The idea that this will end high-speed car chases is seriously far-fetched.
If a policeman relies on this device and stops chasing the guy, the common criminal will simply ditch the car and get away.
The reason cops chase people is so the bad guy doesn't get away. Maybe it will help in situations where the police can't help but lose sight of a car in a chase, but how often does that happen outside of the movies?
And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
This is a state court, interpreting state law. It means absolutely nothing to a Federal court interpreting (Federal) copyright law.
Slashdotters throw around the term "precedent" all the time as if every time someone does something it sets a precedent. A court only has to follow a precedent set by another court if it is on point and if the precedent setting court is a higher court in the same jurisdiction... state courts do not set precedent on Federal law.
The Bumblefuck Municipal Court does not set precedent when it finds you guilty of jaywalking on your own land. It might be a precedent in the sense that it happened prior to the next decision, but it is not binding on any other case.
"Defendant was charged with . . . multiple counts of arranging for, producing, making, or financing child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.145c(2)."
So the law says producing OR making. Therefore, they are not the same thing. Producing is what we think of when we talk about taking pictures or hiring actors and cameramen. So "making" has to mean something else.
The question is what does it mean, and is the statute specific enough to hold someone responsible for committing acts that fall within that meaning?
No one is pointing fingers at Lockheed Martin, said Tom Gavin, the JPL administrator to whom all project managers report.
"This is an end-to-end process problem," he said. "A single error like this should not have caused the loss of Climate Orbiter. Something went wrong in our system processes in checks and balances that we have that should have caught this and fixed it."
So Lockheed used Imperial units... that wouldn't have been a problem if NASA had also used Imperial units.
What is this metric system you speak of?
Re:Does it really lack phone capabilities?
on
Nokia 770 Alive and Well
·
· Score: 3, Informative
is there any particular reason it can't/couldn't be set up to talk to a VoIP carrier like Skype?
Skype is closed-source. Until a binary is released that is compatible with the Nokia 770, it will not be possible to run skype on it.
And why are Mozilla vulnerabilities listed under unix/linux but not under Microsoft Windows? Last I checked, Mozilla ran on Windows too.
Re:who would seriously sign up for this?
on
You've Got Indictments
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It doesn't make it easier to be indicted. It just makes it easier for you to find out that you've been indicted.
There are many reasons why someone might want quick notice that they've been indicted. For instance, if the person is not already out on bond, they will probably want to turn themselves in asap to avoid an inconvenient and embarrassing arrest.
"14. basically gave the government the power to federalize a lot of things after the civil war"
Is that how you look at the most important amendment since the Bill of Rights was ratified? Maybe you should take a look at Section 1 again. Then you might understand how "Congress shall pass no law..." became "Congress (and the various state legislatures) shall pass no law".
"It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased"
I'm going to copy that twice, because it is such an incredible thing to say in light of the following text: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press". Have you even read the First Amendment?
"Freedom of Speech was put into the 1st amendment for the sole purpose of allowing Lese Majeste . . . Specifically, the states wanted this freedom so that if the current government became corrupted like the English monarchy/parliament, then they would not be thrown in jail for saying so. It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased or protecting their sources or pornography or flag burning or any such thing. These were interpretations added in later."
The First Amendment protects people not states. Very clearly, it says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". It does not limit what kind of speech is protected. Yes, those "interpretations" were added later. ALL interpretations were added later. A court cannot interpret a Constitutional amendment until AFTER it has been ratified.
If speech creates a clear and present danger (e.g. inciting to riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater) I agree with the Supreme Court that it can be regulated. But if the purpose of regulation is simply to censor content that someone finds offensive then it goes directly against the purpose of the First Amendment.
If you could show that video games, pornography or flag-burning caused people to jump up and start raping and killing other people, then I would be interested in allowing government oversight. But the real reason people want to regulate these things is because they do not like the images and ideas that are expressed in them. That is exactly what the Freedom of Speech clause was intended to prevent.
In response to your admonition that I should stop expressing the same views as Larry Flynt. You can take your freshman-level American History textbook and shove it up your ass sideways a few times to get an idea of how much I care about your opinion... Thanks.
