches will continue to do so because they like the design and want to have a choice of waht they want in their wrist. Formal dinner? Time for the gold Cellini. Day a the beach? Seamaster. Building a fence or stone wall? The Timex that will survive the scrapes and doesn't cost $500 to replace a crystal. Apple will do fine but so will the Swiss. An Apple watch will simply be one more to add to the collection Now, if I was Motorola or Samsung? Yea, I'd be worried.
Who gets to decide what 'asshattery' is? So many times people are labeled trolls for not towing the party line. The consequences should not be a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice.
Certainly not. The problem now is what used to be a loocal phenomena and can result in, as you put it, a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice, followed by a counter reaction to the smiters; resulting in consequences that go far beyond the initial event. Censorship is not the answer but I do not know what is.
"Being civil" is merely an appeal to 'manners' which is in turn an appeal to defense of feelings. The problem occurs when facts and truth are denied for the sake of them. People label people assholes all the time for speaking unpopular truth.
There is a difference between speaking an unpopular truth and suggesting assulting someone. While both are, and justifiably so, protected speech there is. Adifference between the two. One can present an unpleasent truth without being an asshat. I realize some peopel would like to muzzle anyone tht speaks something they find disagreeable. They should not be allowed to do so anymore thn someone who is being an asshat should be free of consequences under the guise of free speech. You can say what you want but have to live with the consequences.
(IANAL) In Illinois, and likely most other states, if you believe that a crime will take place during the recording of a phone call (and this does likely count as a felony), you can record it without permission of the other party. In addition, you are shielded from prosecution for breaking wiretapping laws & your surreptitiously recorded evidence can be used for prosecution.
In some US states only one party consent is needed to you can record to your heart's content since you consent. No need to do get the other party's consent.
Had one of these (and only one)... told them I only had Mac's at home, and the guy got belligerent and said I was lying, then finally after telling him that over and over for a good minute he basically said FU and hung up. Can't imagine what they'd say if I said I only ran Linux, or something really obscure ("Sorry, I only run OpenVMS"). =D
So yeah... guess their scheme falls over pretty quickly if you don't have a Windows box...
Only if yo let it. I've gotten those calls and kept them on for quite some time and listen to them get more and more frustrated when they can't seem to get me to give them access but am only seconds away from giving them a credit card number. Frankly, after a while I give up and offer to pay and here is my credit...click...dial tone...
I was wondering what got you on double secret probation. I was on secret probation once. I didn't find out until suspension that I was ever on probation.
Nothing much:
dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the varsity swim meet
delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner
filled trees with underwear every Halloween
toilets exploding in the spring
As a result, seven years of college down the drain.
OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right?
What you call self-censorship I would call being civil. A society establishes rules and norms for behaviors it considers acceptable, and individuals are still free to act contrary to those norms; however such actions are subject to the condemnation of society at large.
But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.
Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There are always assholes in this world; and most are cowards who would hide behind anonymity to avoid getting their ass kicked. Others simply think it's funny without regard to the consequences of their actions; that is especially true, as studies show, of teenagers who have not yet fully developed the capacity to think their actions through to possible consequences.
I am all for free speech, even what I would find distasteful, since censoring it doesn't allow people to address issues it raises and the best way to address bad ideas is to expose them to the light of day. However, schools also have the problem of balancing speech with acting in the face of a threat. It's all well and good to say most of them are simply juvenile jokes, even if they do hurt others, and will not be acted on; however how do you separate those from a real threat. More importantly, how do accomplish that without trampling on free speech rights?
As an aside, I find the Leonard Law interesting in that it compels private institutions to comply with government limit son restricting speech. What I find interesting is it was proposed by a Republican, which goes to show they are for private property rights and limited government until someone does something they don't like and then the "heavy hand" of "government overreach" is brought out to compile someone to comply with their viewpoint of what is correct. Sometimes I think the two parties in the US should merge and just call themselves the Hypocrisy Party with the head of an ass and the body of an elephant to demonstrate their thinking capacity and view of the proper size of a government.
I never owned a Mac, classic or otherwise. I did, however, own an Apple//e. The Mac icons were so well designed, I found some Macintosh sales literature and was able to duplicate the icons using some Apple// drawing programs. The most notable was the Trash Can.
These icons deserve to be preserved.
Having owned various Apples of the ][ andMac variety it is also interesting to see how the icons have evolved. The various folder designs have been interesting over the years.
