Then I assume your comment regarding streaming replacing cable was an objection to cable as a method of data transport, rather than cable as a medium which is transported as data. Or perhaps it was referring to the streaming nature of cable content, or something equally pedantic.
No, because he's not being induced by them to engage in the activity. They are only brought to the meet because by the time it is set up he has enough evidence to provide a reasonable argument that a crime is about to be committed.
This is probably the best short description I've seen, though there are certainly more complex shades-of-grey circumstances which are not as easy to break down.
When it can be shown that the person in question would have likely never been involved in a crime were it not for pressure induced by law enforcement it is typically considered entrapment.
Example: Small-time pot dealer makes a deal to purchase a couple pounds of pot from an undercover agent. Agent says "By the way, I'd also like to buy a pound of coke. I'll waive the fee for the pot if you hook me up." Many orders of magnitude difference in the nature of the transaction, but the agent continues to put pressure on the dealer. Dealer eventually says, "Alright, I know a guy who can probably hook you up with it, but I don't deal with that myself, nor will I act as an intermediary except to introduce you." Dealer sets up a meeting, introduces the two, coke dealer and agent set up a buy. Agent pressures the pot dealer to be present at the coke exchange itself, rather than completing the meet and sale then giving the pot dealer their "commission" at a later point. Agent trades pot to dealer and cash to the coke dealer, and everyone is arrested for trafficking in a very large amount of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Even though it was a trade and to be completed each side must have possession of either the cocaine or the marijuana, participants are charged with possession of both packages.
The dealer in question, despite being involved in illegal activity, was entrapped into a criminal charge to which they were merely an accessory. The agent parleyed a relatively minor charge into a major one by virtue of "tying" the deals together temporally, even when they would otherwise have been separate deals involving different people, in order to hit everyone with any involvement at all with the most serious charge on the table.
That's a rough example of how a complex case of entrapment works, since a complete transcript of the event would be a minor novella. In the case above, the agent involved actually admitted that it was quite clearly a case of entrapment where the dealer absolutely would not have been involved in a deal of that type or magnitude absent significant pressure from law enforcement. However, the jurisdiction in question had no laws against entrapment at the time this occurred, making that fact irrelevant for the purposes of defending against the charges, and all ended up pleading guilty or taking a plea deal.
With the way things change, it would not surprise me if the above was no longer considered entrapment though; I haven't had reason or desire to keep up with the times in that regard.
Really. As much of a privacy advocate as I am, I see this as completely logical and expected. Assuming the police have legally seized the device, they have complete legal control of its operation so long as they are not damaging or otherwise tampering with any evidentiary integrity the device or its data may have.
Now, once we get down to surgically-implanted wireless cochlear implants there are going to be some issues related to expectations of privacy. Then again, once we get there such a concept may not exist in an meaningful legal sense.
You must've tried it in its infancy. While it's not necessarily predictable exactly which movies will take a long time to hit NetFlix, it routinely gets movies within 6 months to a year of their theatrical release, and the only incomplete series are those which are actually still in production. This is because the content producers won't deviate from their release schedule. If it hasn't hit DVD, they won't license it to anyone else either. So yes, there is a lag of a couple years in the release of any current series, but that's the content producer's fault.
Exactly. Neither the content producers nor the distributors are going to give up their revenue streams willingly, so those commercial spots leaving would be replaced by billing subscribers directly. The likelihood of that happening is pretty near zero, and as Hulu shows even people there will put up with increasing advertising despite paying for streaming.
Odd as it may sound, I actually would see Hulu increasing the breadth of their ad selection as a good thing, but only because being forced to display the same 4 ads several times during each show in a series gets tiresome very quickly.
Or if you like 6 channels which just so happen to each be in a different package. Then again, maybe the per-channel pricing will make buying 120 channels come out to the same cost as buying any 6. Wouldn't surprise me...
