Nice. Take a movie that's grainy on a CRT, then quadruple the resolution! Then, take the same movie with audio that's fuzzy on a 70s trinitron, and give it up in 128 bit uncompressed raw waveforms!
The end result is a movie whose graininess is so incredibly well defined, you can sit back and go "Wow! This movie really shouldn't have been sold in Blu-Ray format!"
Clarence Thomas is a flaming idiot. He's got this insane notion that kids don't have rights. I remember his ruling in the case, and I remember it being out to lunch. He wasn't the only one to rule against the student in that case, but he WAS the only one to file the dissent he did in the way he did.
This is what happens when your president appoints someone to the supreme court based on the fact that they're conservative, rather than actual merit.
Accounting for inflation, The Bush Administration, who controlled the congress, the senate, the judiciary, and the executive, has increased the federal budget and the federal debt more than any presidency since the end of WWII. I don't give a fuck WHAT excuses they use. They controlled the country, and if they couldn't keep a handle on spending despite the fact that the democrats were totally impotent, then maybe the Republicans need to step aside and quit pretending they're competent to run the country.
I think he could win, but one rarely recovers enough money in cases like these to make up for the legal costs without some form of economic harm. (In other words, the point mostly stands about it being a bad idea to sue over this.)
I'd agree with that. That's why he's trying to use his power to get vengeance instead of using the legal system. Normal citizens wouldn't have this avenue accessible to them(and arguably, he doesn't either, since it's beyond the scope of his authority), which makes it an abuse of power I'm not impressed with the courts allowing.
Well, my question would be, "Why is this person being targetted?"
In this case, in the local context it's because this principal is a public figure. I couldn't pick out many mayors or governors either, but they're all public figures, prominent bureaucrats who wield significant control. This girl is attacking a very prominent figure within her school, the most powerful, most visible bureaucrat in the building. Hundreds or thousands of students know who he is, and are forced to listen to his speeches or announcements on a daily basis. For that reason, I'd call his position one which implicitly makes him a public figure. The page wouldn't exist if nobody knew who the principal was.
That said, I'd still say she'd be liable if there was an actual damages theory, such as the slashed tires you present in #2.
I'm sorry, what about being president is implicitly worthy of respect?
We're talking about the man who singlehandedly tripled the debt, doubled spending, and sent the Republicans down the path they're on today of insane leftist spending.
I'll respect him the day I respect the idiots at AIG.
Then, obviously, there's a case for civil libel. It's not rocket science.
I've actually had an insane girlfriend who was allowed by the law to go around saying all sorts of terrible and untrue things, simply because nobody believed her. She even went to the police with some of her accusations, and they found she's crazy and none of her accusations had any bearing on reality. The moment someone believed her and I was harmed thereby, then I could press charges under a theory of damages, but until then, no harm no foul. She's "libel-proof".
Actually, their track record IS much better. I ran the numbers on the budget and deficit, for example, and found that they're much more fiscally conservative than the Republicans, when they control the executive. Since Republicans just buy everything on credit, they don't care about runaway spending, while Democrats tend to spend less and use less debt. The difference in terms of spending is a factor of 2, and the difference in terms of debt is a factor of 10.
maybe teachers have a right to refuse to teach little bitches who spout crap about them.
Nope. If the teachers don't like what the kids do in their spare time, they can quit. One of those terrible horrible awesome things about being an adult is if you're getting paid to do a job, you do it or you quit.
If these accusations were taken seriously, then this principal would have a simple case for libel damages -- he'd be unemployed and in jail. The fact that he isn't unemployed and isn't in jail is proof that the kids is 'libel-proof', because nobody believes what she said.
I've had to deal with a similar issue with an insane ex-girlfriend. She's even made false accusations to the police, but I don't have a case for libel because what she's saying is so obviously false that nobody believes her, and I've got no theory of damages, despite the fact that she's made a variety of false statements of fact with a reckless disregard for the truth.
It's your parents job to do something, not the school's.
That's why I'd sue in this case. It's not the school's job to police students activities outside of school. Worst case scenario, that's the job of the POLICE.
School administrators are among the most corrupt and nepotistic fiends in the world. Their power MUST be limited, because otherwise children will be subject to their delusions of grandeur on a constant basis, and parents will become simply a source of cash for the state-owned children to leech off of.
