"Because on the internet information spreads quickly we need a system which blocks individuals from using the net in cases of defamation - something that will stop the spread of information before it happens, to save the victim."
Uh yeah... or maybe you could teach people not to believe everything they read online.
I love this "stop the spread of information . . . to save the victim".
The Volnovo pact will mean that non-commercial individual contributors can make Open Source, but if anyone actually uses it for something other than a hobby or a non-profit organisation Vole can bring a software patent lawsuit against them unless they are a Novell customer, he said.
Well sure, but only if you assume that there are patented procedures in Linux. Do we know that there are? I'm almost sure that there are in the Wine project. But can anyone point to an example of something in the Linux kernel that is patented by Microsoft?
...before you say this was such an obvious thing, or that it's not the government's job to fix this.
This is not just about posting music videos or TV shows. It also involves every single homemade video that is posted.
A look at "Smack That" illustrates the complexities. Securing the online rights to the song by rappers Akon and Eminem -- No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart -- would involve permission from Akon's record label, Universal Motown. Most of the time, a label alone can grant a license for the use of a music video, but when it comes to videos involving YouTube users lip-syncing to the song, or any other use of it as background music, it also would take permission of publishers representing the four people listed as the song's writers: Akon (real name: Aliaune Thiam), Eminem (Marshall Mathers) and two colleagues of Eminem's from the Detroit rap scene, Swift (Luis Edgardo Resto) and Mike Strange.
This was a foreseeable problem... but it's still a problem. This could make it very hard to have an open forum where people post videos.
Because even if the teenagers who post this stuff make it themselves, they are bound to have some form of copyrighted material going on in the background. A song playing on the radio, a kid singing a song, even a movie poster on a bedroom wall.
It really does get ridiculous when you consider that "Happy Birthday to You" is still covered by copyright in the US. So every single video that includes someone singing that song could be a potential liability.
Somehow the term "customer" just doesn't seem to apply to government contracts which are funded not by voluntary choice (as the term "customer" normally implies), but rather through taxing which is involuntary by definition.
The customer in this sense would be the governmental entity itself.
Should domain name simply be exempt from trademark legislation in all countries or is it a legit thing to fight for?
No, domain names should not be exempt from trademark claims. They should be treated the same as any other way of presenting oneself.
Regardless, this is not a trademark case. "Utube" is not in the same business as "Youtube", and "Youtube" is not benefitting from "Utube's" name in any way. Under any common definition, it isn't trademark infringement.
And while I can sympathize with these people that did nothing wrong, and had a successful company that suddenly got screwed over merely because of Youtube's success... I can't really see anything that Youtube has done wrong either.
There's no cause of action (i.e. no legally cognizable claim for suit) that I can see. Their best bet is to cause a PR problem for Google, in hopes that Google will give them free hosting.
Remind me to sue my neighbours for their house being #41. People are always knocking on my door (#41a) instead, wasting my time and causing a loss of earnings.
Your address numbers are not chosen by you.
Even if they are, the address has to be something in sequence. I assume that 42 was already taken when your lot was carved out.
how about over 50 that have a greater freedom of speech than the USA
keep waving that flag
You sir (or ma'am, thing, whatever you are) are full of shit. Let me count the ways...
1. Your list is not about Freedom of Speech, but Freedom of the Press, a somewhat related, but different issue.
2. Your list is not necessarily about government repression, but also covers how much the press is repressed by private threats either inside or outside of the country measured.
3. The best way to measure this is to simply look at the law and how it is enforced in a particular country.
US law is quite clear and has a long judicial history. Unless you are creating an *imminent* (i.e. immediate) threat by inciting people to riot, you are generally protected in your Freedom of Speech in the US. There are other exceptions, but they tend to be rather narrow and hard to box things into. For example, "obscene speech" among other things, must be void of all educational value and must be specifically defined by law.
In many European countries, it is illegal to offend someone by disagreeing with their version of history, or say something "racially insensitive". In the US, we may not like the same sorts of speech that are outlawed elsewhere... but we know where to draw the line at what the government is allowed to regulate.
I don't think my country is perfect, but I stand by my statement that we have the most absolute view of Freedom of Speech than anywhere else. You've not even addressed the real issue.
slipping in human rights, becoming totalitarian... whatever.
NO other country in the world has a more absolute view on Freedom of Speech. Not France, not Germany, not even the UK. Reasonable people may disagree on whether that's the right position for a society. But for he who controls the domain registry, it most certainly is the best position to take.
