We agree you can sign away your rights - perhaps even up to the right to life - by signing a do not rescusistate will.
What the state cannot do is be complicit in a deprivation. So is the state depriving their first amendment right to speech because wireless is a media of speech - is this a state colledge - or is the state complicit in the operation of the college. I would argue generally that if the state accepts the credientials of the collegs fo government grants or jobs then the state is complicit because without state recognition - the university could not justify its cost.
So the argument should be that the state cannot deprive the right to speech without due process, which means a knowing agreement, contract and quid pro quo. Moreoever the state cannot coerce the subject to reliquish their rights.
I think this is actionable under the first amendment - let's hope.
Before the flames start - I'm not in favor of regulating - however
In our Village, we elected to have a single trash collector, the price went down 70% and as result we have 5 times less wear and tear on our roads.
So there is a model in which minimizing competition lowers consumer prices - dangerous but possible.
It is tempting for unions - be they government corps or otherwise - to avoid the temptation of economies of scale and resulting discounts. Trade restriction is a way to create effeciencies of scale.
The question is how close the utility is to its theoretic max effeceincy.
If a high percenntage of the utilities costs are fixed, and further expansion yields a high derivitaive of profits to costs then growing the utility results in cost savings, however, if growth requires a linear investment, building more capacity, more techs, more help, then there is no benefit to restricting trade.
Relying on vents on the top surface is a gamble that the owner won't put another computer, an afghan, a cat, or a printer on top of the computer - a much better gamble when the computer is also the monitor.
In order to areo-brake - you must generate energy roughly equivelent to the energy of a launch (adjusted for the new mass, less fuel and ejected stages)
You do this by rubbing yourself against the atmosphere.
Because the density ratio of atmosphere/orbitor is so low, most of the rubbing is done at a low altitude when the air is harder.
If, on the otherhand, you can improve the density ratio at a higher point, then you can take a nice gentle rub starting at the tip of the atmosphere, sliding and slowing as you come down to earth.
This in essence allows you to spread the heat across a much wider area, reduce the max heat at any one point and in general avoiding the columbia problem which is a single point of failure caused by astronomical heat of high density confrontation.
Yeah - if its just the tenor of your speach that's fine - but when you want to research - the court is a bad place to do it.
Also I can't use our 20x30 color printer when i'm at the court to print evidence displays.
If I went into law (again) I would be interested in improveing the effeciency.
Effeciency of a system is usually described as the difference between what a thing actually has to cost = and what you paid for it.
Lawyers see that as profit - bit I see it as a form of classism. Kobe just got off - as much because his lawyers could stick it to the man and much or more than the other way round. If Kobe was a local kid with a PD - I suppose the outcome would be different.
the PD wouldn't have caught the DA on every slip-up, some unwashed hands in the lab would not have poisened the jury pool etc . ..
Soo is Kobe more innocent than the 100s that same DA has prosecuted successfully and are right now behind bars - maybe his other cases were tainted.
Maybe there are a few dozen people in his jail right now how are there because of sloppy DNA evidence which the PD failed to detect.
I think its unacceptable that we punish people because they are poor, and a justice system so obviously scewe in favor of the rich is just that - a way to punish the poor.
"Households with the least incidence of poverty (13 percent) are those with 1-2 children, but those with up to 4 children also have lower incidence of poverty than the national rate. Poverty jumps dramatically to 31 percent for households with 7-8 children, and increases further to 34 percent for those with at least 9 children. "
Genes procreate until the cost of additional procreation threatens the survival of the entire gene.
In the UK people are overnourished. Middle eastern diet is quite healthy - even its worst incarnation. Vegitarian diet is not the end of the world - many prefer it.
Its about education = population = education.
And its about welfare - to much time on their hands - nothing to do - lack of responsability - lack of relationship between work and reward - victom mentality (Always justifiable - victomhood is a generational pandemic) etc . ..
they are like mobs - they behave like mobs - creating their own moral climate and allowing each individual to ignore the effect of their actions because the responsability is masked by suffecient degrees of complexity.
corporations are a liability shield for individuals - if you can't see through the shield - then you are contributing to the "herd mentaility" of America.