They don't make fees for that content the carry if those people aren't subscribing to it though, so calling it a "cable subscription" just because you have internet via a cable line and fail to purchase content is almost exactly the same sort of dishonesty practiced by traditional marketers.
Really. They need to swap the names of SyFy and the Horror (I don't recall if this is actually the official name) channel, at least as of when I last watched either of them (been several years now, so things could have changed).
Last I was aware, neither DirecTV nor DishNetwork would sell subscription service if you did not have a service address in the USA, despite reception being perfect in Central America. I know a number of people who have dual residences who pay their service in the USA and simply imported the equipment to the country they live part of the year in. Once the service is activate they can't control reception based on geographic location unless there is an actual physical line-of-sight impediment.
That said, I could understand if much of Canada is outside of the broadcast horizon and thus technically unable to receive reception even if they game the DBS sales restrictions.
After a quick search, DBS is available in Alaska. It doesn't appear it's limited to Juneau, and even if it were that would still enable broadcast to anything in Canada excepting YT, NT, NU, and very northern QC.
First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent. Actually, much of the criminal law in the USA hinges on intent.
As to religious activity being given exactly the same consideration to any other activity under the law, I believe you have misread both the letter and the intent of that amendment. If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant. A complete lack of mention would place it on equal footing with all other activity with respect to the law. As the case law surrounding the Amish clearly shows, this is not, and never has been, the case in US jurisprudence.
Only if it's enshrined in the California Constitution. I'm guessing no such county rights exist though. The origin of the "States' Rights" argument has a lot more legitimacy, given that the concept of retained rights was important enough to get an amendment to the Federal Constitution all to itself.
Fair enough. I really didn't want to assume which direction you were coming from, since there were a great many potential pitfalls there.
And I tend to agree, though I'm definitely more inclined to the smaller political scale than the larger. I'm not particularly fond of federated republics. Way too many issues and very few benefits. The "golden age" period isn't really worth the abuses necessary to build them or those which occur when they inevitably collapse under their own weight.
Depends on the implementation. The successful ones have done as you described. The "single-provider" models are rightly condemned.
And yes, I agree with you. If you read my other comments here, you'll see I'm an advocate of exactly such a system.
In the case of the person I was responding to, systemic problems in both examples do, in fact, lay directly at the feet of municipal representatives. At the end of the day, they have the lion's share of the power in whatever relationship is currently in effect whether they wield (or even recognize) it or not.
If anyone thinks Eastern Cascadia is "all-whitey" land, they've never been here or they lump Hispanics in as "all-white." Maybe Hispanics are now "white enough" for the race-baiters.
Unfortunately, there is still a small Aryan contingent alive and well in North Idaho, so perhaps they are under the mistaken impression they can grow that into what it once was. That site sounds like an attempt to make their movement more palatable to people who would otherwise, at best, ignore them.
As for me, I'd love to see the Northwest break off into its own country.
The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. When judged against subjective standards, the standard of proof should be very high to find someone guilty of indecent behavior over a political expression of extreme displeasure which posed zero risk to anyone at any time.
As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on religious activity should be limited strictly to cases where there is very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. Even then, it should be limited to risk to those who have not, or cannot, consent to undertake those risks.
And of course it gets even more complex, since the Oregon ruling was regarding Oregon law. Rulings in other states, even if they got to the State appellate level, would not affect it. Neither, in all likelihood, would any ruling in a Federal Appellate court as it's unlikely that a case could come about regarding these issues that would bring about a Federal/State contest under the Supremacy Clause (for too many and complex reasons to be worth attempting to list).
While I'm generally in agreement with what you wrote (in regard to actual practice, if not theory), two things are of note. The first is in regard to the typical application of the judge as the finder of law, while the second is in regard to the practice of entering summary judgment when there is complete agreement on both sides as to the facts of the case.