And what is the alternative anyway? The UN votes on which domains get to stay online? We have countries take turns with holding the "Presidency of the Internet" the same way the EU passes the torch from country to country? Or even better, we have an unelected international bureaucracy that decides by committee who gets to have freedom of speech and who doesn't?
Just turned on the wobbling windows and workspaces in a cube. I thought this required some fancy new video card. My card and the machine it's connected to are at least 5 years old.
Yes, but in this context, the coders would be 'independent contractors',not employees, which would change what RAC could do to wayward coders.
Not by much. If RAC puts it in their contract with the coders, they will be able to sue for lost income if a coder does independent work for a client that he met through RAC. And if a client does this, knowing about the contract between RAC and the coders, the client could be liable for intentional interference with contract.
Try looking up the DVD copying case (DVDXcopy? something like that). Not found guilty of direct nor secondary copyright infringement, but guilty under the DMCA for selling the tool. Since they never actually used the tool, they didn't have any intent. Selling it to customers they didn't know the intent of was enough. The interoperability clause isn't worth using as toilet paper, because in practise it doesn't work as a defense.
The DVDXCopy case isn't even remotely related to what's going on here. The guy is doing something that HELPS companies that want to USE drm. It doesn't circumvent DRM at all.
Come to think of it, the DMCA may not even apply to this situation.
My understanding of the DMCA is that it outlaws reverse engineering DRM ***with the purpose of violating copyright***, but it does not outlaw reverse engineering for purpoes of interoperability.
What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.
His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.
As others have pointed out, this is not a criminal charge we're talking about, so the burden of proof is different. There's no right to a jury trial, et cetera.
But it's important to point out that the determination is made by the judge. So far, the lawyers have filed a petition for order to show cause, and that's it.
The judge has not signed an order to show cause. So we don't even know if he's inclined to agree that Mr. Thompson's actions are contemptuous.
1. Patent ingenious tax strategy 2. Sell licenses for ingenious tax strategy 3. Patent genius idea of patenting tax strategies 4. Sell licenses to others so that they can patent their own ingenious tax strategies 5. PROFIT ON YOUR OWN AND OTHERS' INGENIOUS TAX STRATEGIES!!!
"should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
yes.
But this shouldn't be handled by a domain registrar, which has no training in what kinds of speech are unsuitable for minors or carry other offensive characteristics.
What you need is a Bureau of Proper Speech, which has veto power over all domain names, then those who specialize in this area of governing are making the decisions. This type of regulation shouldn't be left to the amateurs who probably do not know the difference between "asshat.com" and "analingus.com".
Once properly funded and empowered, your Bureau of Proper Speech can regulate far more than mere domain names. After all, it is the content of the websites that you are concerned with, not just the domain names. They can cover all kinds of ground, and protect you and your women and children from all manner of unsightly, disturbing, arguably incorrect, and controversial materials.
And you are right. It's vastly important that we protect children from abusive speech. A well-run Bureau of Proper Speech could protect your children from dangerous bullies at school. It could protect them from teachers who are prone to spout socialist propaganda in the classrooms. It could even protect them from parents who might poison their minds with slanderous points of view about your country's leadership.
Why stop at domain names. Efficiency and public desire demand that your Bureau of Proper Speech be given broad powers and the proper funding to make use of ***new technologies*** that will protect your children and everyone else from objectionable content.
Oh, and if it's me your referring to as "the loony left who think everyone agrees with their POV", it would be stupid to think that everyone agrees with reality... but that's not a good reason to pretend that things are otherwise.
I'm not a leftist at all. But if you buy the hype about left versus right and liberal versus conservative, then you might be fooled.
P.S. I REALLY hope Hillary does run, if only to shut up the loony left who think everyone agrees with their twisted POV. But I hope she loses to a centrist Republican so that far right does't think they have a mandate from God for once.
I don't care if it's a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green... as long as it's not one of those deluded sycophants who think Bush has done a great job. For once, I'm somewhat optimistic. But anything could happen in the next two years.
I mean, do we really need another ten thousand Bush-bashing posts?
Yes.
And to answer your other question, it is "news for nerds" because nerds are intelligent. Intelligent people generally see things for what they are and don't let others pull the wool over their eyes. This topic is very much in-line with that concept.