What is true is that better educated people have less kids. But even that belies the truth which is that stable populations have the resource to provide education which leads to stable populations.
Look at the Palestines. Which as a whole are on international welfare - incredible population growth!
Total Loss of the old would be a good thing for the space program.
It might be expensive - but really its not.
When the US buys a Space Shuttle - it buys it from the US. Since the US is burning money to keep the economy afloat anyway - HOW it burns the money is moot.
WHERE is not moot. And spending it on NASA is a good deal from the money. Most jobs are in the US, much of the money perculates - rebuilding will advance the cause of education, and lift salaries for engineers in the US - which in turn will attract people who otherwise would become goddammn lawyers into the productive arts - which will boost the GNP which will increase the tax base locally - and which finally will pay for the new shuttle.
Feeding poor people only causes them to have more children - which are even more likely to be poor.
If you solve that dilemma - I'll join food not bombs.
In my heart I applaud the obvious generosity - but you are feeding the ducks - and you won't get happy ducks - you get obese, overpopulated, greedy aggresive competative - as in me-first-in- line-for-the-hand-out-ducks.
I suggest a simple solution - tie tubes and pipes before eating and I will contribute.
Do you know of any people who hyperventilate constantly because air is free?
You need think lessons my friend - I don't usually attack people for their stupidity - but you are coming really close to deserving it.
Do people use up too much air because its free.
Damn Straight they do.
Take the whole state of tennesee - burning tons of coal into the air - which convienently for them wafts over the mountains into N. Carolina where they have some of the nations worst air.
Not only is it "free" to hyperventilate coal - it doesn't even cost them deaths - since those lives are paid in NC.
Part of the reason we don't have safe transportation (as in electric busses, trains) stuff that doesn't cause lung failure - is that we pay the cost of using the road - whether we use ot or not.
Free at the point of use - is not free - its gawddammn expensive - because it is garenteed to be wasted.
If water was free in our homes - no one would even bother to turn off the tapp - "I like the sound the water makes - so I leave it on."
For most people, the cost of stopping to pay the toll is higher than the toll itself less the cost of the tolltaker. - speedpasses solve that and should be made national.
I don't care if the risk is spread between a few rich people who speculate or a few rich people who pay taxes. In otherwords - private doesn't mean much - unless - private means the owner can advertise to drivers - that I abhorr.
What bothers me most - is that as a non-lawyer representing myself - I am treated to a different level of expediency. I believe every defendant should have their cause heard in some non-arbitrary order whether they pay for represention or not. Lawyers seem to come and go through different doors, and they have a different level of access to the court. That is wrong - it should be the people's court - if a person is represented - that should not change in any way how affairs are conducted - nor the amount of prejudgement courtroom-detention.
If one side charges 1/3 and the other side charges the same fee to defend, than the total cost is 4/3 of the judgement, of which the lawyers get half - plus or minus. That is most of the money.
And moreover it is increasingly true of class action suits that the lawyers and ONLY the lawyers benefit.
A Typical Microsoft class action suit in which a million people are entitled to a redeemable coupon discount of $5 off their next purchase - while the lawyer pocket serious hard cash.
I think a Blockbuster case is the actual example.
Lawyers need to clean up their act - not all - i understand - but the greedy ones make the other 2% look bad.
Interesting you mention Napster - I was working at cornerstone research - an IP litigation experts house - and we got the napster case. I left to travel europe after that and left securities foresics to go into imaging.
But I understand your thinking - I also bet you have never met a lawyer with a better grasp of logic than you had as a programmer practiced in hard unforgiving determinism - and with search engines - its much less of a memory game.
One question: - Do you enjoy the work? When I'm in court I think - I don't like all the wasted time - this would be a hellish existence sitting in a room waiting to be called.
Your claim is that Lawyers add value to the system by making it fair - the numbers however suggest that Lawyers add cost to the system by extracting far more money for themselves, than the value they add.