In order to win a civil libel case, you'd need a theory of damages. Nobody would have seriously considered the myspace page to be anything but the ramblings of an angry young person. The principal wasn't legitimately facing criminal charges the principal wasn't facing the loss of his job, nor loss of standing in the community.
The only legitimate theory of damages would be pain and suffering, in which case he should be fired for being far too fragile to do the job.
The 2007 decision had huge amounts of discussion regarding whether the school had jurisdiction over the actions. The children had skipped the morning only to show up later, and eventually it was decided that showing up at a school sponsored event makes you a student at that event, allowing the school discretion to punish students.
Judge Munley was incorrect to disregard the question of jurisdiction just because what was said was 'really bad'. Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. The FBI can't walk into my house (in Canada) to enforce a speeding ticket issued in Manitoba, because it's outside of their jurisdiction. It doesn't matter if I was going 90% of c. Increasing the severity of the crime doesn't make their jurisdiction suddenly irrelevant.
Actually, civil libel can only be prosecuted if a damages arguement can be concoted.
If the principal were to use a "pain and suffering" theory of damages, I think he could win the case, but he'd get fired immediately afterwards, for being far too delicate for the job of running a school.
This is an interesting case because the submitter is correct. There's no jurisdiction for a school to be regulating speech outside the school. If the principal has a problem with something said about him outside of his little sphere of influence, then he isn't God, nor a king. He should press charges for civil libel, which would surely be dropped because there's no arguement for damages.
There was a case in Alaska which was tried by the Supreme Court of the United States, and they spent the entire discussion phase trying to determine whether the acts had taken place during school time, turning it into something the school has jurisdiction over.
The ruling which says the principal has jurisdiction over a student's free time is simply extending a despotic bureaucrat's powers far beyond what they ought to be. It's bad enough that we subject our children to the tyrannical reign of the school administration, which exists without any checks or balances, without any due process or practical restraint on abuses of power, for 8 hours a day. Allowing them power over children fully 24 hours a day is placing children fully into the custody of the school. We might as well stop asking parents to watch their children at all, because the "benevolent" god-kings in the school administration can act as judge, jury, and executioner in all cases, on and off of school property.
They an do whatever they want with their series, and Sheeple will buy it and proclaim it the best thing ever, irregardless of the fact that the people behind those games are long gone from the company.
and proclaim it the best thing ever, irregardless of the
best thing ever, irregardless of the
irregardless
You're not conformist like those sheeple, you do your own thing, even using words that aren't part of the English language to try to sound smart.
Sure, there's going to be sheeple who use dictionaries, but books are all fact, and no heart.
You fall to the ground in agony after the first skeleton slices your skin open, and don't get back up as the other eight rip hole after gaping hole into your flesh. There's no such thing as reincarnation. The fact that you've defeated 100 skeletons does NOT make your skin immune to swords.
If you've got full control, and you refuse to cut spending, especially while the dems DO cut spending, then why do they have any moral right to lead?
I say they don't. Until they grow a pair of balls and actually follow their platform, they're just left-wing spendaholics worse than the Democrats by every fiscal metric.
Without doing any of the rest, that's just giving welfare to middle-aged losers paid for by my generation and my kids.
It's bad enough that I've got to deal with the welfare mothers and other losers. Why the hell am I paying for a salary for every household in America now?
I'm going to continue to call bullshit on that one. Republicans had the senate, the congress, the judiciary, the executive. They had Carte Blanche to do what they wanted. They COULD have legislated an end to every liberal entitlement program they wanted to. They COULD have destroyed every gun law they hated. They COULD have cut taxes responsibly.
Instead, they increased spending twice as much as Reagan, more than any administration in history. They argued for torture. They created an illegal prison in Cuba. They wasted their time legislating whether some woman in Florida could be taken off life support or not.
This is the Republican Party. All talk, no action. Certainly no action in the directions they say they'd like to see it.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice. Take a movie that's grainy on a CRT, then quadruple the resolution! Then, take the same movie with audio that's fuzzy on a 70s trinitron, and give it up in 128 bit uncompressed raw waveforms!
The end result is a movie whose graininess is so incredibly well defined, you can sit back and go "Wow! This movie really shouldn't have been sold in Blu-Ray format!"