"Hmmm... has anyone every bothered to actually think of the CONTEXT that this was written and created? Or has everyone just gone and accepted that the current exploited form is what it was originally intended as? As I recall, it was largely put in place to protect the people from an opressive government. The right to speak out against the government without reprecussion and to restrict the government from stepping on the religious rights of the people."
Yes. And any time the government regulates speech, it is by definition, regulating speech that the government disapproves of. If the government wants to regulate pornography or violent video games, then those forms of expression should be protected from unreasonable governmental intrusion just as "purely political speech" is.
"I'm mean, I'm all for free speech... but let's keep things in perspective here. Also, when the "rights" of an individual in regards to free speech begins to tread on the rights of other individuals (such as parental rights.. or even religious rights in conflict with another's "free speech" rights), where does the line get drawn? Who's rights prevail? In most cases, parental rights have prevailed.... How's that for precendence!"
Meaningless, since you don't provide any examples. With regard to the CDA, parents rights did not prevail. What's your counterpoint?
"... are we all so naive as to think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were perfectly designed to address all issues that would ever come and affect the society? Please! Many (not all) the ammendments stuck on to the constitution, and the laws added creating this spagetti legal system of ours... they were to try and deal with the situations where this Bill of Rights just isn't realistic!"
I don't know which Constitution you are looking at, but the one I have has mostly additions to the Bill of Rights (with the mistake of Prohibition being the only exception). You have the 13th Amendment giving us the right to not be enslaved. The 14th Amendment giving us equal protection and expanding the Bill of Rights to the states. You've got the 15th Amendment giving all men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote... etc.
So if the Bill of Rights isn't realistic, why have we spent so much energy (and lives) on expanding it?
"Never try to apply idealistic views to reality... idealistic views are merely guidance... not dogma."
Ideals are not perfect, but they are a good framework to start from. In applying the law, the first ideal is to be consistent and fair. If you do not abide by this, then what you apply is not law, but tyranny.
Pornography is protected speech under current caselaw.
What does not get protection is "obscenity". But there is a very difficult test for speech to be deemed obscene. If there is any "serious artistic, literary, political or scientific" to it, it is not obscene. If the sexual acts are not depicted or described in "a patently offensive way", then the work is not obscene. If those acts are not specifically defined in state law, the work is not obscene. If contemporary community standards do not hold that the work "taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", then it is not obscene.
You can imagine that this makes it rather difficult for a state to win an obscenity case. Some porn may lack serious value... but most of it at least has a storyline, good lighting, costumes, etc.
Some porn may not meet community standards... but the question is not what the most sensititve Jerry Falwell devotee would find offensive. It is what an average person would find offensive. Judging by the amount of profits the porn industry brings in, the average person seems not to find it offensive at all.
So not only do the specific acts depicted have to be defined in state law (that's gotta be a fun bill to draft), but even when they are, no value and community standards are a tripping point for most cases.
"We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."
Cigarettes and alcohol don't involve speech or expression.
And as far as pornography, it may be true that Mr. Yee doesn't let his kids look at it. But that's not the constitutinal standard. The Supreme Court has already overruled the Communications Decency Act, which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content.
Typical legislative mentality. Ignore the constitution... just do what makes you look good and let the courts sort it out.
TFA does not mention what the industry suits think on that subject but it does contain the following quotes:
But many retailers and label executives alike point to a more fundamental problem this year: A lack of hit acts. Don VanCleave, president of the Coalition of Independent Music Stores, says blame lies with "an absolute, gigantic cesspool of really bad bands."
Of course it wouldn't have anything to do with the people who try to sell that cess pool to us.
"Gosh Mr. VanCleave, all I can find in your store is really bad bands."
"Sorry, spiritraveller, There's nothing fresh for you to get excited about anymore."
Brian Chase has publically admitted that he edited a Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler, making appear that Mr. Seigenthaler was involved in the assassination of JFK.
When I first read this, I though "ooh that dastardly Siegenthaler has orchestrated the whole thing just to make wikipedia look bad."
But on reading the article, I find that the emphasis was meant for "entry for John Siegenthaler" rather than "edited... for John Siegenthaler."