I'm not suggesting that malpractice should be discouraged and addressed, but that system is best in which the doctor pays for his mistake, and the poor sap who is hurt receives a majority of the benefit - that is equity. When the lawyers involved walk away with most of the money - everyone loses.
Lawyers could work for improvements in the effeciency of courts - the use of IM for example - rather than expensive court reporters - but the fact is the courts now have made little progress in productivity because effeciency means less percentage for the lawyers.
That is my perspective.
You seem to be a programmed gone lawyer - i'm not so far behind - representing myself in 2 criminal 2 civil and 1 patent application.
I understand the hard work, the value of thought - the enterprising philosophy - but I also see the waste and lack of progress, and with repect to the criminal courts a lack of concern over the pre-trial detention caused by endless delays and a blatent refusal to address a motion.
I also see judges ignoring the law, civil rights, and making the business of moving on to the next case ASAP a priority.
Increase of production at the expense of quality is not progress - as a class, lawyers are overpaid and not compelled by market forces to compete - this is more tru of lawyers who become judges, and DA than private practice of course.
Most Campaign signs are illegal but tolerated - So do i have a right to express that a cleaner planet and a cleaner campaign is better than an illegal campaign and a filthy planet?
I didn't say it is Black and White - that's the ACLU. the ACLU always comes down against police authority - but the ACLU forgets that people have a right to be free from murderer and rapists, and they forget to stand up - IMHO - for the right of society to life liberty and hapiness.
Ther are so many cases because that isthe dialectic in which we come to better understand the meaning and the balance, but it is a matter of refinement - not a case in which the line is moving - the border is approximately here - then people excersize the new border - and we refine the definitions more accurately.
Another reason we have so much litigation is that Sandra Day O'conner - the (only) swing vote on the Court - refuses to answer broad questions of law, and limits the scope of the rulings to the specificities at hand.
As for God and the Sword - if you don't pay taxes - a man with gun with throw you out of your house and sell your property.
If that money (tax) is used to support religion - than it is not a stretch to describe government funded religion as occuring at the point of a gun.
It may not be a direct and symbolic as the SS raiding a prayer meeting - but there are guns involved - and the point of the guns is to promote a religion - so a great deal of care must be excersized - again I believe God is dishonored by those who would use violence - or blood money to promote his cause. If He is 1/1000000 th as powerful as most religious claim, he should be able to fund and promote his causes without you raiding the public treasury.
Yes - but because what he is doing is obviously speech related - the cops would have to prove that the arrest was not motivated by his speech.
There were like 1,000 other bikes there - presumably hordes of them on the sidewalk. - they picked him - I think a reasonable jury would see why they picked him.
There were many ways in which the founding fathers professed to higher ideals than they practiced.
Take Slavery - which they obviously embrassed.
Juxtipose that with the "evident truth that all men are created equal."
What they did is say that Blacks were a "different race." - and not people. In short the founding fathers endulged in cognative dissonence.
Blacks aren't a different race than whites - which Jefferson soon discovered by sleeping with one.
In interpreting the founding fathers - we are not bound to be blinded to facts in the same way that they blinded themselves.
We live in the realization of their intent - they lived in the realization of someone else's intent, and were bound by the presuppositions of a framework imposed upon them by others. This presupposed framework prevented them from making the leap from their reality to their ideal.
It is common for political leaders to voice uptopias and idealogues which are out of reach - but their expression bring them them closer.
We are closer now to the ideal of "created equal" than the founding fathers.
And we are likely closer to the idea that the state shall not establish religion than were the founding fathers.
If you or I find solace and strength in our religious convictions we are free to excersize the same, but we are also free from being compelled to pay for others religions, or being compelled to make religious utterances - even of being coerced from religious practice.
I believe God is honored most when those who worship him do so - in spirit and in truth - not at the edge of a sword - or by the coersion of the state.
The Amendments are not misunderstood, the application is a balancing act of competing interests: For example - you have a free speech right to put up campaign signs - i have a free speech right not to have government money used to promote partisan causes. Say you want to put up signs on streets and parks, and civic lawns, I want to take them down. Which of us has the first amendment on our side?