Even if you live in a place with 1g of gravity, it'll cease being 1g when the tide changes anyway.
Why would China use a latin-based metric? :P
Clarence Thomas is a flaming idiot. He's got this insane notion that kids don't have rights. I remember his ruling in the case, and I remember it being out to lunch. He wasn't the only one to rule against the student in that case, but he WAS the only one to file the dissent he did in the way he did.
This is what happens when your president appoints someone to the supreme court based on the fact that they're conservative, rather than actual merit.
I'm going to call bullshit right back.
Accounting for inflation, The Bush Administration, who controlled the congress, the senate, the judiciary, and the executive, has increased the federal budget and the federal debt more than any presidency since the end of WWII. I don't give a fuck WHAT excuses they use. They controlled the country, and if they couldn't keep a handle on spending despite the fact that the democrats were totally impotent, then maybe the Republicans need to step aside and quit pretending they're competent to run the country.
I think he could win, but one rarely recovers enough money in cases like these to make up for the legal costs without some form of economic harm. (In other words, the point mostly stands about it being a bad idea to sue over this.)
I'd agree with that. That's why he's trying to use his power to get vengeance instead of using the legal system. Normal citizens wouldn't have this avenue accessible to them(and arguably, he doesn't either, since it's beyond the scope of his authority), which makes it an abuse of power I'm not impressed with the courts allowing.
Well, my question would be, "Why is this person being targetted?"
In this case, in the local context it's because this principal is a public figure. I couldn't pick out many mayors or governors either, but they're all public figures, prominent bureaucrats who wield significant control. This girl is attacking a very prominent figure within her school, the most powerful, most visible bureaucrat in the building. Hundreds or thousands of students know who he is, and are forced to listen to his speeches or announcements on a daily basis. For that reason, I'd call his position one which implicitly makes him a public figure. The page wouldn't exist if nobody knew who the principal was.
That said, I'd still say she'd be liable if there was an actual damages theory, such as the slashed tires you present in #2.
A principal isn't a public figure?
Isn't that why the principal was targetted in the first place?
I'm sorry, what about being president is implicitly worthy of respect?
We're talking about the man who singlehandedly tripled the debt, doubled spending, and sent the Republicans down the path they're on today of insane leftist spending.
I'll respect him the day I respect the idiots at AIG.
Then, obviously, there's a case for civil libel. It's not rocket science.
I've actually had an insane girlfriend who was allowed by the law to go around saying all sorts of terrible and untrue things, simply because nobody believed her. She even went to the police with some of her accusations, and they found she's crazy and none of her accusations had any bearing on reality. The moment someone believed her and I was harmed thereby, then I could press charges under a theory of damages, but until then, no harm no foul. She's "libel-proof".
Actually, their track record IS much better. I ran the numbers on the budget and deficit, for example, and found that they're much more fiscally conservative than the Republicans, when they control the executive. Since Republicans just buy everything on credit, they don't care about runaway spending, while Democrats tend to spend less and use less debt. The difference in terms of spending is a factor of 2, and the difference in terms of debt is a factor of 10.
maybe teachers have a right to refuse to teach little bitches who spout crap about them.
Nope. If the teachers don't like what the kids do in their spare time, they can quit. One of those terrible horrible awesome things about being an adult is if you're getting paid to do a job, you do it or you quit.
If these accusations were taken seriously, then this principal would have a simple case for libel damages -- he'd be unemployed and in jail. The fact that he isn't unemployed and isn't in jail is proof that the kids is 'libel-proof', because nobody believes what she said.
I've had to deal with a similar issue with an insane ex-girlfriend. She's even made false accusations to the police, but I don't have a case for libel because what she's saying is so obviously false that nobody believes her, and I've got no theory of damages, despite the fact that she's made a variety of false statements of fact with a reckless disregard for the truth.
It's your parents job to do something, not the school's.
That's why I'd sue in this case. It's not the school's job to police students activities outside of school. Worst case scenario, that's the job of the POLICE.
School administrators are among the most corrupt and nepotistic fiends in the world. Their power MUST be limited, because otherwise children will be subject to their delusions of grandeur on a constant basis, and parents will become simply a source of cash for the state-owned children to leech off of.
