There is no consensus that a citizen is a journalist. That does *not* mean that being a citizen prevents you from being a journalist. Get over this "its only blogging" and look at the function that is occuring. Regardless of media channel, if you are doing journalism, you are a journalist. Being a blogger surely doesn't make you a journalist, but a journalist who uses a blog is still a journalist.
"I realize that you need to protect your sources, but there are no sources in this case." Yes, and indeed there is no need to be protecting sources to invoke the shield law.
"I do not see why they have an expectation of privacy." Yes, no one is suggesting that there is an expectation of privacy, else there would be no journalism happening.
So while I agree with what you are saying, still you appear to be missing the point:
"The California Shield Law provides legal protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering."
The act of performing the vital service of (true)journalism, upon which free flow of information our democracy rests, is so important that regardless of claims of confidentiality, protection is granted to unpublished works. This is done not for the sake of those whose actions have been witnessed, but rather to prevent the perversion of the act of gathering information for public benefit to the task masters of prosecution.
Despite repeated requests from Wolf's attorney, Jose Luis Fuentes, Judge Alsup refused to even view the videotape in question to see if it contained any footage which would help the grand jury, Burke said.
Yes, which is why I said "dirty" rather than "illegal". Nixon was much worse. Nixon didn't just practice dirty politics but actually broke the law. Poindexter and Ollie North broke the law. The Davis recall election was dirty, but it didn't seem to break any laws (unless conspiracy to defraud the public could be proved, but proving conspiracy is just almost impossible...).
Seems like there are a lot of people who followed.net to version 1.1 and stayed there. Is this perhaps like those corporations who stayed with NT for so long? It worked well enough? Or did 2.0 make mistakes?
Agreed. Furthermore, the real problem is that the "war on terror" has been used as a front for a war against our constitutional rights, both state and federal. In terms of "state's rights", it seems to me that the defining question should be who is protecting citizens and who isn't. Slavery was an injustice that required a strong federal government to protect people from state laws. Likewise, the civil rights movement was based on protecting people. Now we have the opposite occuring. Consider this: how would our be different if instead we had devoted a billion dollars a day to research for the purpose of transforming GM & Ford to produce hybrid cars? A billion/day would buy a lot of research into alternative energy and would have provided *lots* of jobs...
Lynching doesn't seem responsible to me. But what about this?
The program was secret until 1971, when an FBI field office was burglarized by a group of left-wing radicals calling themselves the Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI. Several dossiers of files were taken and the information passed to news agencies. Within the year, Director Hoover declared that the centralized COINTELPRO was over, and that all future counterintelligence operations would be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Further documents were revealed in the course of separate lawsuits filed against the FBI by NBC correspondent Carl Stern, the SWP, and a number of other groups. A major investigation was launched in 1976 by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities of the United States Senate, commonly referred to as the "Church Committee" for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho.
Especially interesting is that the power of the press was used to first, inform the public, which then thereby forced legislative action. Should whistleblower's protections be extended to include citizens who commit crimes for the purpose of saving democracy from abuses of authority?
"An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law." - Martin Luther King
"Destruction of property is not a peaceful act of assembly, and as a crime, is a person's duty to report to the appropriate authority so that justice can be served."
No, actually the stated ideal is that for democracy to work, we need to have an informed electorate. That means that journalism serves a purpose that is valuable and worth protecting. This is exactly why CA has a Journalistic Shield Law in place. What does trump the shield law is if a *defendent* requires the information, never (ever) a prosecutor. Note that the shield law is intended to shield a journalist from subpoenas, so "they issued a subpoena for his footage" is less than impelling.
What it comes down to is that the state of CA has laws that protect its citizens. The current federal administration's Dept of Justice doesn't give a rat's ass about such nicities.
"If it is always left up to the individual to decide whether or not to follow the law (because of the real or imagined fears of the government), then we risk total anarchy."
The point is that CA constitional law seems to be squarely on the side of journalists. What you are saying, really, is that "If it is always left up to the State Legislatures' enacted constitutional provisions to decide what the law is (because of the real or imagined fears of the (federal) government), then we risk total anarchy."