It's "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
Politics does matter. You understand that well enough to associate yourself with a party that actually stands for something. Slashdot is not linux.com. It is not videogamenews.com. It is not m1cr05oftsuxors.com. It's News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.
Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?
Well of course. They don't give a damn about us or anyone but their super-rich friends.
Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies? Why would they give no-bid contracts to the same companies that they used to run? Why would they let thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die unnecessarily?
Because they simply don't care. Hundreds of billions of our tax dollas are being spent on a war that has no purpose other than to line the pockets of their friends. They don't even look at us as the same species as them. So if a bunch of non-elite working class people die, why should they care as long as it's helping them get closer to that Forbes list of richest people in America?
Kinda makes Hillary a hypocrite based on what she said here, now doesn't it?
Don't know if you realize it, but you just posted links to the same article twice. Neither one mentions Hillary.
So, no. I don't think she's a hypocrite. And if she decides to run, she will destroy any Republican she runs against. That's the only reason there is so much animosity towards her....well, that, and the fact that she almost single-handedly destroyed our chances of getting a decent health care system in this country.
I'd consider Gmail if not for an important feature it lacks that Yahoo has: organization of the inbox.
Gmail has great organizational features for the inbox. Instead of moving things to different "boxes", it uses a much more sensible approach, IMHO. You can label a conversation (manually or through an automatic filter you've set up). You can then view all messages with a particular label by clicking the name of that label on the left hand side of your screen.
The search feature is there, but I've never used it. Labels provide the same function as folders, and they are simpler and easier than folders in my opinion.
BTW, anyone who thinks that the First Amendment only affects their relationship with Congress should ask themselves, what authorizes any federal official to act?
That's right, an act of Congress. So, if someone from the TSA violates your freedom of speech, they are acting illegally. There is not and cannot be any legal authority for them to do so, since Congress cannot pass a law that allows them to abridge your freedom of speech.
And if you're wondering how it applies to the states, the 14th Amendment makes most of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well. Not to forget that states usually have their own Bill of Rights, which could be enforced in state court rather than federal court.
The grandparent poster is only right insofar as he says that the First Amendment does not generally apply to private actors. But there are other regulations here and there (mostly state regulations) that affect what a private actor can do viz a viz your freedom of speech. There is a seminal case out of California that most people read in law school, where a California state court asserted that state's freedom of speech provision as to an Arab owner of a mall who wanted to exclude pro-Israeli leafletters from his property.
So it's not completely unheard of to say that you have a freedom of speech as against a private actor, although it is true that usually you do not. But the grandparent poster gets it completely wrong in assuming that that's what's happening here.
Hello??? The TSA is not an airline! It's a federal agency. He must have been asleep after 9/11 when Congress renamed a thousand 3 letter agencies and put them all under a brand-new "umbrella bureacracy" just so that it could pretend it was doing something.
The courts would not enforce such a law for many reasons.
Generally, one Congress cannot limit what a later Congress can do without getting a Constitutional amendment.
Now, if a constitutional amendment was passed, then sure. You can do anything if you can get a constitutional amendment through. But that's not likely. The current trend is to give the federal courts less power, not more.
These are judges with lifetime appointments. They cannot be removed except through impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Do you really want someone with that much power and almost no way to hold them accountable making inherently political decisions that affect the entire country, even when there is no "case or controversy" affecting the rights of individuals?
The "case or controversy" requirement was pointed out in Marbury v. Madison back in the early 19th century. Because of the immense power that the courts have, they are limited to cases that involve aggreived parties. The federal courts cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional without an aggreived person suing a law enforcement agency to bar the law's enforcement.
But even if today's Congress could limit next year's Congress by simply passing a law, no aggreived person would be able to assert "standing" in a case to contest an act that violated the law, because noone is aggreived by its violation in any special way.
Slashdot Mirror
"Because on the internet information spreads quickly we need a system which blocks individuals from using the net in cases of defamation - something that will stop the spread of information before it happens, to save the victim."
Uh yeah... or maybe you could teach people not to believe everything they read online.
I love this "stop the spread of information . . . to save the victim".
What perspective.
That really sucks. If they assert those patents against Linux, then it breaks compatibility with nearly everything in the normal world of computing.
It would make Linux pretty much inoperable for desktop computing.
I'm sure they would love to do that if Linux ever does take off on the desktop and become an actual competitor.
in the code though.