After reading this, "Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss to rehire him, but Chase said this had not happened."
I am heartened at how forgiving Mr. Seigenthaler has been to the libelous fellow. Maybe he should sue the slashdot editors instead.
Doesn't look like multicultural involvement has made it terribly unstable.
You confuse multigovernmentalism for multiculturalism. Obviously the internet thrives with people from all over the world communicating with very little restriction.
It does not follow that there will be more of this multiculturalism if more governments get involved. On the contrary, more regulation and more bureacracy will lead to more fatcats with new ideas about restricting our use of it.
The example of China's Great Firewall only makes me more convinced that the status quo is best. How would you like China's government to have a say in how the internet as a whole is governed instead of it being limited to its own borders?
from the bio linked on slashdot: John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Yeah, he ought to know something about the First Amendment, since he founded "The First Amendment Center".
Of course the First Amendment does not allow one to commit libel or slander. But Mr. Seigenthaler (who has been a journalist for most of his life) would also be aware that the Supreme Court gives special protections to the press, as well as to anyone commenting about a public figure or a public official.
Arguably, Mr. Seigenthaler would have no case against Wikipedia even without the Congressional protections that he complains of.
"It's an arms race that the content owner can never win," said Yankee Group analyst Michael Goodman. "In order to make it usable, you also have to make it beatable. If you really truly want to lock it down, it is possible to lock it down. But it is so onerous on the user that they'd never want to use it in the first place."
This is exactly the problem with the record industry today. They think their shit smells sooooo good that people will put up with ANYTHING to get at it.
What they don't know is that once they finally reach that holy grail where content is locked down, non-portable, non-shareable, only listenable on approved and certified devices, and only copiable when you put a microphone in front of a speaker... NOBODY will want to bother with it.
Normal people don't want to spend time learning the difference between "Plays for Sure - Download" and "Plays for Sure - Subscription". Normal people don't want to figure out how many computers they can own before their music collection becomes unplayable. Normal people just want to listen to their music on the home stereo, in the car, on the computer, on the ipod... and not have to jump through hoops when they paid hard-earned cash for the privilege.
My thought is that the dollars will win out. I do wish though, that the ACLU would make itself useful and take some of the to the Supreme Court.
If they are private schools, the ACLU is not going to be interested in these cases. Any suit would be on the contract between the student and the school, not on the Constitution.
The ACLU is interested in protecting civil liberties. Relations between private parties under a contract are not normally part of the ACLU's mission.
The amount of false information people are posting on this article is both dizzying and distressful, since it shows how little Americans know about their own Constitution and how it has been interpreted for all this time. I can't say that I knew any more about this stuff before I went to law school.
The Constitution is mainly a blueprint for relations between the Federal government and the States, between the Federal government and the People, and ever since the Fourteenth Amendment, between the States and the People. Before the 14th was passed, the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights did not protect anyone from regulation by state actors, only federal actors. Notice that every state has a Bill of Rights of its own which its courts may interpret more broadly than the Federal Bill of Rights.
Except for the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery, nothing in the Federal Constitution governs relations between the People and non-government actors (other people or corporations). So in general, a private school can regulate its students speech as much as it wants, because it is not a government actor.
The First Amendment does apply in public schools, because those schools are government actors. Of course, the schools get more leeway than a police officer on the street would get. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District for more information on Free Speech in public schools.
This is no longer the cold war and you no longer live in a democracy. What you primarily live in now is decidedly a Republic and a great deal of what you see/hear is being carefully orchestrated to keep you a good worker shopbot. Stop waving your nation's flag for a moment and just pay attention to the utterly incompetent individuals that are making one idiotic decision after another and....
You're preaching to the converted... but you are utterly off-topic.
The issue is government regulation of speech... Corporate media conglomerate propagandizing is quite a different issue, and it's not relevant to this conversation.
Wasn't "waving my nation's flag" at all. Just being a pragmatist.
You confuse a prudish culture with prudish law. I think the US and New Zealand are fairly similar in both culture and law. Perhaps as you point out, New Zealand is a little less prudish culturally. Ok, I'll buy that.