"But when will people who videotape their (sic) crime sprees start asserting that they cannot be held accountable because they consider themselves journalists?"
Let's make that "videotape the crime sprees", to be fair. You seem to be prejudging.
As the bill's author argued, "The main purpose of the shield law is to prevent government from making journalists its investigative agents and to prevent a journalist who is trying to cover the story from becoming part of the story (which makes them wholly unable to cover it)." The amendments will help to ensure that journalists in California are not used by prosecutors and litigants in this way.
"How can he try to hide behind a shield law if he did not record any crime? "
Perhaps because the shield law is about
Protecting Unpublished Information and Confidential Sources and specificly "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort" for the purpose of protecting "a journalist from being adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for the failure to comply with a subpoena."
So if he is a journalist, then he should be covered. I don't see how he could possibly not be a journalist. So he should be covered. It certainly feels as though the Feds are more or less saying, "You have it, we want it, we are taking it."
There is a *big* difference between rebooting into another OS, and being able to boot another OS in a window. Rebooting takes time, and you have an either/or situation. Now that VMWare is available, dual-booting isn't even necessary.
"Hippies really need a reality check from time to time though."
"I think they had permits for it but it was still a pain in the ass. "
Sounds like someone needs a reality check.
well here's a clue. NYC houses millions of people. You are 30,000 people [or whatever]. If you want to disturb the millions of people from doing what they want to do you'll need permission first. It's called society.
Sounds like you don't really care that they had a permit, you only care that they were in your way. Pretty selfish attitude.
You had me going with your list of gotchas until you complained about iTunes search. This is the *only* reason I run iTunes on Linux. I've never found anything close to iTune's functionality.
"But if you want computing at reasonable cost and maximum flexibility, go Linux or Windows. "
I'd say you are half right, there. Maximum flexibility (at best cost) is going to be one of the Gnu/Linux(s) or BSD(s).
Where there are legit reasons for proscribing particular uses of property, then by definition the proscriptions are legitimate. "Legitimate" in your stated example (conversion of a firearm to fully automatic) relates to the creation of a hazzard with the potential for abuses of the most serious of nature. This can hardly be compared to wanting to recompile Linux on a computer I purchase at walmart in 2038, after DRM has fully arrived, and the GPL requires I have access to the sourcecode but the hardware refuses to run my "unapproved" binary.
In the case you site, the potential for abuse includes shifting the ballance of power against the police in civil disputes. In the case at hand, the issue is hard to stretch to such a potential hazzard. Rather, business models based on redefining property rights are at risk. You can't seriously compare blocking popups, or skipping TV ads, to fully automatic weapons. That is ludicrous.
By legitimate I meant "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles" and "show or affirm to be just". The difference is that my position protects the property rights of owners (I've bought it with hard earned cash, I've earned it, its mine now) whereas your position protects the "rights" of previous owners (I used to own that, and I wouldn't use it like that, and I'm mad that what used to be mine isn't being used the way I want it to be used.) When you sell something (a shirt, say) you no longer own it. If someone buys a shirt from you and uses it as a rag, you don't have any right to say, "that isn't what I intended for you to do." You can't say, "I meant this shirt to be worn with gray slacks, wearing it with blue shorts is wrong." Building in a device that releases acid if the shirt detects you are wearing shorts instead of long pants would obviously be criminal. Yet in this new world of digital psuedo property, we want to believe that we can "sell our cake, and eat it too."
In regard to my reference to the hidden appropriateness of damnation in your quote, it was based on the context of placement within your point of view. Your aspersions (carelessness) are inappropiate, as is the attempt to label my comment ironic. In terms of the real issues at hand, I would suggest that I respect property rights, whereas you respect profit. The conflict between legitimate rights and profitablity goes back a long ways, this is just a new permutation.
"A TiVo is a computer running propriatary software for a specialized purpose."