The Volnovo pact will mean that non-commercial individual contributors can make Open Source, but if anyone actually uses it for something other than a hobby or a non-profit organisation Vole can bring a software patent lawsuit against them unless they are a Novell customer, he said.
Well sure, but only if you assume that there are patented procedures in Linux. Do we know that there are? I'm almost sure that there are in the Wine project. But can anyone point to an example of something in the Linux kernel that is patented by Microsoft?
...before you say this was such an obvious thing, or that it's not the government's job to fix this.
This is not just about posting music videos or TV shows. It also involves every single homemade video that is posted.
A look at "Smack That" illustrates the complexities. Securing the online rights to the song by rappers Akon and Eminem -- No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart -- would involve permission from Akon's record label, Universal Motown. Most of the time, a label alone can grant a license for the use of a music video, but when it comes to videos involving YouTube users lip-syncing to the song, or any other use of it as background music, it also would take permission of publishers representing the four people listed as the song's writers: Akon (real name: Aliaune Thiam), Eminem (Marshall Mathers) and two colleagues of Eminem's from the Detroit rap scene, Swift (Luis Edgardo Resto) and Mike Strange.
This was a foreseeable problem... but it's still a problem. This could make it very hard to have an open forum where people post videos.
Because even if the teenagers who post this stuff make it themselves, they are bound to have some form of copyrighted material going on in the background. A song playing on the radio, a kid singing a song, even a movie poster on a bedroom wall.
It really does get ridiculous when you consider that "Happy Birthday to You" is still covered by copyright in the US. So every single video that includes someone singing that song could be a potential liability.
Somehow the term "customer" just doesn't seem to apply to government contracts which are funded not by voluntary choice (as the term "customer" normally implies), but rather through taxing which is involuntary by definition.
The customer in this sense would be the governmental entity itself.
Should domain name simply be exempt from trademark legislation in all countries or is it a legit thing to fight for?
No, domain names should not be exempt from trademark claims. They should be treated the same as any other way of presenting oneself.
Regardless, this is not a trademark case. "Utube" is not in the same business as "Youtube", and "Youtube" is not benefitting from "Utube's" name in any way. Under any common definition, it isn't trademark infringement.
And while I can sympathize with these people that did nothing wrong, and had a successful company that suddenly got screwed over merely because of Youtube's success... I can't really see anything that Youtube has done wrong either.
There's no cause of action (i.e. no legally cognizable claim for suit) that I can see. Their best bet is to cause a PR problem for Google, in hopes that Google will give them free hosting.
Remind me to sue my neighbours for their house being #41. People are always knocking on my door (#41a) instead, wasting my time and causing a loss of earnings.
Your address numbers are not chosen by you.
Even if they are, the address has to be something in sequence. I assume that 42 was already taken when your lot was carved out.
I'm sure I don't know why people say this kind of thing.
If I were from China, I would probably be sure that I didn't know too.
how about over 50 that have a greater freedom of speech than the USA
keep waving that flag
You sir (or ma'am, thing, whatever you are) are full of shit. Let me count the ways...
1. Your list is not about Freedom of Speech, but Freedom of the Press, a somewhat related, but different issue.
2. Your list is not necessarily about government repression, but also covers how much the press is repressed by private threats either inside or outside of the country measured.
3. The best way to measure this is to simply look at the law and how it is enforced in a particular country.
US law is quite clear and has a long judicial history. Unless you are creating an *imminent* (i.e. immediate) threat by inciting people to riot, you are generally protected in your Freedom of Speech in the US. There are other exceptions, but they tend to be rather narrow and hard to box things into. For example, "obscene speech" among other things, must be void of all educational value and must be specifically defined by law.
In many European countries, it is illegal to offend someone by disagreeing with their version of history, or say something "racially insensitive". In the US, we may not like the same sorts of speech that are outlawed elsewhere... but we know where to draw the line at what the government is allowed to regulate.
I don't think my country is perfect, but I stand by my statement that we have the most absolute view of Freedom of Speech than anywhere else. You've not even addressed the real issue.
slipping in human rights, becoming totalitarian... whatever.
NO other country in the world has a more absolute view on Freedom of Speech. Not France, not Germany, not even the UK. Reasonable people may disagree on whether that's the right position for a society. But for he who controls the domain registry, it most certainly is the best position to take.
