Not necessarily. The statute of limitations is a "technicality;" so is the matter of jurisdiction. If the plaintiff failed to file suit in time or couldn't establish that the court had jurisdiction over the defendant, he'd be cooked.
Some places, like Walgreens, will even allow you to order the prints online and pick them up at whatever brick-and-mortar store is closest to you. Often, even on the same day.
No, that's not circumstantial evidence. It's physical evidence.
Physical evidence is often circumstantial. In fact, I'd say it's circumstantial in the vast majority of cases. I think you are just confused (as many folks are) about the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I used to be a state prosecutor. I never tried a murder case, but I did have a spiel about circumstantial evidence. It went something like this:
Let's say you have some ice cream in your freezer. Let's also say that you are the parent of a 6-year-old boy. You leave him alone in the kitchen for 20 minutes and when you come back, you see an empty ice cream container on your counter, melted splatters of ice cream all over the countertops and your kitchen table, and your beloved son has schmears of ice cream all around his mouth.
All of the evidence I just presented is circumstantial evidence that your little boy ate the ice cream. None of it is DIRECT evidence. An example of direct evidence would be an eyewitness who testifies that he SAW your son eat the ice cream.
The fact is that strong cases can be - and often are - built largely upon circumstantial evidence. Blood in the perp's car is strong physical evidence, but also circumstantial.
No one does. They self-censor in the hopes that they will remain unregulated. The last thing they need is some group of religious fanatics or "concerned" parents lobbying Congress to create a new federal agency to police them.
If I had never seen the TV show, I would have LOVED the movie. When the two characters died, however, I was VERY disappointed because they were so familiar to me. It ruined the movie for me.
While I generally agree with your sentiments regarding pre-existing civil remedies, state Attorneys General routinely file "consumer-protection" type of law suits against big companies in order to spare the consumers from having to litigate matters that would otherwise be too costly.
While some have criticized over-active Attorneys General, like New York's Eliot Spitzer, for being too litigious, I think this type of action has its place. It's definitely better than the standard class-action suit where the lawyers are made rich and the class members get a coupon for $5 off their next purchase of the product they complained about in the first place. I don't think the "state lawyers" get rich in this type of case, although there are instances (like the tobacco litigation) where the states hired outside lawyers to litigate this stuff.
Law has always been complicated, believe it or not. Else, why have we had lawyers for so long? At least for the last couple of hundred years, we've actually had laws that are written down in codes and case books.
I see you're from Canada. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but I imagine that Canadian law - like American law - has its roots in the English common law, so it's probably not that different.
Accordingly, let's assume that you did punch me in the jaw, without an expectation that I was going to do you harm. You'd probably wind up in jail for a night, assuming I was able to call the police. You might get a light sentence (a few days in jail, perhaps some probation), nothing serious.
As for a civil suit, you could be in serious trouble, depending on the severity of my injuries. I think it's reasonable to expect that a punch in the jaw might result in a broken tooth, a split lip, perhaps even a nice scar. The worst-case scenario, of course, is that I fall to the ground and hit my head on a curb, resulting in my death.
But let's just say that my injuries are relatively minor - but I still require a trip to the emergency room and maybe some follow-up treatment with my family physician. In that event, I think my reasonable medical bills could be somewhere between one and five thousand American dollars.
The real beauty comes next, though. You've damaged me in ways that are not easily measurable in dollars. First is the pain. Damn, you're strong! And those rings you were wearing really cut me! The psychological trauma is overwhelming, too! I now fear confrontation, I avoid persons meeting your physical description, I can't walk down your street anymore.
And to top it all off: you've committed an intentional tort. That means punitive damages in many jurisdiction.
Naturally, I understood your initial post was merely an example of consequences that can flow from thoughtless speech, so this is a bit offtopic and you would never actually do such a thing.
I think there's a different standard here. Most universities purport to tolerate free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Heck, Marquette even sponsors a forum through which students can criticize their professors, which features anonymous students saying nasty things about named professors.
Against this backdrop, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that the student could post such things in his blog, which was likely read by only a few friends.