Gee, even your quote of my quote proves you to be a liar. You really need to learn how to read!!! What I say:
All it takes is one juror to hang a jury... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
Two different things. First, I doubt it will ever go to trial.
Snowdon is probably just tweaking the government's nose (as I said before). That is the most likely event - say 80% or more. Every other outcome is minor in comparison, including a hung jury, a conviction, or a mistrial. It almost definitely will not go to trial. Now, let's look at the favorable outcomes in the very low probability that it actually goes to trial.
Overall, his chances of winning greatly exceed 10%, since you forgot to add up all the different reasons I've given for him winning. Hung jury - 5-10%. Justification defense - 20-40%.
Here is where we clearly disagree. I doubt that he would be allowed to mount a justification defense given he could not meet the criteria the Federal courts use of allowing such a defense.
You claimed that he should have just given the info to reporters, when in fact that's what he did.
Nope. I said the government could make such an argument; I never said what he did or didn't do.
You first claimed that there's no legal defense of justification, when it's part and parcel of the law, and now you're changing your story.
Wrong again. I said he'd have a hard time mounting one, not that there is no legal defense of justification.
You got your "facts" from a MOVIE (try admitting that into evidence).
You keep bring up this movie. Where have I said anything about a movie? You keep bringing that up but never show where I used a movie to justify my position.
You claimed that they have to convince the judge, and not the jury.
The judge, in a Federal court, gets to decide if a justification defense is allowed to be presented to the jury. I've pointed out the conditions that must be met and why I think Snowden would have a hard time meeting them.
And you claimed that I was saying that it was very likely that he would get a hung jury, when in fact what I made it clear he wasn't likely to even get to trial.
The sentence you quoted above clearly states that you'd expect the trial outcome, if there was a trial, to be a hung jury. if you are backing away from that, that's fine, but that is what you said initially.
He doesn't want to be tried unless he can turn it into a show trial. The government doesn't want to try him. It's all "performance art." And now that he's too visible, they can't even suicide him.
Yea, I don't think he'd be tried either. He may want to come back but the government has no compelling reason to cut a deal so they can just wait him out./P.
You're really such a liar. I went through the whole thread, and nowhere did I say that a hung jury would be a likely outcome.
Post (#49181845) All it takes is one juror to hang a jury... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
Same as you lied when you claimed that he "could have gone to reporters first", when in fact that's what he did.
Except my actual statement was a prosecutor could make such an argument; not a statement of what he did or didn't do. Although, if i remember correctly, he first fled to Hong Kong before he revealed the documents.
And no, giving everything to the whole world is not "spying for Russia and China".
However, he did give them to China and Russia, which is a classic case of espionage independent of anything else he did. Furthermore, Congress has specifically approved conducting surveillance against foreign countries and thus preemption would apply, i.e. the legislature has stated the activity is legal and thus a policy determination has been made that the protects the evil he is protesting.
So, in summary: Don't use a movie as a legal reference,
You keep bring up a movie - to what are you referring?
don't use court cases that were dismissed because the perps actions had no direct connection with the acts they were protesting against
The problem Snowden has is his actions might not meet the standard of preventing the harm since his actions would not result in the US stopping collection of intelligence. Courts have ruled against justification as a defense when the actions would not be expected to stop the supposed harm.
don't continue to claim that the judge is the one who has to be convinced in a jury trial,
Except Federal judges do get to decide if a necessity defense is allowable and thus have to be convinced all the requirements for one is met before it goes to a jury.
and don't contradict what the law says when it says that justification is a defense.
I never said it wasn't a possible defense, just that it is a very difficult one to use successfully. You seem to miss the point I was making; even as you said his you'd give him a 5-10% chance in the US in Post #49202025.
So what exactly is your point. We both agree that justification is a defense and that he has a slim chance of winning his case. Is it you don't think he has to meet the standards set by a Federal court to mount a justification defense? If that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Gee, you really want to beat a dead horse, don't you. "It only takes on juror to hang a jury" applies in the US.
Never said it didn't. You first claimed it would be a likely outcome and then backed down to a 5 - 10% chance when you finally agreed with me.
We don't agree on anything because you started out with the premise that a conviction was a foregone conclusion, that US law did not allow any form of "justification" defense - based on a MOVIE you saw - and that the only case ANYONE has quoted failed the test because the act was they were convicted of was not in any way related to what they were protesting.
Actually, I said none of that. I did say he has a very difficult time proving a necessity defense, and thus going to trial in the US is very risky thing for him. Perhaps you think a 5 - 10 % chance (your numbers, BTW) of not being convicted is not risky?I did say lawyers are not allowed to bring up jury nullification to the jury, which is different than a justification (necessity) defense.