And what is the alternative anyway? The UN votes on which domains get to stay online? We have countries take turns with holding the "Presidency of the Internet" the same way the EU passes the torch from country to country? Or even better, we have an unelected international bureaucracy that decides by committee who gets to have freedom of speech and who doesn't?
How about if it isn't broke don't fix it?
Just turned on the wobbling windows and workspaces in a cube. I thought this required some fancy new video card. My card and the machine it's connected to are at least 5 years old.
But it worked out of the box!
This is good stuff.
Yes, but in this context, the coders would be 'independent contractors',not employees, which would change what RAC could do to wayward coders.
Not by much. If RAC puts it in their contract with the coders, they will be able to sue for lost income if a coder does independent work for a client that he met through RAC. And if a client does this, knowing about the contract between RAC and the coders, the client could be liable for intentional interference with contract.
Try looking up the DVD copying case (DVDXcopy? something like that). Not found guilty of direct nor secondary copyright infringement, but guilty under the DMCA for selling the tool. Since they never actually used the tool, they didn't have any intent. Selling it to customers they didn't know the intent of was enough. The interoperability clause isn't worth using as toilet paper, because in practise it doesn't work as a defense.
The DVDXCopy case isn't even remotely related to what's going on here. The guy is doing something that HELPS companies that want to USE drm. It doesn't circumvent DRM at all.
Come to think of it, the DMCA may not even apply to this situation.
My understanding of the DMCA is that it outlaws reverse engineering DRM ***with the purpose of violating copyright***, but it does not outlaw reverse engineering for purpoes of interoperability.
What DVD Jon is doing is actually helping content owners "protect" their content on Apple's devices. Previously, if a company wanted to sell music for the iPod outside of the iTunes Music Store, they could not sell it with DRM. They could only sell it as MP3s, or perhaps as non-DRMed AAC files.
His actions could possibly violate a patent (if Apple, in fact, has a patent on its DRM system), but it doesn't violate copyright, so I don't believe it violates the DMCA.
As others have pointed out, this is not a criminal charge we're talking about, so the burden of proof is different. There's no right to a jury trial, et cetera.
But it's important to point out that the determination is made by the judge. So far, the lawyers have filed a petition for order to show cause, and that's it.
The judge has not signed an order to show cause. So we don't even know if he's inclined to agree that Mr. Thompson's actions are contemptuous.
The sequence should have gone like this...
1. Patent ingenious tax strategy
2. Sell licenses for ingenious tax strategy
3. Patent genius idea of patenting tax strategies
4. Sell licenses to others so that they can patent their own ingenious tax strategies
5. PROFIT ON YOUR OWN AND OTHERS' INGENIOUS TAX STRATEGIES!!!
"should a government-chosen domain registry be allowed to enforce their own moral code on the public?"
yes.
But this shouldn't be handled by a domain registrar, which has no training in what kinds of speech are unsuitable for minors or carry other offensive characteristics.
What you need is a Bureau of Proper Speech, which has veto power over all domain names, then those who specialize in this area of governing are making the decisions. This type of regulation shouldn't be left to the amateurs who probably do not know the difference between "asshat.com" and "analingus.com".
Once properly funded and empowered, your Bureau of Proper Speech can regulate far more than mere domain names. After all, it is the content of the websites that you are concerned with, not just the domain names. They can cover all kinds of ground, and protect you and your women and children from all manner of unsightly, disturbing, arguably incorrect, and controversial materials.
And you are right. It's vastly important that we protect children from abusive speech. A well-run Bureau of Proper Speech could protect your children from dangerous bullies at school. It could protect them from teachers who are prone to spout socialist propaganda in the classrooms. It could even protect them from parents who might poison their minds with slanderous points of view about your country's leadership.
Why stop at domain names. Efficiency and public desire demand that your Bureau of Proper Speech be given broad powers and the proper funding to make use of ***new technologies*** that will protect your children and everyone else from objectionable content.
Oh, and if it's me your referring to as "the loony left who think everyone agrees with their POV", it would be stupid to think that everyone agrees with reality... but that's not a good reason to pretend that things are otherwise.
I'm not a leftist at all. But if you buy the hype about left versus right and liberal versus conservative, then you might be fooled.
P.S. I REALLY hope Hillary does run, if only to shut up the loony left who think everyone agrees with their twisted POV. But I hope she loses to a centrist Republican so that far right does't think they have a mandate from God for once.