I don't think anyone said that New Zealand, Australia, etc. wouldn't also be good locations. However, ICANN is already in the US. There's no point in moving it.
The real comparison is with countries like China, Russia, and "various Arab states". Hell, even Germany and France regulate political speech. Why would you want those countries to have ANY say in how the internet is governed???
So far, the US government has kept its hands off. These other countries want to be hands-on. I may be an American, but I think I'm being very fair and objective when I say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it!"
The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?
The summary misses the point here.
The minute you start letting a government define "journalist", you give it the power to take away Freedom of the Press.
If being a member of "the press" depends on some statutory definition, then Congress could make an end-run around Freedom of the Press by constricting the definition. Creating a statutory definition of a "journalist" would set a very bad precedent for the First Amendment and for the practice of journalism, even if that were not the intended consequence.
Re:I like the idea of breaking up families.
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 1
Think of it as a public defender for minors or disabled adults.
It is similar. However, a GAL represents a child's "best interests" as he sees them. Not necessarily as the child sees them. In delinqunecy cases, for instance, a GAL will sometimes argue that a child's best interest is to be held accountable for his acts, and receive some punishment and/or treatment for them. If the child has an attorney (such as a public defender), then the GAL and the child's attorney will be at odds.
In this case, however, a GAL would probably help defend the child and/or negotiate a favorable settlement. It's not really in a child's best interest to have a judgment against him of several thousand dollars.
If the child admitted to the activity at the parent's urging, then the parent would not have been acting in the child's best interest. That would create a clear enough conflict that the court should appoint a GAL.
Even if the parent did not urge the child to take the blame, there is still enough incentive for the parent to do so that the court should appoint a GAL to represent the child's best interest in the case.
The good thing about that is that GALs (in most systems) are lawyers, so it's a little bit like getting a free lawyer. Even a poor person is not normally entitled to a free lawyer in a civil case.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that this will end high-speed car chases is seriously far-fetched.
If a policeman relies on this device and stops chasing the guy, the common criminal will simply ditch the car and get away.
The reason cops chase people is so the bad guy doesn't get away. Maybe it will help in situations where the police can't help but lose sight of a car in a chase, but how often does that happen outside of the movies?
And how does this affect the lawsuits by the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA?"
This is a state court, interpreting state law. It means absolutely nothing to a Federal court interpreting (Federal) copyright law.
Slashdotters throw around the term "precedent" all the time as if every time someone does something it sets a precedent. A court only has to follow a precedent set by another court if it is on point and if the precedent setting court is a higher court in the same jurisdiction... state courts do not set precedent on Federal law.
The Bumblefuck Municipal Court does not set precedent when it finds you guilty of jaywalking on your own land. It might be a precedent in the sense that it happened prior to the next decision, but it is not binding on any other case.
"Defendant was charged with . . . multiple counts of arranging for, producing, making, or financing child sexually abusive material, MCL 750.145c(2)."
So the law says producing OR making. Therefore, they are not the same thing. Producing is what we think of when we talk about taking pictures or hiring actors and cameramen. So "making" has to mean something else.
The question is what does it mean, and is the statute specific enough to hold someone responsible for committing acts that fall within that meaning?
from the article:
No one is pointing fingers at Lockheed Martin, said Tom Gavin, the JPL administrator to whom all project managers report.
"This is an end-to-end process problem," he said. "A single error like this should not have caused the loss of Climate Orbiter. Something went wrong in our system processes in checks and balances that we have that should have caught this and fixed it."
So Lockheed used Imperial units... that wouldn't have been a problem if NASA had also used Imperial units.
What is this metric system you speak of?
is there any particular reason it can't/couldn't be set up to talk to a VoIP carrier like Skype?
Skype is closed-source. Until a binary is released that is compatible with the Nokia 770, it will not be possible to run skype on it.
than ALL unix/linux operating systems combined.
This proves nothing.
And why are Mozilla vulnerabilities listed under unix/linux but not under Microsoft Windows? Last I checked, Mozilla ran on Windows too.