But the Supreme court has struggled for more than a rainy sunday afternoon on this issue and the majority reasoned that while there is a difference, free speech means the difference cannot be an element of a crime.
I think at the end of the day - chalk will be found to be protected speech.
It will certainly not be found to be defacement which implies irreversible change.
The point is that both sides should have equal access - the speaker to his speech and the opposition to either cleaning it up - or adding more or both.
That is the fun and sport of message making - and it ought to be freely expressed.
Sure - most people are tired of speech in its various forms - you want less speech - i could name a few hundred countries which offer you less speech.
I have been arrested for speaking, and for cleaning - and I believe both arrests are unconstitutional.
The state - for my money - should keep the peace and let the dialogue proceed uninterupted.
If the RNC doesn't want this guys messages - it should encourage a few people to ride around and clean it up. If not - then the locals who care can sweep it out with the leaves.
If it's nontoxic - then there is no "clear and present danger."
At the end of the day - that phrase "Clear and Present danger" is the bar for censoring speech.
The argument that it costs money is specious, because obviously it does not - there are millions of tons of litter in New York that will go uncollected - the only litter which seriously accumulates is plastic generally.
The City won't spend money to clean up that litter, and it won't spend money to do what the rain will do by the end of the convention anyway.
I think the Police set a bad precedent here - in that they have started by reacting to simple speach. I was hopeful we would have learned to seperate speech from violence - vandalism is defined as calcuable damage to real property - chalk is a hell of a long way from that definition.
I cited Houston v. Hill years ago, and I remembered it or something i read at that time relating to chalk. I believe that Hill had a history of being arrested for chalking anti police messages in Houston. Now, 7 years later - that referance was a quick find.
The point is that [Hill] is a Supreme Court precedent used by others to estimate the bar with respect to protected anti-establishment speech.
Hill is binding precedent in NY. Hands Down.
I'm fairly certain that chalking the sidewalk in NY has a long tradition of being acceptable speech. I oppose litter, signs, handbills even, but chalking the sidewalk takes care of itself at no cost to anyone, and it is relatively unobtrusive - less than erected campaign signs for example. I hope the arrest people for stapling BUSH '04 signs to telephone poles.
But Thanks for the informed reply - you should be modded up.
And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY ...Relying, inter alia, on the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, we ruled in Mackinney v. Nielsen that expressive conduct such as writing with chalk on the sidewalk does not itself create probable cause for arrest...
He should be released ASAP, and the state should pay for his pains, plus reimburse the lost opportunity costs.
(All this said - i believe the first amendment protectes those who disagree with protected speech and their right to "clean up the mess" personally i prefer to collect litter on a stick - and have been arrested for that so - it cuts both ways.
But I believe that lawyers as the problem with law.
Medicine should be excersized only be skilled practitioners because most people do not need to understand how a heart bypass is done,
However, the theory of law, is first and foremost that the people can understand it.
If ordinary people can't understand the law, it is too complicated - also, if a person is so unintelligent that he cannot understand the law, he likely shouldn't be held responsible anyway.
Lawyers, as agents of private persons, permit the law to favor rich people, or said another way, they make accessing one's constitutional rights a question of cost.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you've cornered the issue here.
We agree you can sign away your rights - perhaps even up to the right to life - by signing a do not rescusistate will.
What the state cannot do is be complicit in a deprivation. So is the state depriving their first amendment right to speech because wireless is a media of speech - is this a state colledge - or is the state complicit in the operation of the college. I would argue generally that if the state accepts the credientials of the collegs fo government grants or jobs then the state is complicit because without state recognition - the university could not justify its cost.
So the argument should be that the state cannot deprive the right to speech without due process, which means a knowing agreement, contract and quid pro quo. Moreoever the state cannot coerce the subject to reliquish their rights.
I think this is actionable under the first amendment - let's hope.
AIK
Before the flames start - I'm not in favor of regulating - however
In our Village, we elected to have a single trash collector, the price went down 70% and as result we have 5 times less wear and tear on our roads.