Furthermore, the university also purports to recognize some sort of right to due process, as shown by its hearing procedure. As we have seen, it was really a kangaroo court, where the accused didn't even get to present his own evidence! Add to this the fact that the university's own expert on ethics said that the kid didn't do anything unethical or in violation of the code of conduct, and you've got a real miscarriage of justice here.
The professor was not named, though he could have arguably been identified by folks closer to the situation. I don't think it's enough.
Secondly, is calling someone a "cockmaster" a defamatory statement? Or that he should only teach infants and children? Probably not - mere opinions and name-calling are generally not actionable as defamation. If the student had published false facts about the professor (such as, "Professor "X" is a child molester"), there would undoubtedly be a cause of action.
What country do you live in? If my boss fires me for calling him (or her, I have multiple bosses) a fuckhead, on my own time, on a private blog, that is certainly their right. But it is just about equally as certain that if they are foolish enough to give that as the stated reason, I'll win my civil suit for wrongful termination. Basically, if it doesn't affect my work and isn't done on company time, they are liable if they fire me for it.
Ummmm... what country do you live in? If it's the United States of America, you're in for a rude awakening.
State laws vary, of course, so your jurisdiction may indeed follow your explanation. But generally, unless you have an employment contract, you're an "at-will" employee and your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (except if he fired you on the basis of your race, religion, gender, etc.).
I think the difference here is that universities, whether or not receiving federal funding, have traditionally protected freedom of speech on their campuses - particularly speech that is critical of the university, government and other authoritative institutions. This is why professors are granted tenure - so that they may not be fired for thinking outside the box. It is only (relatively) recently that academics have begun screening said speech for "hateful" content.
If the student had said something actionable at law, either criminally or civilly, I could respect the Dean's position - as it is, the student didn't even violate the school's own code of conduct!
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that someone should "out" the anonymous blogger? Why? Freedom of speech means that he should be free to speak his mind (with the usual exceptions for "fighting words," defamation, etc.) without fear of reprisal. If remaining anonymous is the best way to do it, more power to him.
Clearly, he has something to fear - the administration already came down on him for not being anonymous enough!
He is (or has been) a journalist and an activist involved with historical celebrities in public office. This IMHO makes him ineligible for libel protection as a public figure.
Just to clarify: his status as a public figures does not mean he cannot sue for defamation but it does mean that he must prove that the defamatory statement was published with "actual malice."
What is a patent? It is lending government's monopoly on the use of force.
You can say the same thing about the entire legal system. If everyone would just find agreement in every facet of life, we'd have no need for either criminal or civil courts. I think one of the fundamental functions of government is to protect the rights of individuals from those who wish to violate them. This holds true for recognizing the legal standing of a patent as well as it does for permitting one person to sue another for injuries sustained in a car accident. Without it, society plunges into anarchy.
I think you're overlooking the fact that people who hold garage sales generally sell the items for LESS than they would declare their value for charitable deduction purposes. At least, that's what I would do.
While not directly illegal, choosing to disqualify someone based on the most readily understandable part of their resume is asking for a lawsuit. It comes off as an obvious attempt to mask hiring discrimination that follows under the letter of the law.
Tell me, counselor, how is it an "obvious" attempt to mask hiring discrimination? People don't put their age/sex/race/photos on resumes. I can understand your concern if a [insert undesirable minority here] actually goes through an interview, but we're dealing with throwing away a resume before anyone's ever met the person.
By your logic, I can send in my resume to Microsoft and list qualifications that are in no way related to the job. When they throw it away without so much as giving me a phone call, I have standing to sue (assuming I belong to a specially-protected class of people)?
Seeing as how the Beltway comes to a standstill at rush hour, I think the Zebra has a good chance of making it out alive. I can't say the same for us commuters, though.
The Bill of Rights lists rights not granted by the government, but lists rights that are inherent and unalienable. Among these is the right to privacy.
Yeah, I think the Constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy is found somewhere betweeen the 5th and 6th Amendments. Maybe we should call it the five-and-a-halfth Amendment?
While I agree with you (and so does the Supreme Court) that the right to privacy is implied somewhere within the "penumbra" of the Constitution, it is NOT enumerated anywhere within it.