I'm not sure where you get this movie fantasy idea of yours.
Also, he doesn't have to convince the judge of ANYTHING. Please get that through your head. That's not how jury trials work.
Actually he does have to convince a judge prior to presenting a necessity defense at trial. That's how the US federal courts work.
And it's easy-peasy to argue the 4 "points" you try to make. Ongoing breach of the constitution is more than "imminent" harm - it's actual harm
Except the standard is imminent harm. Who is faced with imminent harm from the year collection of information?
And arguing is different than convincing a judge to allow the defense.
And lets face it - revealing what was going on put a crimp in the ops - even the government admits this.
However, it did not prevent the surveillance from occurring, which means it would fall short of the prevent standard.
In fact arguing it put a crimp on the operation might hurt him because he interfered with legal intelligence operations against foreign nationals. Remember, it is perfectly legal for US intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign countries and their citizens, so damaging that ability is not proving that he prevent harm because there is no harm.
And no, he didn't have any realistic legal alternatives to releasing the information. Name one. Complaining to the people who were actively breaking the law?
He had a well established formal method to complain about the actions. A long as that exists and he did not use it he failed to meet the standard for a necessity defense.
That would be like complaining to the mafia that they're running a protection racket, or the bikers that they're selling drugs.
Really? Nice movie fantasy strawman you're conjuring up.
And no, giving the material to the Russians and Chinese isn't a problem - they would have to prove that it was given only to the Russians and Chinese - it was given to the whole darn world. The whole "Russian and Chinese" thing is a smokescreen.
Nope, it's still espionage and separate from his argument about the necessity of revealing the extent of what the government was doing to the public since it was a separate act. Simply because he revealed classified material to person A and the material became widely known doesn't mean it wasn't a crime to reveal it to B as well.
And what part of "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" isn't true or relevant? Not backing off from it at all - I'd give it a 5-10% chance in the US, and about 50-50 in places where jurors know their rights and aren't afraid to cheese of judges, like Canada (especially Quebec).
Well, since he would be tried in the US what a Canadian jury would do is irrelevant. Your "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" comment is relevant to my point that you agree with me that an acquittal or mistrial in the US is very unlikely; as evidenced by your 5 - 10% chance comment. It looks like we actually agree on my point.
Jury nullification is a two edged sword. Just as it can be used to prevent convicting someone who actually did a moral thing it can also be sued to let actual criminals go do to the prejudices of a community. It's easy to say the latter will never happen but history shows that not to be the case.
However, if the government tries to go with your story line, that he worked for the Russians and Chinese, and that he should have just leaked it to newspapers, I'd put his chances of acquittal in the US at well over 50%.
Who knows what their strategy would be? I pointed out one possible story line out of many. At any rate, he probably would not clear the requirements to even be able to present a necessary defense.
For sake of argument, lets assume he passes the direct civil disobedience test and thus gets to make the case to the judge that he should be able to mount a necessity defenses. To do so, he'd need to convince the judge that he:
1. was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser. Again, let's assume this is the case because not all circuits include this. So we are left with:
2. proving he acted to prevent imminent harm. This is a tough one since he would have to show some actual injury not some probable or conjectured one.
3. Then he'd have to show his actions have a direct causal relationship what he did and averting the harm. This is hard because his actions dd not stop the collection of data or the government's attempts to do so. It may have made it harder but it did not avert the arm claimed in 2.
4. Finally, he'd have to prove that he exhausted all legal alternatives to what he did. This would probably stop him in his tracks because he didn't do this. He had legal alternatives to taking the information and releasing it.
As a result, he might not even get to make a necessity defense.
His final problem is he went beyond the factors above when he gave the material to the Chinese and Russians. He had already made the public aware of what was going on and yet continued to provide information in an apparent, and later successful, attempt to avoid prosecution. Once you go beyond doing what is needed to prevent harm you could still be found guilty of a crime. For example, if I rescue a dog from the cold but then refuse to turn it over I could be hailed for the former and charged with theft for the latter. In his case, informing the public would not excuse committing espionage by providing the Russians and Chinese with US secrets. Which is why, in the end, I think he has a very slim chance of success in a US court. Your 5 - 10% may be correct or even too high.
Please don't try to say what I'm thinking when there's no evidence to back up your suppositions. I never said anything that would indicate that there's no risk of Snowdon being convicted. You're arguing a strawman.