So there is a model in which minimizing competition lowers consumer prices - dangerous but possible.
It is tempting for unions - be they government corps or otherwise - to avoid the temptation of economies of scale and resulting discounts. Trade restriction is a way to create effeciencies of scale.
The question is how close the utility is to its theoretic max effeceincy.
If a high percenntage of the utilities costs are fixed, and further expansion yields a high derivitaive of profits to costs then growing the utility results in cost savings, however, if growth requires a linear investment, building more capacity, more techs, more help, then there is no benefit to restricting trade.
AIK
Relying on vents on the top surface is a gamble that the owner won't put another computer, an afghan, a cat, or a printer on top of the computer - a much better gamble when the computer is also the monitor.
What's more interesting is the slow speed fans.
AIK
Here's an argument for sucess.
In order to areo-brake - you must generate energy roughly equivelent to the energy of a launch (adjusted for the new mass, less fuel and ejected stages)
You do this by rubbing yourself against the atmosphere.
Because the density ratio of atmosphere/orbitor is so low, most of the rubbing is done at a low altitude when the air is harder.
If, on the otherhand, you can improve the density ratio at a higher point, then you can take a nice gentle rub starting at the tip of the atmosphere, sliding and slowing as you come down to earth.
This in essence allows you to spread the heat across a much wider area, reduce the max heat at any one point and in general avoiding the columbia problem which is a single point of failure caused by astronomical heat of high density confrontation.
AIK
Yeah - if its just the tenor of your speach that's fine - but when you want to research - the court is a bad place to do it.
.
Also I can't use our 20x30 color printer when i'm at the court to print evidence displays.
If I went into law (again) I would be interested in improveing the effeciency.
Effeciency of a system is usually described as the difference between what a thing actually has to cost = and what you paid for it.
Lawyers see that as profit - bit I see it as a form of classism. Kobe just got off - as much because his lawyers could stick it to the man and much or more than the other way round. If Kobe was a local kid with a PD - I suppose the outcome would be different.
the PD wouldn't have caught the DA on every slip-up, some unwashed hands in the lab would not have poisened the jury pool etc . .
Soo is Kobe more innocent than the 100s that same DA has prosecuted successfully and are right now behind bars - maybe his other cases were tainted.
Maybe there are a few dozen people in his jail right now how are there because of sloppy DNA evidence which the PD failed to detect.
I think its unacceptable that we punish people because they are poor, and a justice system so obviously scewe in favor of the rich is just that - a way to punish the poor.
AIK
Or this Site
"Households with the least incidence of poverty (13 percent) are those with 1-2 children, but those with up to 4 children also have lower incidence of poverty than the national rate. Poverty jumps dramatically to 31 percent for households with 7-8 children, and increases further to 34 percent for those with at least 9 children. "
Genes procreate until the cost of additional procreation threatens the survival of the entire gene.
That is how genes compete.
AIK
Look at the Numbers
...
... ...
.
Indicators
Life expectancy (years) 71.6
is very close to Uk
Births per woman 6.5 1.7
Births are 4 times the UK!
Adult literacy (%) 89.2
Education is non-existant!
Undernourished People
(% of total)
There are no undernourished people.
This isn't about food.
In the UK people are overnourished. Middle eastern diet is quite healthy - even its worst incarnation. Vegitarian diet is not the end of the world - many prefer it.
Its about education = population = education.
And its about welfare - to much time on their hands - nothing to do - lack of responsability -
lack of relationship between work and reward - victom mentality (Always justifiable - victomhood is a generational pandemic) etc . .
But i like your ideas and wish they were true.
AIK
corporations are just groups of people.
they are like mobs - they behave like mobs - creating their own moral climate and allowing each individual to ignore the effect of their actions because the responsability is masked by suffecient degrees of complexity.
corporations are a liability shield for individuals - if you can't see through the shield - then you are contributing to the "herd mentaility" of America.
Again - keep America safe - don't vote.
Wish it were true.