Wrong from the very start. Tivo may be commercial, but it isn't propriatary. What is at issue is this: since tivo is a computer running GPL-ed software, and since they *do* make their modifications available (see previous link), should they be able to disallow the running of my modified version of the GPL-ed software I recieved from them on CD on my machine? Doesn't it seem as though the purpose of releasing GPL-ed software is thwarted perversely in this fashion? So then, shouldn't tivo have to stop distributing the GPL-ed software?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no consensus that a citizen is a journalist. That does *not* mean that being a citizen prevents you from being a journalist. Get over this "its only blogging" and look at the function that is occuring. Regardless of media channel, if you are doing journalism, you are a journalist. Being a blogger surely doesn't make you a journalist, but a journalist who uses a blog is still a journalist.
458173 is callig 45686 too young to vote? More than an order of magnitude, there... Can you say, "don't try to teach grandpa to suck eggs, son"?
;-)
I new you could.
"I realize that you need to protect your sources, but there are no sources in this case." Yes, and indeed there is no need to be protecting sources to invoke the shield law.
"I do not see why they have an expectation of privacy." Yes, no one is suggesting that there is an expectation of privacy, else there would be no journalism happening.
So while I agree with what you are saying, still you appear to be missing the point:
"The California Shield Law provides legal protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering."
The act of performing the vital service of (true)journalism, upon which free flow of information our democracy rests, is so important that regardless of claims of confidentiality, protection is granted to unpublished works. This is done not for the sake of those whose actions have been witnessed, but rather to prevent the perversion of the act of gathering information for public benefit to the task masters of prosecution.
Yes, which is why I said "dirty" rather than "illegal". Nixon was much worse. Nixon didn't just practice dirty politics but actually broke the law. Poindexter and Ollie North broke the law. The Davis recall election was dirty, but it didn't seem to break any laws (unless conspiracy to defraud the public could be proved, but proving conspiracy is just almost impossible...).
Seems like there are a lot of people who followed .net to version 1.1 and stayed there. Is this perhaps like those corporations who stayed with NT for so long? It worked well enough? Or did 2.0 make mistakes?
The recall of Gary Davis was just about as dirty a move as I've seen in politics, by the way.
http://www.thefirstamendment.org/shieldlaw.html http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2000/november/ nw1103-7.htm
Agreed. Furthermore, the real problem is that the "war on terror" has been used as a front for a war against our constitutional rights, both state and federal. In terms of "state's rights", it seems to me that the defining question should be who is protecting citizens and who isn't. Slavery was an injustice that required a strong federal government to protect people from state laws. Likewise, the civil rights movement was based on protecting people. Now we have the opposite occuring. Consider this: how would our be different if instead we had devoted a billion dollars a day to research for the purpose of transforming GM & Ford to produce hybrid cars? A billion/day would buy a lot of research into alternative energy and would have provided *lots* of jobs...
"Destruction of property is not a peaceful act of assembly, and as a crime, is a person's duty to report to the appropriate authority so that justice can be served."
No, actually the stated ideal is that for democracy to work, we need to have an informed electorate. That means that journalism serves a purpose that is valuable and worth protecting. This is exactly why CA has a Journalistic Shield Law in place. What does trump the shield law is if a *defendent* requires the information, never (ever) a prosecutor. Note that the shield law is intended to shield a journalist from subpoenas, so "they issued a subpoena for his footage" is less than impelling.
What it comes down to is that the state of CA has laws that protect its citizens. The current federal administration's Dept of Justice doesn't give a rat's ass about such nicities.
"If it is always left up to the individual to decide whether or not to follow the law (because of the real or imagined fears of the government), then we risk total anarchy."
The point is that CA constitional law seems to be squarely on the side of journalists. What you are saying, really, is that "If it is always left up to the State Legislatures' enacted constitutional provisions to decide what the law is (because of the real or imagined fears of the (federal) government), then we risk total anarchy."
No, you don't get it. It isn't about protecting friends and family from prosecution. It is about protecing friends and family from persecution.
Let's make that "videotape the crime sprees", to be fair. You seem to be prejudging.
