Besides the question of whether major news sites are ready for a catastrophic world event, I wonder how the amount of junk mail/SPAM will impact network capacity and overall cost of internet services. I can't speak to how this internet chaff might impact news services, but I'm certain it has at least a small effect on overall "net speed."
I mention this because this post brings back a strong recollection of emails that swarmed into my inbox after 9/11 --Taliban Singles, the fake face in the WTC smoke, various flash cartoons depicting the bombing of Afghanistan and Bin Laden, soft-hearted text descriptions (probably fake) about survivors and their families, and so on.
This is an interesting case and I hope that the courts will take action to address these abusive legal actions. There are actually mechanisms in the law to accomplish this, ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive (I can't recall the term for this, but it is assuredly legal latinate). The latter requires the censured litigant to gain court approval before filing any further actions.
Check out the following case; it's very interesting.
You are correct; public institutions can regulate free speech. However, if you follow the progress of free speech issues through the courts, it becomes clear that there are several varieties of free speech, some of which are more or less protected. Kiddie porn falls very far in the unprotected end. Political speech, however, is due and receives the utmost of protection as free speech under the first amdendment. This episode is clearly an incident of political speech that is being stomped --in violation of the First Amendment.
In regards to your DMV example, the situation for an employee who represents him/herself on an agency website (thus representing the agency) is clearly distinct from a student who represents his/her views in an open environment such as a university. Along the same lines, the DMV might ask you not to wear torn jeans and a dirty t-shirt. They would be correct in maintaining a standard of professionalism in the workplace. This is different for students and the deciding factor is variations in role, responsibility, and context.
1. UCSD is a public institution. We (taxpayers in California and the US generally) own the domain and servers that are, by proxy, "owned" by UCSD. This, in addition to the mandate that public institutions shall not restrict protected speech, invalidates your suggestion that "they own it, so they can do what they want." This is valid for private institutions but not public.
2. The Patriot Act (read: piece of fascist garbage) is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Provided that our speech does not pose imminent harm, our right to say, "Hey, I love this or that terrorist group!" regardless of how base or evil their positions, is fully protected under the First Amendment. Thus, much like Nazi soldiers who claimed that they were only following orders, UCSD is enforcing an unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, un-American, and abusive statute.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to see a major reaction from placing an object into a body of water? Forget sodium or more unstable elements. Here's what you do:
2. Locate a crowded public pool
3. Covertly drop one Twix bar into the pool
4. Observe the CATASTROPHIC reaction!
Besides the question of whether major news sites are ready for a catastrophic world event, I wonder how the amount of junk mail/SPAM will impact network capacity and overall cost of internet services. I can't speak to how this internet chaff might impact news services, but I'm certain it has at least a small effect on overall "net speed."
I mention this because this post brings back a strong recollection of emails that swarmed into my inbox after 9/11 --Taliban Singles, the fake face in the WTC smoke, various flash cartoons depicting the bombing of Afghanistan and Bin Laden, soft-hearted text descriptions (probably fake) about survivors and their families, and so on.
Ig Nobel awards typically recognize the most dubious contributions to the world of science and research.
Does this mean that Amazon's revolutionary "One Click" system will be honored?
This is an interesting case and I hope that the courts will take action to address these abusive legal actions. There are actually mechanisms in the law to accomplish this, ranging from a court order barring a litigant from filing further motions or actions on a certain issue to a court declaration that a litigant is characteristically abusive (I can't recall the term for this, but it is assuredly legal latinate). The latter requires the censured litigant to gain court approval before filing any further actions.
Check out the following case; it's very interesting.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc94012/op
You are correct; public institutions can regulate free speech. However, if you follow the progress of free speech issues through the courts, it becomes clear that there are several varieties of free speech, some of which are more or less protected. Kiddie porn falls very far in the unprotected end. Political speech, however, is due and receives the utmost of protection as free speech under the first amdendment. This episode is clearly an incident of political speech that is being stomped --in violation of the First Amendment.
In regards to your DMV example, the situation for an employee who represents him/herself on an agency website (thus representing the agency) is clearly distinct from a student who represents his/her views in an open environment such as a university. Along the same lines, the DMV might ask you not to wear torn jeans and a dirty t-shirt. They would be correct in maintaining a standard of professionalism in the workplace. This is different for students and the deciding factor is variations in role, responsibility, and context.
Let's remember a few important things here:
1. UCSD is a public institution. We (taxpayers in California and the US generally) own the domain and servers that are, by proxy, "owned" by UCSD. This, in addition to the mandate that public institutions shall not restrict protected speech, invalidates your suggestion that "they own it, so they can do what they want." This is valid for private institutions but not public.
2. The Patriot Act (read: piece of fascist garbage) is in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Provided that our speech does not pose imminent harm, our right to say, "Hey, I love this or that terrorist group!" regardless of how base or evil their positions, is fully protected under the First Amendment. Thus, much like Nazi soldiers who claimed that they were only following orders, UCSD is enforcing an unconstitutional, illegal, unethical, un-American, and abusive statute.