It doesn't make it easier to be indicted. It just makes it easier for you to find out that you've been indicted. There are many reasons why someone might want quick notice that they've been indicted. For instance, if the person is not already out on bond, they will probably want to turn themselves in asap to avoid an inconvenient and embarrassing arrest.
"14. basically gave the government the power to federalize a lot of things after the civil war"
..." became "Congress (and the various state legislatures) shall pass no law".
Is that how you look at the most important amendment since the Bill of Rights was ratified? Maybe you should take a look at Section 1 again. Then you might understand how "Congress shall pass no law
"It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased"
I'm going to copy that twice, because it is such an incredible thing to say in light of the following text: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press". Have you even read the First Amendment?
"Freedom of Speech was put into the 1st amendment for the sole purpose of allowing Lese Majeste . . . Specifically, the states wanted this freedom so that if the current government became corrupted like the English monarchy/parliament, then they would not be thrown in jail for saying so. It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased or protecting their sources or pornography or flag burning or any such thing. These were interpretations added in later."
The First Amendment protects people not states. Very clearly, it says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". It does not limit what kind of speech is protected. Yes, those "interpretations" were added later. ALL interpretations were added later. A court cannot interpret a Constitutional amendment until AFTER it has been ratified.
If speech creates a clear and present danger (e.g. inciting to riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater) I agree with the Supreme Court that it can be regulated. But if the purpose of regulation is simply to censor content that someone finds offensive then it goes directly against the purpose of the First Amendment.
If you could show that video games, pornography or flag-burning caused people to jump up and start raping and killing other people, then I would be interested in allowing government oversight. But the real reason people want to regulate these things is because they do not like the images and ideas that are expressed in them. That is exactly what the Freedom of Speech clause was intended to prevent.
In response to your admonition that I should stop expressing the same views as Larry Flynt. You can take your freshman-level American History textbook and shove it up your ass sideways a few times to get an idea of how much I care about your opinion... Thanks.
"Hmmm... has anyone every bothered to actually think of the CONTEXT that this was written and created? Or has everyone just gone and accepted that the current exploited form is what it was originally intended as? As I recall, it was largely put in place to protect the people from an opressive government. The right to speak out against the government without reprecussion and to restrict the government from stepping on the religious rights of the people."
Yes. And any time the government regulates speech, it is by definition, regulating speech that the government disapproves of. If the government wants to regulate pornography or violent video games, then those forms of expression should be protected from unreasonable governmental intrusion just as "purely political speech" is.
"I'm mean, I'm all for free speech... but let's keep things in perspective here. Also, when the "rights" of an individual in regards to free speech begins to tread on the rights of other individuals (such as parental rights.. or even religious rights in conflict with another's "free speech" rights), where does the line get drawn? Who's rights prevail? In most cases, parental rights have prevailed.... How's that for precendence!"
Meaningless, since you don't provide any examples. With regard to the CDA, parents rights did not prevail. What's your counterpoint?
"... are we all so naive as to think the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were perfectly designed to address all issues that would ever come and affect the society? Please! Many (not all) the ammendments stuck on to the constitution, and the laws added creating this spagetti legal system of ours... they were to try and deal with the situations where this Bill of Rights just isn't realistic!"
I don't know which Constitution you are looking at, but the one I have has mostly additions to the Bill of Rights (with the mistake of Prohibition being the only exception). You have the 13th Amendment giving us the right to not be enslaved. The 14th Amendment giving us equal protection and expanding the Bill of Rights to the states. You've got the 15th Amendment giving all men the right to vote. The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote... etc.
So if the Bill of Rights isn't realistic, why have we spent so much energy (and lives) on expanding it?
"Never try to apply idealistic views to reality... idealistic views are merely guidance... not dogma."
Ideals are not perfect, but they are a good framework to start from. In applying the law, the first ideal is to be consistent and fair. If you do not abide by this, then what you apply is not law, but tyranny.
Pornography is protected speech under current caselaw.
What does not get protection is "obscenity". But there is a very difficult test for speech to be deemed obscene. If there is any "serious artistic, literary, political or scientific" to it, it is not obscene. If the sexual acts are not depicted or described in "a patently offensive way", then the work is not obscene. If those acts are not specifically defined in state law, the work is not obscene. If contemporary community standards do not hold that the work "taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", then it is not obscene.