In order to win a civil libel case, you'd need a theory of damages. Nobody would have seriously considered the myspace page to be anything but the ramblings of an angry young person. The principal wasn't legitimately facing criminal charges the principal wasn't facing the loss of his job, nor loss of standing in the community.
The only legitimate theory of damages would be pain and suffering, in which case he should be fired for being far too fragile to do the job.
The 2007 decision had huge amounts of discussion regarding whether the school had jurisdiction over the actions. The children had skipped the morning only to show up later, and eventually it was decided that showing up at a school sponsored event makes you a student at that event, allowing the school discretion to punish students.
Judge Munley was incorrect to disregard the question of jurisdiction just because what was said was 'really bad'. Jurisdiction is jurisdiction. The FBI can't walk into my house (in Canada) to enforce a speeding ticket issued in Manitoba, because it's outside of their jurisdiction. It doesn't matter if I was going 90% of c. Increasing the severity of the crime doesn't make their jurisdiction suddenly irrelevant.
Actually, civil libel can only be prosecuted if a damages arguement can be concoted.
If the principal were to use a "pain and suffering" theory of damages, I think he could win the case, but he'd get fired immediately afterwards, for being far too delicate for the job of running a school.
This is an interesting case because the submitter is correct. There's no jurisdiction for a school to be regulating speech outside the school. If the principal has a problem with something said about him outside of his little sphere of influence, then he isn't God, nor a king. He should press charges for civil libel, which would surely be dropped because there's no arguement for damages.
There was a case in Alaska which was tried by the Supreme Court of the United States, and they spent the entire discussion phase trying to determine whether the acts had taken place during school time, turning it into something the school has jurisdiction over.
The ruling which says the principal has jurisdiction over a student's free time is simply extending a despotic bureaucrat's powers far beyond what they ought to be. It's bad enough that we subject our children to the tyrannical reign of the school administration, which exists without any checks or balances, without any due process or practical restraint on abuses of power, for 8 hours a day. Allowing them power over children fully 24 hours a day is placing children fully into the custody of the school. We might as well stop asking parents to watch their children at all, because the "benevolent" god-kings in the school administration can act as judge, jury, and executioner in all cases, on and off of school property.
I dunno, I remember the caverns as being pretty bright, and the hell levels were pretty much fullbright, not dark at all.
They an do whatever they want with their series, and Sheeple will buy it and proclaim it the best thing ever, irregardless of the fact that the people behind those games are long gone from the company.
and proclaim it the best thing ever, irregardless of the
best thing ever, irregardless of the
irregardless
You're not conformist like those sheeple, you do your own thing, even using words that aren't part of the English language to try to sound smart.
Sure, there's going to be sheeple who use dictionaries, but books are all fact, and no heart.
You're attacked by nine skeletons with swords!
You fall to the ground in agony after the first skeleton slices your skin open, and don't get back up as the other eight rip hole after gaping hole into your flesh. There's no such thing as reincarnation. The fact that you've defeated 100 skeletons does NOT make your skin immune to swords.
Sounds like fun.
The budget is almost ALWAYS bigger. If you have the budget the same size, inflation will mean you've lowered the size of the budget.
You're nuts if you think that having the 3 largest budget increases since WWII makes the Republicans more fiscally responsible.
If you've got full control, and you refuse to cut spending, especially while the dems DO cut spending, then why do they have any moral right to lead?
I say they don't. Until they grow a pair of balls and actually follow their platform, they're just left-wing spendaholics worse than the Democrats by every fiscal metric.
I gave numbers. Back yours up, or you're just another loser apologist.
Without doing any of the rest, that's just giving welfare to middle-aged losers paid for by my generation and my kids.
It's bad enough that I've got to deal with the welfare mothers and other losers. Why the hell am I paying for a salary for every household in America now?
I'm going to continue to call bullshit on that one. Republicans had the senate, the congress, the judiciary, the executive. They had Carte Blanche to do what they wanted. They COULD have legislated an end to every liberal entitlement program they wanted to. They COULD have destroyed every gun law they hated. They COULD have cut taxes responsibly.
Instead, they increased spending twice as much as Reagan, more than any administration in history. They argued for torture. They created an illegal prison in Cuba. They wasted their time legislating whether some woman in Florida could be taken off life support or not.
This is the Republican Party. All talk, no action. Certainly no action in the directions they say they'd like to see it.