Now, quoting the author of the CA shield bill:
"How can he try to hide behind a shield law if he did not record any crime? "
Perhaps because the shield law is about Protecting Unpublished Information and Confidential Sources and specificly "all notes, outlines, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort" for the purpose of protecting "a journalist from being adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, or administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for the failure to comply with a subpoena."
So if he is a journalist, then he should be covered. I don't see how he could possibly not be a journalist. So he should be covered. It certainly feels as though the Feds are more or less saying, "You have it, we want it, we are taking it."
It is nice to put Windows in its place, though... in a virtual sand box under linux kernel control ;-)
I thought that Apple's superior scripting capabilities was one of the reasons for switching?
There is a *big* difference between rebooting into another OS, and being able to boot another OS in a window. Rebooting takes time, and you have an either/or situation. Now that VMWare is available, dual-booting isn't even necessary.
"I think they had permits for it but it was still a pain in the ass. "
Sounds like someone needs a reality check. Sounds like you don't really care that they had a permit, you only care that they were in your way. Pretty selfish attitude.
You had me going with your list of gotchas until you complained about iTunes search. This is the *only* reason I run iTunes on Linux. I've never found anything close to iTune's functionality.
"But if you want computing at reasonable cost and maximum flexibility, go Linux or Windows. "
I'd say you are half right, there. Maximum flexibility (at best cost) is going to be one of the Gnu/Linux(s) or BSD(s).
"Give up all your software and everything you have learned about how to use your computer? It's a lot easier just to stick with what you're used to."
So you agree Vista doesn't have a chance?
Likewise at a Starbucks in San Diego (but 'twas a few weeks earlier.) It is like "Invasion of the Pod People."
Where there are legit reasons for proscribing particular uses of property, then by definition the proscriptions are legitimate. "Legitimate" in your stated example (conversion of a firearm to fully automatic) relates to the creation of a hazzard with the potential for abuses of the most serious of nature. This can hardly be compared to wanting to recompile Linux on a computer I purchase at walmart in 2038, after DRM has fully arrived, and the GPL requires I have access to the sourcecode but the hardware refuses to run my "unapproved" binary.
In the case you site, the potential for abuse includes shifting the ballance of power against the police in civil disputes. In the case at hand, the issue is hard to stretch to such a potential hazzard. Rather, business models based on redefining property rights are at risk. You can't seriously compare blocking popups, or skipping TV ads, to fully automatic weapons. That is ludicrous.
By legitimate I meant "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles" and "show or affirm to be just". The difference is that my position protects the property rights of owners (I've bought it with hard earned cash, I've earned it, its mine now) whereas your position protects the "rights" of previous owners (I used to own that, and I wouldn't use it like that, and I'm mad that what used to be mine isn't being used the way I want it to be used.) When you sell something (a shirt, say) you no longer own it. If someone buys a shirt from you and uses it as a rag, you don't have any right to say, "that isn't what I intended for you to do." You can't say, "I meant this shirt to be worn with gray slacks, wearing it with blue shorts is wrong." Building in a device that releases acid if the shirt detects you are wearing shorts instead of long pants would obviously be criminal. Yet in this new world of digital psuedo property, we want to believe that we can "sell our cake, and eat it too."
In regard to my reference to the hidden appropriateness of damnation in your quote, it was based on the context of placement within your point of view. Your aspersions (carelessness) are inappropiate, as is the attempt to label my comment ironic. In terms of the real issues at hand, I would suggest that I respect property rights, whereas you respect profit. The conflict between legitimate rights and profitablity goes back a long ways, this is just a new permutation.
"A TiVo is a computer running propriatary software for a specialized purpose."
Wrong from the very start. Tivo may be commercial, but it isn't propriatary. What is at issue is this: since tivo is a computer running GPL-ed software, and since they *do* make their modifications available (see previous link), should they be able to disallow the running of my modified version of the GPL-ed software I recieved from them on CD on my machine? Doesn't it seem as though the purpose of releasing GPL-ed software is thwarted perversely in this fashion? So then, shouldn't tivo have to stop distributing the GPL-ed software?