Good. Now it's only a question of how big a risk of conviction; I think it's pretty high.
Nevertheless, the law is clear - the defense of justification is allowed (and I cited the law elsewhere - feel free to look through the comments), contrary to your movie scenario.
And I have never said he couldn't use a necessary defense, in fact I said I thought it was probably his best shot. However, one aspect of that defense is that there were no legal alternatives to violating the law. If if he could prove, for example that he acted to prevent imminent harm, the legal alternative standard adds another bar on top of that; which is why I think going to trial is very risky for him.
I missed where you cited US case law in this thread. The only example you gave was a Canadian one; which while interesting has no bearing on US law. There is however, US examples that address the allowably of a necessity defense, though they aren't necessarily consistent in defining it's components. Until the Supreme Court settles the question its still allowable but how and what must be shown is not consistent across the US.
So, the law, contrary to what your claim, is on my side in saying that it's possible - not probable, but possible. What next - citing Star Wars as a legal reference?
You start out by talking about jury nullification, something Federal courts do not allow to be brought up; then went on to say "All it takes is one juror to hang a jury... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario. Now your backing off that and saying it's just Possible. I agree, it's possible but not very probable,as I have said all along.
And Hans did fire first.
Guess it shows the difference in our jury systems - the only thing the two sides are allowed to ask is your name, age, and occupation. A lot less room for "cherry-picking" a jury, and much more likely to get people who are educated and knowledgeable. You can't stack your jury with old grandmothers who watch Faux when most women work and you have only limited peremptory challenges.
Except he would be tried in a US court where jurors can be questioned so what other judicial systems allow is irrelevant. I do agree that it would be better if fewer citizens could avoid jury duty and we got broader base of prospective jurors. Courts in the US also limit peremptory challenges.
Also, I have not even made up my mind on whether he should be convicted or not. I see both sides of the story, and neither is as cut and dried as anyone makes it out to be.
I agree, but I think he has a much more difficult challenge in avoiding a conviction than the government has in getting one. Either way, he's in a real tough spot and it sounds like living in Russia is starting to wear on him.
Electromagnetic spectrum is managed at the federal level in the US. It's managed by individual countries in the EU. That's the main reason why operators are localized to specific countries in the EU, but are not localized to specific states in the US.
Exactly. the Eu's structure makes it very difficult to enact any EU wide rules and enforce them; thus each country acts in a manner that is most beneficial for it's own interests. There is nothing wrong with that but it results in a patchwork of rules, currencies and industries.
Slashdot Mirror
At 59 years old, statistically Mr. Stenn isn't going to live long enough to maintain NTP for another 30 years. Perhaps something so crucial should be a voluntary communal effort?
From the sounds of it he wouldn't mind a bunch of young Turks with tons of relevant experience saying "Hey, I 'd like to help and am not only willing to do it for free but front some of the costs out of pocket. BTW, I'd love to put in some crazy hours at times where a critical patch needs to come out and get bitched at by people who didn't do anything to help but feel free to complain when they don't like what I did." As others point out, another issue is what happens when he stops doing this? Who takes over? My guess is if he really does throw in the towel, as soon as some company starts having problems or losing money they will come hat in hand offering to pay for his consulting services. If, as the article points out, large banks and brokerage firms depend on it to prove they complied with the law, coughing up a few million will be no problem. Of course, then they'll decide what needs fixing and may not care what problems other companies have that need to be fixed to keep their machines or companies running well.
I am not so sure. I know plenty of conservatives who would like to keep their guns while denying that right to those who don't look like them. Then again, anecdote doen't equal data in any case.
I also hate spell checking.
I built my 2 AR-15 rifles, this stuff isn't rocket science - but it's probably a little to advanced for any liberal journalist.
I find it curious that people want to make gun ownership a liberal vs. conservative issue. I know many liberals who either own guns or have no problem with guns. Personally, I appreciate a well made weapon and enjoy target shooting with a fine weapon. I also realize the importance of securing a weapon so that it doen't used in an inappropriate manner and believ the 2cd is a god amendment. A gun is a tool to be used properly and not some replacement for a functional penis. To me, owning a gun and supporting liberal ideals is not an existential contradiction, nor requires some bullshit rational to justify such a position. It's simply a choice I have aright to make. Some like to point to Switzerland as an example of why gun ownership doesn't mean guns are bad yet ignore the many liberal concepts the Swiss also embrace, such as universal healthcare or safe free abortions. To argue one point while ignoring the other is an existential conridiction to my admitly simple mind. YMMV. HAND.