What is true is that better educated people have less kids. But even that belies the truth which is that stable populations have the resource to provide education which leads to stable populations.
Look at the Palestines. Which as a whole are on international welfare - incredible population growth!
Feed the fire you get a bigger fire.
Educate the fire and you get a match.
AIK
The money we would have spent with lawyers we can now invest in our product."
'nough said.
AIK
Total Loss of the old would be a good thing for the space program.
It might be expensive - but really its not.
When the US buys a Space Shuttle - it buys it from the US. Since the US is burning money to keep the economy afloat anyway - HOW it burns the money is moot.
WHERE is not moot. And spending it on NASA is a good deal from the money. Most jobs are in the US, much of the money perculates - rebuilding will advance the cause of education, and lift salaries for engineers in the US - which in turn will attract people who otherwise would become goddammn lawyers into the productive arts - which will boost the GNP which will increase the tax base locally - and which finally will pay for the new shuttle.
An act of God is a terrible thing to waste.
AIK
The only problem with that is this:
Feeding poor people only causes them to have more children - which are even more likely to be poor.
If you solve that dilemma - I'll join food not bombs.
In my heart I applaud the obvious generosity - but you are feeding the ducks - and you won't get happy ducks - you get obese, overpopulated, greedy aggresive competative - as in me-first-in- line-for-the-hand-out-ducks.
I suggest a simple solution - tie tubes and pipes before eating and I will contribute.
AIK
Do you know of any people who hyperventilate constantly because air is free?
You need think lessons my friend - I don't usually attack people for their stupidity - but you are coming really close to deserving it.
Do people use up too much air because its free.
Damn Straight they do.
Take the whole state of tennesee - burning tons of coal into the air - which convienently for them wafts over the mountains into N. Carolina where they have some of the nations worst air.
Not only is it "free" to hyperventilate coal - it doesn't even cost them deaths - since those lives are paid in NC.
Do me a favor - don't vote.
AIK
who cares about the home anyway - I want wireless everywhere.
Much more interested in community meshnets - than fiber into my house.
Houses are isolation chambers for people who have been entertained out of the practice of social interaction.
I say let the house go dark - give me net access in the parks, and communal areas.
AIK
Toll road are great!
Part of the reason we don't have safe transportation (as in electric busses, trains) stuff that doesn't cause lung failure - is that we pay the cost of using the road - whether we use ot or not.
Free at the point of use - is not free - its gawddammn expensive - because it is garenteed to be wasted.
If water was free in our homes - no one would even bother to turn off the tapp - "I like the sound the water makes - so I leave it on."
For most people, the cost of stopping to pay the toll is higher than the toll itself less the cost of the tolltaker.
- speedpasses solve that and should be made national.
I don't care if the risk is spread between a few rich people who speculate or a few rich people who pay taxes. In otherwords - private doesn't mean much - unless - private means the owner can advertise to drivers - that I abhorr.
AIK
What bothers me most - is that as a non-lawyer representing myself - I am treated to a different level of expediency. I believe every defendant should have their cause heard in some non-arbitrary order whether they pay for represention or not. Lawyers seem to come and go through different doors, and they have a different level of access to the court. That is wrong - it should be the people's court - if a person is represented - that should not change in any way how affairs are conducted - nor the amount of prejudgement courtroom-detention.
If one side charges 1/3 and the other side charges the same fee to defend, than the total cost is 4/3 of the judgement, of which the lawyers get half - plus or minus. That is most of the money.
And moreover it is increasingly true of class action suits that the lawyers and ONLY the lawyers benefit.
A Typical Microsoft class action suit in which a million people are entitled to a redeemable coupon discount of $5 off their next purchase - while the lawyer pocket serious hard cash.
I think a Blockbuster case is the actual example.
Lawyers need to clean up their act - not all - i understand - but the greedy ones make the other 2% look bad.
Interesting you mention Napster - I was working at cornerstone research - an IP litigation experts house - and we got the napster case. I left to travel europe after that and left securities foresics to go into imaging.