You can imagine that this makes it rather difficult for a state to win an obscenity case. Some porn may lack serious value... but most of it at least has a storyline, good lighting, costumes, etc.
Some porn may not meet community standards... but the question is not what the most sensititve Jerry Falwell devotee would find offensive. It is what an average person would find offensive. Judging by the amount of profits the porn industry brings in, the average person seems not to find it offensive at all.
So not only do the specific acts depicted have to be defined in state law (that's gotta be a fun bill to draft), but even when they are, no value and community standards are a tripping point for most cases.
"We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."
Cigarettes and alcohol don't involve speech or expression.
And as far as pornography, it may be true that Mr. Yee doesn't let his kids look at it. But that's not the constitutinal standard. The Supreme Court has already overruled the Communications Decency Act, which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content.
Typical legislative mentality. Ignore the constitution... just do what makes you look good and let the courts sort it out.
TFA does not mention what the industry suits think on that subject but it does contain the following quotes:
But many retailers and label executives alike point to a more fundamental problem this year: A lack of hit acts. Don VanCleave, president of the Coalition of Independent Music Stores, says blame lies with "an absolute, gigantic cesspool of really bad bands."
Of course it wouldn't have anything to do with the people who try to sell that cess pool to us.
"Gosh Mr. VanCleave, all I can find in your store is really bad bands."
"Sorry, spiritraveller, There's nothing fresh for you to get excited about anymore."
Brian Chase has publically admitted that he edited a Wikipedia entry for John Seigenthaler, making appear that Mr. Seigenthaler was involved in the assassination of JFK.
... for John Siegenthaler."
When I first read this, I though "ooh that dastardly Siegenthaler has orchestrated the whole thing just to make wikipedia look bad."
But on reading the article, I find that the emphasis was meant for "entry for John Siegenthaler" rather than "edited
After reading this, "Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss to rehire him, but Chase said this had not happened."
I am heartened at how forgiving Mr. Seigenthaler has been to the libelous fellow. Maybe he should sue the slashdot editors instead.
Bull. It varies dramatically by country.
Yes, of course. I should have noticed that it was a British website before posting.
Doesn't look like multicultural involvement has made it terribly unstable.
You confuse multigovernmentalism for multiculturalism. Obviously the internet thrives with people from all over the world communicating with very little restriction.
It does not follow that there will be more of this multiculturalism if more governments get involved. On the contrary, more regulation and more bureacracy will lead to more fatcats with new ideas about restricting our use of it.
The example of China's Great Firewall only makes me more convinced that the status quo is best. How would you like China's government to have a say in how the internet as a whole is governed instead of it being limited to its own borders?
No. It is almost never illegal for a journalist to post truthful and lawfully obtained information.
from the bio linked on slashdot:
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Yeah, he ought to know something about the First Amendment, since he founded "The First Amendment Center".
Of course the First Amendment does not allow one to commit libel or slander. But Mr. Seigenthaler (who has been a journalist for most of his life) would also be aware that the Supreme Court gives special protections to the press, as well as to anyone commenting about a public figure or a public official.
Arguably, Mr. Seigenthaler would have no case against Wikipedia even without the Congressional protections that he complains of.
"It's an arms race that the content owner can never win," said Yankee Group analyst Michael Goodman. "In order to make it usable, you also have to make it beatable. If you really truly want to lock it down, it is possible to lock it down. But it is so onerous on the user that they'd never want to use it in the first place."
This is exactly the problem with the record industry today. They think their shit smells sooooo good that people will put up with ANYTHING to get at it.
What they don't know is that once they finally reach that holy grail where content is locked down, non-portable, non-shareable, only listenable on approved and certified devices, and only copiable when you put a microphone in front of a speaker... NOBODY will want to bother with it.
Normal people don't want to spend time learning the difference between "Plays for Sure - Download" and "Plays for Sure - Subscription". Normal people don't want to figure out how many computers they can own before their music collection becomes unplayable. Normal people just want to listen to their music on the home stereo, in the car, on the computer, on the ipod... and not have to jump through hoops when they paid hard-earned cash for the privilege.