What if the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority? It wasn't that long ago that politicians in the American South fought to keep blacks and whites from using the same public facilities. This was what the majority of their white constituents wanted but that doesn't make it right.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily. The statute of limitations is a "technicality;" so is the matter of jurisdiction. If the plaintiff failed to file suit in time or couldn't establish that the court had jurisdiction over the defendant, he'd be cooked.
A dismissal is a dismissal, whether based on a "technicality" or not.
Some places, like Walgreens, will even allow you to order the prints online and pick them up at whatever brick-and-mortar store is closest to you. Often, even on the same day.
Physical evidence is often circumstantial. In fact, I'd say it's circumstantial in the vast majority of cases. I think you are just confused (as many folks are) about the definition of circumstantial evidence.
I used to be a state prosecutor. I never tried a murder case, but I did have a spiel about circumstantial evidence. It went something like this:
Let's say you have some ice cream in your freezer. Let's also say that you are the parent of a 6-year-old boy. You leave him alone in the kitchen for 20 minutes and when you come back, you see an empty ice cream container on your counter, melted splatters of ice cream all over the countertops and your kitchen table, and your beloved son has schmears of ice cream all around his mouth.
All of the evidence I just presented is circumstantial evidence that your little boy ate the ice cream. None of it is DIRECT evidence. An example of direct evidence would be an eyewitness who testifies that he SAW your son eat the ice cream.
The fact is that strong cases can be - and often are - built largely upon circumstantial evidence. Blood in the perp's car is strong physical evidence, but also circumstantial.I save my change so I can afford not to live in that part of town.
No one does. They self-censor in the hopes that they will remain unregulated. The last thing they need is some group of religious fanatics or "concerned" parents lobbying Congress to create a new federal agency to police them.
If I had never seen the TV show, I would have LOVED the movie. When the two characters died, however, I was VERY disappointed because they were so familiar to me. It ruined the movie for me.
Oh, sure. I suppose that next, you're going to tell us that Outback Steak House isn't really an Australian restaurant.
While I generally agree with your sentiments regarding pre-existing civil remedies, state Attorneys General routinely file "consumer-protection" type of law suits against big companies in order to spare the consumers from having to litigate matters that would otherwise be too costly.
While some have criticized over-active Attorneys General, like New York's Eliot Spitzer, for being too litigious, I think this type of action has its place. It's definitely better than the standard class-action suit where the lawyers are made rich and the class members get a coupon for $5 off their next purchase of the product they complained about in the first place. I don't think the "state lawyers" get rich in this type of case, although there are instances (like the tobacco litigation) where the states hired outside lawyers to litigate this stuff.
Law has always been complicated, believe it or not. Else, why have we had lawyers for so long? At least for the last couple of hundred years, we've actually had laws that are written down in codes and case books.
That is my personal opinion as well, but there are no shortage of personal injury lawyers who encourage suit.
I see you're from Canada. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, but I imagine that Canadian law - like American law - has its roots in the English common law, so it's probably not that different.
Accordingly, let's assume that you did punch me in the jaw, without an expectation that I was going to do you harm. You'd probably wind up in jail for a night, assuming I was able to call the police. You might get a light sentence (a few days in jail, perhaps some probation), nothing serious.
As for a civil suit, you could be in serious trouble, depending on the severity of my injuries. I think it's reasonable to expect that a punch in the jaw might result in a broken tooth, a split lip, perhaps even a nice scar. The worst-case scenario, of course, is that I fall to the ground and hit my head on a curb, resulting in my death.
But let's just say that my injuries are relatively minor - but I still require a trip to the emergency room and maybe some follow-up treatment with my family physician. In that event, I think my reasonable medical bills could be somewhere between one and five thousand American dollars.
The real beauty comes next, though. You've damaged me in ways that are not easily measurable in dollars. First is the pain. Damn, you're strong! And those rings you were wearing really cut me! The psychological trauma is overwhelming, too! I now fear confrontation, I avoid persons meeting your physical description, I can't walk down your street anymore.
And to top it all off: you've committed an intentional tort. That means punitive damages in many jurisdiction.
Naturally, I understood your initial post was merely an example of consequences that can flow from thoughtless speech, so this is a bit offtopic and you would never actually do such a thing.