But I understand your thinking - I also bet you have never met a lawyer with a better grasp of logic than you had as a programmer practiced in hard unforgiving determinism - and with search engines - its much less of a memory game.
One question: - Do you enjoy the work? When I'm in court I think - I don't like all the wasted time - this would be a hellish existence sitting in a room waiting to be called.
AIK
Your claim is that Lawyers add value to the system by making it fair - the numbers however suggest that Lawyers add cost to the system by extracting far more money for themselves, than the value they add.
I'm not suggesting that malpractice should be discouraged and addressed, but that system is best in which the doctor pays for his mistake, and the poor sap who is hurt receives a majority of the benefit - that is equity. When the lawyers involved walk away with most of the money - everyone loses.
Lawyers could work for improvements in the effeciency of courts - the use of IM for example - rather than expensive court reporters - but the fact is the courts now have made little progress in productivity because effeciency means less percentage for the lawyers.
That is my perspective.
You seem to be a programmed gone lawyer - i'm not so far behind - representing myself in 2 criminal 2 civil and 1 patent application.
I understand the hard work, the value of thought - the enterprising philosophy - but I also see the waste and lack of progress, and with repect to the criminal courts a lack of concern over the pre-trial detention caused by endless delays and a blatent refusal to address a motion.
I also see judges ignoring the law, civil rights, and making the business of moving on to the next case ASAP a priority.
Increase of production at the expense of quality is not progress - as a class, lawyers are overpaid and not compelled by market forces to compete - this is more tru of lawyers who become judges, and DA than private practice of course.
AIK
Most Campaign signs are illegal but tolerated - So do i have a right to express that a cleaner planet and a cleaner campaign is better than an illegal campaign and a filthy planet?
I didn't say it is Black and White - that's the ACLU. the ACLU always comes down against police authority - but the ACLU forgets that people have a right to be free from murderer and rapists, and they forget to stand up - IMHO - for the right of society to life liberty and hapiness.
Ther are so many cases because that isthe dialectic in which we come to better understand the meaning and the balance, but it is a matter of refinement - not a case in which the line is moving - the border is approximately here - then people excersize the new border - and we refine the definitions more accurately.
Another reason we have so much litigation is that Sandra Day O'conner - the (only) swing vote on the Court - refuses to answer broad questions of law, and limits the scope of the rulings to the specificities at hand.
As for God and the Sword - if you don't pay taxes - a man with gun with throw you out of your house and sell your property.
If that money (tax) is used to support religion - than it is not a stretch to describe government funded religion as occuring at the point of a gun.
It may not be a direct and symbolic as the SS raiding a prayer meeting - but there are guns involved - and the point of the guns is to promote a religion - so a great deal of care must be excersized - again I believe God is dishonored by those who would use violence - or blood money to promote his cause. If He is 1/1000000 th as powerful as most religious claim, he should be able to fund and promote his causes without you raiding the public treasury.
AIK
Yes - but because what he is doing is obviously speech related - the cops would have to prove that the arrest was not motivated by his speech.
There were like 1,000 other bikes there - presumably hordes of them on the sidewalk. - they picked him - I think a reasonable jury would see why they picked him.
AIK
Land sakes -
There were many ways in which the founding fathers professed to higher ideals than they practiced.
Take Slavery - which they obviously embrassed.
Juxtipose that with the "evident truth that all men are created equal."
What they did is say that Blacks were a "different race." - and not people. In short the founding fathers endulged in cognative dissonence.
Blacks aren't a different race than whites - which Jefferson soon discovered by sleeping with one.
In interpreting the founding fathers - we are not bound to be blinded to facts in the same way that they blinded themselves.
We live in the realization of their intent - they lived in the realization of someone else's intent, and were bound by the presuppositions of a framework imposed upon them by others. This presupposed framework prevented them from making the leap from their reality to their ideal.
It is common for political leaders to voice uptopias and idealogues which are out of reach - but their expression bring them them closer.
We are closer now to the ideal of "created equal" than the founding fathers.