I'm curious. Where exactly did you "last check"?
Fantasyland, where they sky can be any color you want.
> cause untraceable transactions
And this differs from cash, how? And...what's so untraceable about bitcoin, considering every transaction *permanently and publicly stored*. It's such a pain in the ass to anonymize, that even Dread Pirate Roberts seemingly got sick of it.
WhilenI agre with your comments re: Bitcoin anonymity it does differ from ash in that I need to actually hand you cash rather than make a payment from McD's via free WiFi. cash transactions are limited by the need to to a face to face exchange.
If that were true, Timex would have destroyed the Swiss watch industry. Yet Patek, AP et al are doing fine. That market isn't about telling time but making a statement. A Patek says I appreciate a finely crafted timeless design and don't need to blast "look at me" by wearing a Rolex. It's not copied by every mass market brand yet those who appreciate a fine watch knows what it is; and is a watch that you will pass down from generation to generation. In addition, people who buy numerous watches will continue to do so because they like the design and want to have a choice of waht they want in their wrist. Formal dinner? Time for the gold Cellini. Day a the beach? Seamaster. Building a fence or stone wall? The Timex that will survive the scrapes and doesn't cost $500 to replace a crystal. Apple will do fine but so will the Swiss. An Apple watch will simply be one more to add to the collection Now, if I was Motorola or Samsung? Yea, I'd be worried.
1 buy up potentially valuable property
2 don't use it to prevent others from entering the market
3 Profit from the lack of competion
What Lassie? Dad has thyroid cancer? I better go call an oncologist.
Who gets to decide what 'asshattery' is? So many times people are labeled trolls for not towing the party line. The consequences should not be a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice.
Certainly not. The problem now is what used to be a loocal phenomena and can result in, as you put it, a smiting by the iron fist of great social justice, followed by a counter reaction to the smiters; resulting in consequences that go far beyond the initial event. Censorship is not the answer but I do not know what is.
"Being civil" is merely an appeal to 'manners' which is in turn an appeal to defense of feelings. The problem occurs when facts and truth are denied for the sake of them. People label people assholes all the time for speaking unpopular truth.
There is a difference between speaking an unpopular truth and suggesting assulting someone. While both are, and justifiably so, protected speech there is. Adifference between the two. One can present an unpleasent truth without being an asshat. I realize some peopel would like to muzzle anyone tht speaks something they find disagreeable. They should not be allowed to do so anymore thn someone who is being an asshat should be free of consequences under the guise of free speech. You can say what you want but have to live with the consequences.
(IANAL) In Illinois, and likely most other states, if you believe that a crime will take place during the recording of a phone call (and this does likely count as a felony), you can record it without permission of the other party. In addition, you are shielded from prosecution for breaking wiretapping laws & your surreptitiously recorded evidence can be used for prosecution.
In some US states only one party consent is needed to you can record to your heart's content since you consent. No need to do get the other party's consent.
Had one of these (and only one)... told them I only had Mac's at home, and the guy got belligerent and said I was lying, then finally after telling him that over and over for a good minute he basically said FU and hung up. Can't imagine what they'd say if I said I only ran Linux, or something really obscure ("Sorry, I only run OpenVMS"). =D So yeah... guess their scheme falls over pretty quickly if you don't have a Windows box...
Only if yo let it. I've gotten those calls and kept them on for quite some time and listen to them get more and more frustrated when they can't seem to get me to give them access but am only seconds away from giving them a credit card number. Frankly, after a while I give up and offer to pay and here is my credit...click...dial tone...
I was wondering what got you on double secret probation. I was on secret probation once. I didn't find out until suspension that I was ever on probation.
Nothing much:
dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the varsity swim meet
delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner
filled trees with underwear every Halloween
toilets exploding in the spring
As a result, seven years of college down the drain.
1. Create app that is old wine in a new model
2. Get college kids to use it and possibly say some things others may find offensive or stupid; i.e. get them to act like college kids
3. Get NYT to write article
4. Profit
Not all speech is protected.
Actually it is; it's the consequences of the speech that get you in trouble.
will get you kicked out faster than banging Dean Wormer's wife.
Only if you are on double secret probation.
OK, Try listening to some television recorded in the 1970s or 1980s and then listen to today's equivalent. Back then, people would identify each other by ethnicity and criticize each other openly. Nada today. Demonstrates a clear censorship, and calling it 'self-censorship' is bullshit, it's a centrally mandated process. Everyone feels better, right?