I don't care if it's a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green... as long as it's not one of those deluded sycophants who think Bush has done a great job. For once, I'm somewhat optimistic. But anything could happen in the next two years.
I mean, do we really need another ten thousand Bush-bashing posts?
Yes.
And to answer your other question, it is "news for nerds" because nerds are intelligent. Intelligent people generally see things for what they are and don't let others pull the wool over their eyes. This topic is very much in-line with that concept.
It's "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters."
Politics does matter. You understand that well enough to associate yourself with a party that actually stands for something. Slashdot is not linux.com. It is not videogamenews.com. It is not m1cr05oftsuxors.com. It's News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters.
Does anyone feel as though your life is being controlled by government officials who do not give a damn about you?
Well of course. They don't give a damn about us or anyone but their super-rich friends.
Why would they insist on starting a war based on lies? Why would they give no-bid contracts to the same companies that they used to run? Why would they let thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians die unnecessarily?
Because they simply don't care. Hundreds of billions of our tax dollas are being spent on a war that has no purpose other than to line the pockets of their friends. They don't even look at us as the same species as them. So if a bunch of non-elite working class people die, why should they care as long as it's helping them get closer to that Forbes list of richest people in America?
Kinda makes Hillary a hypocrite based on what she said here, now doesn't it?
...well, that, and the fact that she almost single-handedly destroyed our chances of getting a decent health care system in this country.
Don't know if you realize it, but you just posted links to the same article twice. Neither one mentions Hillary.
So, no. I don't think she's a hypocrite. And if she decides to run, she will destroy any Republican she runs against. That's the only reason there is so much animosity towards her.
I'd consider Gmail if not for an important feature it lacks that Yahoo has: organization of the inbox.
Gmail has great organizational features for the inbox. Instead of moving things to different "boxes", it uses a much more sensible approach, IMHO. You can label a conversation (manually or through an automatic filter you've set up). You can then view all messages with a particular label by clicking the name of that label on the left hand side of your screen.
The search feature is there, but I've never used it. Labels provide the same function as folders, and they are simpler and easier than folders in my opinion.
BTW, anyone who thinks that the First Amendment only affects their relationship with Congress should ask themselves, what authorizes any federal official to act?
That's right, an act of Congress. So, if someone from the TSA violates your freedom of speech, they are acting illegally. There is not and cannot be any legal authority for them to do so, since Congress cannot pass a law that allows them to abridge your freedom of speech.
And if you're wondering how it applies to the states, the 14th Amendment makes most of the Bill of Rights apply to the states as well. Not to forget that states usually have their own Bill of Rights, which could be enforced in state court rather than federal court.
The grandparent poster is only right insofar as he says that the First Amendment does not generally apply to private actors. But there are other regulations here and there (mostly state regulations) that affect what a private actor can do viz a viz your freedom of speech. There is a seminal case out of California that most people read in law school, where a California state court asserted that state's freedom of speech provision as to an Arab owner of a mall who wanted to exclude pro-Israeli leafletters from his property.
So it's not completely unheard of to say that you have a freedom of speech as against a private actor, although it is true that usually you do not. But the grandparent poster gets it completely wrong in assuming that that's what's happening here.
Hello??? The TSA is not an airline! It's a federal agency. He must have been asleep after 9/11 when Congress renamed a thousand 3 letter agencies and put them all under a brand-new "umbrella bureacracy" just so that it could pretend it was doing something.
The courts would not enforce such a law for many reasons.
Generally, one Congress cannot limit what a later Congress can do without getting a Constitutional amendment.
Now, if a constitutional amendment was passed, then sure. You can do anything if you can get a constitutional amendment through. But that's not likely. The current trend is to give the federal courts less power, not more.
These are judges with lifetime appointments. They cannot be removed except through impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Do you really want someone with that much power and almost no way to hold them accountable making inherently political decisions that affect the entire country, even when there is no "case or controversy" affecting the rights of individuals?
The "case or controversy" requirement was pointed out in Marbury v. Madison back in the early 19th century. Because of the immense power that the courts have, they are limited to cases that involve aggreived parties. The federal courts cannot strike down a law as unconstitutional without an aggreived person suing a law enforcement agency to bar the law's enforcement.
But even if today's Congress could limit next year's Congress by simply passing a law, no aggreived person would be able to assert "standing" in a case to contest an act that violated the law, because noone is aggreived by its violation in any special way.