My thought is that the dollars will win out. I do wish though, that the ACLU would make itself useful and take some of the to the Supreme Court. If they are private schools, the ACLU is not going to be interested in these cases. Any suit would be on the contract between the student and the school, not on the Constitution. The ACLU is interested in protecting civil liberties. Relations between private parties under a contract are not normally part of the ACLU's mission.
The amount of false information people are posting on this article is both dizzying and distressful, since it shows how little Americans know about their own Constitution and how it has been interpreted for all this time. I can't say that I knew any more about this stuff before I went to law school.
The Constitution is mainly a blueprint for relations between the Federal government and the States, between the Federal government and the People, and ever since the Fourteenth Amendment, between the States and the People. Before the 14th was passed, the Federal Constitution's Bill of Rights did not protect anyone from regulation by state actors, only federal actors. Notice that every state has a Bill of Rights of its own which its courts may interpret more broadly than the Federal Bill of Rights.
Except for the 13th Amendment's ban on slavery, nothing in the Federal Constitution governs relations between the People and non-government actors (other people or corporations). So in general, a private school can regulate its students speech as much as it wants, because it is not a government actor.
The First Amendment does apply in public schools, because those schools are government actors. Of course, the schools get more leeway than a police officer on the street would get. See Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District for more information on Free Speech in public schools.
This is no longer the cold war and you no longer live in a democracy. What you primarily live in now is decidedly a Republic and a great deal of what you see/hear is being carefully orchestrated to keep you a good worker shopbot. Stop waving your nation's flag for a moment and just pay attention to the utterly incompetent individuals that are making one idiotic decision after another and....
You're preaching to the converted... but you are utterly off-topic.
The issue is government regulation of speech... Corporate media conglomerate propagandizing is quite a different issue, and it's not relevant to this conversation.
Wasn't "waving my nation's flag" at all. Just being a pragmatist.
You confuse a prudish culture with prudish law. I think the US and New Zealand are fairly similar in both culture and law. Perhaps as you point out, New Zealand is a little less prudish culturally. Ok, I'll buy that.
I don't think anyone said that New Zealand, Australia, etc. wouldn't also be good locations. However, ICANN is already in the US. There's no point in moving it.
The real comparison is with countries like China, Russia, and "various Arab states". Hell, even Germany and France regulate political speech. Why would you want those countries to have ANY say in how the internet is governed???
So far, the US government has kept its hands off. These other countries want to be hands-on. I may be an American, but I think I'm being very fair and objective when I say, "if it ain't broke don't fix it!"
The bill is supposed to restore the Free Press in the US, Lugar said. But how can that be when there's no definition of 'journalist'?
The summary misses the point here.
The minute you start letting a government define "journalist", you give it the power to take away Freedom of the Press.
If being a member of "the press" depends on some statutory definition, then Congress could make an end-run around Freedom of the Press by constricting the definition. Creating a statutory definition of a "journalist" would set a very bad precedent for the First Amendment and for the practice of journalism, even if that were not the intended consequence.
Think of it as a public defender for minors or disabled adults.
It is similar. However, a GAL represents a child's "best interests" as he sees them. Not necessarily as the child sees them. In delinqunecy cases, for instance, a GAL will sometimes argue that a child's best interest is to be held accountable for his acts, and receive some punishment and/or treatment for them. If the child has an attorney (such as a public defender), then the GAL and the child's attorney will be at odds.
In this case, however, a GAL would probably help defend the child and/or negotiate a favorable settlement. It's not really in a child's best interest to have a judgment against him of several thousand dollars.
If the child admitted to the activity at the parent's urging, then the parent would not have been acting in the child's best interest. That would create a clear enough conflict that the court should appoint a GAL.
Even if the parent did not urge the child to take the blame, there is still enough incentive for the parent to do so that the court should appoint a GAL to represent the child's best interest in the case.
The good thing about that is that GALs (in most systems) are lawyers, so it's a little bit like getting a free lawyer. Even a poor person is not normally entitled to a free lawyer in a civil case.