What you call self-censorship I would call being civil. A society establishes rules and norms for behaviors it considers acceptable, and individuals are still free to act contrary to those norms; however such actions are subject to the condemnation of society at large.
But when anonymity is achieved, as in trolls on the net and this service, people show their true colors.
Being oblivious to the process doesn't mean it didn't happen.
There are always assholes in this world; and most are cowards who would hide behind anonymity to avoid getting their ass kicked. Others simply think it's funny without regard to the consequences of their actions; that is especially true, as studies show, of teenagers who have not yet fully developed the capacity to think their actions through to possible consequences.
I am all for free speech, even what I would find distasteful, since censoring it doesn't allow people to address issues it raises and the best way to address bad ideas is to expose them to the light of day. However, schools also have the problem of balancing speech with acting in the face of a threat. It's all well and good to say most of them are simply juvenile jokes, even if they do hurt others, and will not be acted on; however how do you separate those from a real threat. More importantly, how do accomplish that without trampling on free speech rights?
As an aside, I find the Leonard Law interesting in that it compels private institutions to comply with government limit son restricting speech. What I find interesting is it was proposed by a Republican, which goes to show they are for private property rights and limited government until someone does something they don't like and then the "heavy hand" of "government overreach" is brought out to compile someone to comply with their viewpoint of what is correct. Sometimes I think the two parties in the US should merge and just call themselves the Hypocrisy Party with the head of an ass and the body of an elephant to demonstrate their thinking capacity and view of the proper size of a government.
I never owned a Mac, classic or otherwise. I did, however, own an Apple //e. The Mac icons were so well designed, I found some Macintosh sales literature and was able to duplicate the icons using some Apple // drawing programs. The most notable was the Trash Can.
These icons deserve to be preserved.
Having owned various Apples of the ][ andMac variety it is also interesting to see how the icons have evolved. The various folder designs have been interesting over the years.
Gee, even your quote of my quote proves you to be a liar. You really need to learn how to read!!! What I say:
All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
Two different things. First, I doubt it will ever go to trial. Snowdon is probably just tweaking the government's nose (as I said before). That is the most likely event - say 80% or more. Every other outcome is minor in comparison, including a hung jury, a conviction, or a mistrial. It almost definitely will not go to trial. Now, let's look at the favorable outcomes in the very low probability that it actually goes to trial.
Overall, his chances of winning greatly exceed 10%, since you forgot to add up all the different reasons I've given for him winning. Hung jury - 5-10%. Justification defense - 20-40%.
Here is where we clearly disagree. I doubt that he would be allowed to mount a justification defense given he could not meet the criteria the Federal courts use of allowing such a defense.
You claimed that he should have just given the info to reporters, when in fact that's what he did.
Nope. I said the government could make such an argument; I never said what he did or didn't do.
You first claimed that there's no legal defense of justification, when it's part and parcel of the law, and now you're changing your story.
Wrong again. I said he'd have a hard time mounting one, not that there is no legal defense of justification.
You got your "facts" from a MOVIE (try admitting that into evidence).
You keep bring up this movie. Where have I said anything about a movie? You keep bringing that up but never show where I used a movie to justify my position.
You claimed that they have to convince the judge, and not the jury.
The judge, in a Federal court, gets to decide if a justification defense is allowed to be presented to the jury. I've pointed out the conditions that must be met and why I think Snowden would have a hard time meeting them.
And you claimed that I was saying that it was very likely that he would get a hung jury, when in fact what I made it clear he wasn't likely to even get to trial.
The sentence you quoted above clearly states that you'd expect the trial outcome, if there was a trial, to be a hung jury. if you are backing away from that, that's fine, but that is what you said initially.
He doesn't want to be tried unless he can turn it into a show trial. The government doesn't want to try him. It's all "performance art." And now that he's too visible, they can't even suicide him.
Yea, I don't think he'd be tried either. He may want to come back but the government has no compelling reason to cut a deal so they can just wait him out./P.
You're really such a liar. I went through the whole thread, and nowhere did I say that a hung jury would be a likely outcome.
Post (#49181845) All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario.
Same as you lied when you claimed that he "could have gone to reporters first", when in fact that's what he did.
Except my actual statement was a prosecutor could make such an argument; not a statement of what he did or didn't do. Although, if i remember correctly, he first fled to Hong Kong before he revealed the documents.
And no, giving everything to the whole world is not "spying for Russia and China".