And we are likely closer to the idea that the state shall not establish religion than were the founding fathers.
If you or I find solace and strength in our religious convictions we are free to excersize the same, but we are also free from being compelled to pay for others religions, or being compelled to make religious utterances - even of being coerced from religious practice.
I believe God is honored most when those who worship him do so - in spirit and in truth - not at the edge of a sword - or by the coersion of the state.
The Amendments are not misunderstood, the application is a balancing act of competing interests: For example - you have a free speech right to put up campaign signs - i have a free speech right not to have government money used to promote partisan causes. Say you want to put up signs on streets and parks, and civic lawns, I want to take them down. Which of us has the first amendment on our side?
AIK
But the Supreme court has struggled for more than a rainy sunday afternoon on this issue and the majority reasoned that while there is a difference, free speech means the difference cannot be an element of a crime.
I think at the end of the day - chalk will be found to be protected speech.
It will certainly not be found to be defacement which implies irreversible change.
AIK
The point is that both sides should have equal access - the speaker to his speech and the opposition to either cleaning it up - or adding more or both.
That is the fun and sport of message making - and it ought to be freely expressed.
Sure - most people are tired of speech in its various forms - you want less speech - i could name a few hundred countries which offer you less speech.
I have been arrested for speaking, and for cleaning - and I believe both arrests are unconstitutional.
The state - for my money - should keep the peace and let the dialogue proceed uninterupted.
If the RNC doesn't want this guys messages - it should encourage a few people to ride around and clean it up. If not - then the locals who care can sweep it out with the leaves.
If it's nontoxic - then there is no "clear and present danger."
At the end of the day - that phrase "Clear and Present danger" is the bar for censoring speech.
The argument that it costs money is specious, because obviously it does not - there are millions of tons of litter in New York that will go uncollected - the only litter which seriously accumulates is plastic generally.
The City won't spend money to clean up that litter, and it won't spend money to do what the rain will do by the end of the convention anyway.
I think the Police set a bad precedent here - in that they have started by reacting to simple speach. I was hopeful we would have learned to seperate speech from violence - vandalism is defined as calcuable damage to real property - chalk is a hell of a long way from that definition.
AIK
I cited Houston v. Hill years ago, and I remembered it or something i read at that time relating to chalk. I believe that Hill had a history of being arrested for chalking anti police messages in Houston. Now, 7 years later - that referance was a quick find.
The point is that [Hill] is a Supreme Court precedent used by others to estimate the bar with respect to protected anti-establishment speech.
Hill is binding precedent in NY. Hands Down.
I'm fairly certain that chalking the sidewalk in NY has a long tradition of being acceptable speech. I oppose litter, signs, handbills even, but chalking the sidewalk takes care of itself at no cost to anyone, and it is relatively unobtrusive - less than erected campaign signs for example. I hope the arrest people for stapling BUSH '04 signs to telephone poles.
But Thanks for the informed reply - you should be modded up.
AIK
Have you read Houston v. Hill Recently. You're a texas guy.
...Relying, inter alia, on the Supreme Court's decision in Hill, we ruled in Mackinney v. Nielsen that expressive conduct such as writing with chalk on the sidewalk does not itself create probable cause for arrest ...
And GULLIFORD v PIERCE COUNTY
He should be released ASAP, and the state should pay for his pains, plus reimburse the lost opportunity costs.
(All this said - i believe the first amendment protectes those who disagree with protected speech and their right to "clean up the mess" personally i prefer to collect litter on a stick - and have been arrested for that so - it cuts both ways.
AIK
That would be closer to fairness certainly.
But I believe that lawyers as the problem with law.
Medicine should be excersized only be skilled practitioners because most people do not need to understand how a heart bypass is done,
However, the theory of law, is first and foremost that the people can understand it.
If ordinary people can't understand the law, it is too complicated - also, if a person is so unintelligent that he cannot understand the law, he likely shouldn't be held responsible anyway.
Lawyers, as agents of private persons, permit the law to favor rich people, or said another way, they make accessing one's constitutional rights a question of cost.
AIK