I think there's a different standard here. Most universities purport to tolerate free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Heck, Marquette even sponsors a forum through which students can criticize their professors, which features anonymous students saying nasty things about named professors.
Against this backdrop, I think it's entirely reasonable to expect that the student could post such things in his blog, which was likely read by only a few friends.
Furthermore, the university also purports to recognize some sort of right to due process, as shown by its hearing procedure. As we have seen, it was really a kangaroo court, where the accused didn't even get to present his own evidence! Add to this the fact that the university's own expert on ethics said that the kid didn't do anything unethical or in violation of the code of conduct, and you've got a real miscarriage of justice here.
The professor was not named, though he could have arguably been identified by folks closer to the situation. I don't think it's enough.
Secondly, is calling someone a "cockmaster" a defamatory statement? Or that he should only teach infants and children? Probably not - mere opinions and name-calling are generally not actionable as defamation. If the student had published false facts about the professor (such as, "Professor "X" is a child molester"), there would undoubtedly be a cause of action.
Ummmm... what country do you live in? If it's the United States of America, you're in for a rude awakening.
State laws vary, of course, so your jurisdiction may indeed follow your explanation. But generally, unless you have an employment contract, you're an "at-will" employee and your boss can fire you for any reason or no reason at all (except if he fired you on the basis of your race, religion, gender, etc.).
I think the difference here is that universities, whether or not receiving federal funding, have traditionally protected freedom of speech on their campuses - particularly speech that is critical of the university, government and other authoritative institutions. This is why professors are granted tenure - so that they may not be fired for thinking outside the box. It is only (relatively) recently that academics have begun screening said speech for "hateful" content.
If the student had said something actionable at law, either criminally or civilly, I could respect the Dean's position - as it is, the student didn't even violate the school's own code of conduct!
I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that someone should "out" the anonymous blogger? Why? Freedom of speech means that he should be free to speak his mind (with the usual exceptions for "fighting words," defamation, etc.) without fear of reprisal. If remaining anonymous is the best way to do it, more power to him.
Clearly, he has something to fear - the administration already came down on him for not being anonymous enough!
Just to clarify: his status as a public figures does not mean he cannot sue for defamation but it does mean that he must prove that the defamatory statement was published with "actual malice."
You can say the same thing about the entire legal system. If everyone would just find agreement in every facet of life, we'd have no need for either criminal or civil courts. I think one of the fundamental functions of government is to protect the rights of individuals from those who wish to violate them. This holds true for recognizing the legal standing of a patent as well as it does for permitting one person to sue another for injuries sustained in a car accident. Without it, society plunges into anarchy.
I think you're overlooking the fact that people who hold garage sales generally sell the items for LESS than they would declare their value for charitable deduction purposes. At least, that's what I would do.
Nope, that's dead to me as well.
Tell me, counselor, how is it an "obvious" attempt to mask hiring discrimination? People don't put their age/sex/race/photos on resumes. I can understand your concern if a [insert undesirable minority here] actually goes through an interview, but we're dealing with throwing away a resume before anyone's ever met the person.
By your logic, I can send in my resume to Microsoft and list qualifications that are in no way related to the job. When they throw it away without so much as giving me a phone call, I have standing to sue (assuming I belong to a specially-protected class of people)?
I wish I knew why I capitalized "zebra."
Seeing as how the Beltway comes to a standstill at rush hour, I think the Zebra has a good chance of making it out alive. I can't say the same for us commuters, though.
Yeah, I think the Constitutional guarantee of the right to privacy is found somewhere betweeen the 5th and 6th Amendments. Maybe we should call it the five-and-a-halfth Amendment?
While I agree with you (and so does the Supreme Court) that the right to privacy is implied somewhere within the "penumbra" of the Constitution, it is NOT enumerated anywhere within it.
Sure they have. The Democrats cater to their base, too. Enter Howard Dean as chairman of the DNC, Nancy Pelosi as House minority leader, etc.
What if the will of the majority tramples the rights of the minority? It wasn't that long ago that politicians in the American South fought to keep blacks and whites from using the same public facilities. This was what the majority of their white constituents wanted but that doesn't make it right.