However, he did give them to China and Russia, which is a classic case of espionage independent of anything else he did. Furthermore, Congress has specifically approved conducting surveillance against foreign countries and thus preemption would apply, i.e. the legislature has stated the activity is legal and thus a policy determination has been made that the protects the evil he is protesting.
So, in summary: Don't use a movie as a legal reference,
You keep bring up a movie - to what are you referring?
don't use court cases that were dismissed because the perps actions had no direct connection with the acts they were protesting against
The problem Snowden has is his actions might not meet the standard of preventing the harm since his actions would not result in the US stopping collection of intelligence. Courts have ruled against justification as a defense when the actions would not be expected to stop the supposed harm.
don't continue to claim that the judge is the one who has to be convinced in a jury trial,
Except Federal judges do get to decide if a necessity defense is allowable and thus have to be convinced all the requirements for one is met before it goes to a jury.
and don't contradict what the law says when it says that justification is a defense.
I never said it wasn't a possible defense, just that it is a very difficult one to use successfully. You seem to miss the point I was making; even as you said his you'd give him a 5-10% chance in the US in Post #49202025.
So what exactly is your point. We both agree that justification is a defense and that he has a slim chance of winning his case. Is it you don't think he has to meet the standards set by a Federal court to mount a justification defense? If that's the case then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Gee, you really want to beat a dead horse, don't you. "It only takes on juror to hang a jury" applies in the US.
Never said it didn't. You first claimed it would be a likely outcome and then backed down to a 5 - 10% chance when you finally agreed with me.
We don't agree on anything because you started out with the premise that a conviction was a foregone conclusion, that US law did not allow any form of "justification" defense - based on a MOVIE you saw - and that the only case ANYONE has quoted failed the test because the act was they were convicted of was not in any way related to what they were protesting.
Actually, I said none of that. I did say he has a very difficult time proving a necessity defense, and thus going to trial in the US is very risky thing for him. Perhaps you think a 5 - 10 % chance (your numbers, BTW) of not being convicted is not risky?I did say lawyers are not allowed to bring up jury nullification to the jury, which is different than a justification (necessity) defense.
I'm not sure where you get this movie fantasy idea of yours.
Also, he doesn't have to convince the judge of ANYTHING. Please get that through your head. That's not how jury trials work.
Actually he does have to convince a judge prior to presenting a necessity defense at trial. That's how the US federal courts work.
And it's easy-peasy to argue the 4 "points" you try to make. Ongoing breach of the constitution is more than "imminent" harm - it's actual harm
Except the standard is imminent harm. Who is faced with imminent harm from the year collection of information?
And arguing is different than convincing a judge to allow the defense.
And lets face it - revealing what was going on put a crimp in the ops - even the government admits this.
However, it did not prevent the surveillance from occurring, which means it would fall short of the prevent standard.
In fact arguing it put a crimp on the operation might hurt him because he interfered with legal intelligence operations against foreign nationals. Remember, it is perfectly legal for US intelligence agencies to collect information on foreign countries and their citizens, so damaging that ability is not proving that he prevent harm because there is no harm.
And no, he didn't have any realistic legal alternatives to releasing the information. Name one. Complaining to the people who were actively breaking the law?
He had a well established formal method to complain about the actions. A long as that exists and he did not use it he failed to meet the standard for a necessity defense.
That would be like complaining to the mafia that they're running a protection racket, or the bikers that they're selling drugs.
Really? Nice movie fantasy strawman you're conjuring up.
And no, giving the material to the Russians and Chinese isn't a problem - they would have to prove that it was given only to the Russians and Chinese - it was given to the whole darn world. The whole "Russian and Chinese" thing is a smokescreen.
Nope, it's still espionage and separate from his argument about the necessity of revealing the extent of what the government was doing to the public since it was a separate act. Simply because he revealed classified material to person A and the material became widely known doesn't mean it wasn't a crime to reveal it to B as well.
And what part of "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" isn't true or relevant? Not backing off from it at all - I'd give it a 5-10% chance in the US, and about 50-50 in places where jurors know their rights and aren't afraid to cheese of judges, like Canada (especially Quebec).
Well, since he would be tried in the US what a Canadian jury would do is irrelevant. Your "it only takes one joror to hang a jury" comment is relevant to my point that you agree with me that an acquittal or mistrial in the US is very unlikely; as evidenced by your 5 - 10% chance comment. It looks like we actually agree on my point.
Jury nullification is a two edged sword. Just as it can be used to prevent convicting someone who actually did a moral thing it can also be sued to let actual criminals go do to the prejudices of a community. It's easy to say the latter will never happen but history shows that not to be the case.
However, if the government tries to go with your story line, that he worked for the Russians and Chinese, and that he should have just leaked it to newspapers, I'd put his chances of acquittal in the US at well over 50%.
Who knows what their strategy would be? I pointed out one possible story line out of many. At any rate, he probably would not clear the requirements to even be able to present a necessary defense.
For sake of argument, lets assume he passes the direct civil disobedience test and thus gets to make the case to the judge that he should be able to mount a necessity defenses. To do so, he'd need to convince the judge that he:
1. was faced with a choice of evils and chose the lesser. Again, let's assume this is the case because not all circuits include this. So we are left with:
2. proving he acted to prevent imminent harm. This is a tough one since he would have to show some actual injury not some probable or conjectured one.
3. Then he'd have to show his actions have a direct causal relationship what he did and averting the harm. This is hard because his actions dd not stop the collection of data or the government's attempts to do so. It may have made it harder but it did not avert the arm claimed in 2.
4. Finally, he'd have to prove that he exhausted all legal alternatives to what he did. This would probably stop him in his tracks because he didn't do this. He had legal alternatives to taking the information and releasing it.
As a result, he might not even get to make a necessity defense.
His final problem is he went beyond the factors above when he gave the material to the Chinese and Russians. He had already made the public aware of what was going on and yet continued to provide information in an apparent, and later successful, attempt to avoid prosecution. Once you go beyond doing what is needed to prevent harm you could still be found guilty of a crime. For example, if I rescue a dog from the cold but then refuse to turn it over I could be hailed for the former and charged with theft for the latter. In his case, informing the public would not excuse committing espionage by providing the Russians and Chinese with US secrets. Which is why, in the end, I think he has a very slim chance of success in a US court. Your 5 - 10% may be correct or even too high.
Please don't try to say what I'm thinking when there's no evidence to back up your suppositions. I never said anything that would indicate that there's no risk of Snowdon being convicted. You're arguing a strawman.
Good. Now it's only a question of how big a risk of conviction; I think it's pretty high.
Nevertheless, the law is clear - the defense of justification is allowed (and I cited the law elsewhere - feel free to look through the comments), contrary to your movie scenario.
And I have never said he couldn't use a necessary defense, in fact I said I thought it was probably his best shot. However, one aspect of that defense is that there were no legal alternatives to violating the law. If if he could prove, for example that he acted to prevent imminent harm, the legal alternative standard adds another bar on top of that; which is why I think going to trial is very risky for him.
I missed where you cited US case law in this thread. The only example you gave was a Canadian one; which while interesting has no bearing on US law. There is however, US examples that address the allowably of a necessity defense, though they aren't necessarily consistent in defining it's components. Until the Supreme Court settles the question its still allowable but how and what must be shown is not consistent across the US.
So, the law, contrary to what your claim, is on my side in saying that it's possible - not probable, but possible. What next - citing Star Wars as a legal reference?
You start out by talking about jury nullification, something Federal courts do not allow to be brought up; then went on to say "All it takes is one juror to hang a jury ... and IF it ever goes to trial (doubtful) that's a likely scenario. Now your backing off that and saying it's just Possible. I agree, it's possible but not very probable,as I have said all along.
And Hans did fire first.
Guess it shows the difference in our jury systems - the only thing the two sides are allowed to ask is your name, age, and occupation. A lot less room for "cherry-picking" a jury, and much more likely to get people who are educated and knowledgeable. You can't stack your jury with old grandmothers who watch Faux when most women work and you have only limited peremptory challenges.
Except he would be tried in a US court where jurors can be questioned so what other judicial systems allow is irrelevant. I do agree that it would be better if fewer citizens could avoid jury duty and we got broader base of prospective jurors. Courts in the US also limit peremptory challenges.
Also, I have not even made up my mind on whether he should be convicted or not. I see both sides of the story, and neither is as cut and dried as anyone makes it out to be.
I agree, but I think he has a much more difficult challenge in avoiding a conviction than the government has in getting one. Either way, he's in a real tough spot and it sounds like living in Russia is starting to wear on him.
Electromagnetic spectrum is managed at the federal level in the US. It's managed by individual countries in the EU. That's the main reason why operators are localized to specific countries in the EU, but are not localized to specific states in the US.
Exactly. the Eu's structure makes it very difficult to enact any EU wide rules and enforce them; thus each country acts in a manner that is most beneficial for it's own interests. There is nothing wrong with that but it results in a patchwork of rules, currencies and industries.