Oregon if one of the four* US States where the State Constitution specifically protects the right of a jury to find in both matters of fact and in matters of law, though this is systematically ignored and jurors informed of the opposite in jury proceedings. Specifically: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases. You would never know that being in jury selection though, as the state jury informational pamphlet states the exact opposite. By the Constitution the judge is only allowed to instruct the jury as to how the facts they find fit within the context of the law they determine to be controlling the criminal charges, if they determine such a controlling law to exist at all.
As to the decision by the judge to enter a summary judgment via a bench trial without the agreement of the defendant, the Oregon Constitution provides but a single, crystal-clear exception to the right to a jury trial in cases where it is protected: that written application be made by the defendant and be approved by the trial judge. In capital criminal cases, this exception is specifically disclaimed; no capital crime may be subject to a bench trial under any circumstance.
While I agree with you on the general point, the below applies to the particulars you post:
That's an interesting example to use. I'm not sure who you're calling the anti-government people in the mining example, those trying to get the mine into Wisconsin (the Republicans), those trying to prevent it (Democrats + 1 Republican), or those unwilling to compromise at all on the contents of the bill (Gogebic Taconite)?
I doubt I'd support any of their positions if I knew more about the deal, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm really at a loss how any of that issue is an example of anti-government legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Bleh, crossed wires in the brain.
That should read "as a medium on which data is transported."
Then I assume your comment regarding streaming replacing cable was an objection to cable as a method of data transport, rather than cable as a medium which is transported as data. Or perhaps it was referring to the streaming nature of cable content, or something equally pedantic.
In yet another bad decision, the Supreme Court says otherwise.
Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz 496 US 444 (1990)
No, because he's not being induced by them to engage in the activity. They are only brought to the meet because by the time it is set up he has enough evidence to provide a reasonable argument that a crime is about to be committed.
This is probably the best short description I've seen, though there are certainly more complex shades-of-grey circumstances which are not as easy to break down.
When it can be shown that the person in question would have likely never been involved in a crime were it not for pressure induced by law enforcement it is typically considered entrapment.
Example:
Small-time pot dealer makes a deal to purchase a couple pounds of pot from an undercover agent. Agent says "By the way, I'd also like to buy a pound of coke. I'll waive the fee for the pot if you hook me up." Many orders of magnitude difference in the nature of the transaction, but the agent continues to put pressure on the dealer. Dealer eventually says, "Alright, I know a guy who can probably hook you up with it, but I don't deal with that myself, nor will I act as an intermediary except to introduce you." Dealer sets up a meeting, introduces the two, coke dealer and agent set up a buy. Agent pressures the pot dealer to be present at the coke exchange itself, rather than completing the meet and sale then giving the pot dealer their "commission" at a later point. Agent trades pot to dealer and cash to the coke dealer, and everyone is arrested for trafficking in a very large amount of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Even though it was a trade and to be completed each side must have possession of either the cocaine or the marijuana, participants are charged with possession of both packages.
The dealer in question, despite being involved in illegal activity, was entrapped into a criminal charge to which they were merely an accessory. The agent parleyed a relatively minor charge into a major one by virtue of "tying" the deals together temporally, even when they would otherwise have been separate deals involving different people, in order to hit everyone with any involvement at all with the most serious charge on the table.
That's a rough example of how a complex case of entrapment works, since a complete transcript of the event would be a minor novella. In the case above, the agent involved actually admitted that it was quite clearly a case of entrapment where the dealer absolutely would not have been involved in a deal of that type or magnitude absent significant pressure from law enforcement. However, the jurisdiction in question had no laws against entrapment at the time this occurred, making that fact irrelevant for the purposes of defending against the charges, and all ended up pleading guilty or taking a plea deal.
With the way things change, it would not surprise me if the above was no longer considered entrapment though; I haven't had reason or desire to keep up with the times in that regard.
Really. As much of a privacy advocate as I am, I see this as completely logical and expected. Assuming the police have legally seized the device, they have complete legal control of its operation so long as they are not damaging or otherwise tampering with any evidentiary integrity the device or its data may have.
Now, once we get down to surgically-implanted wireless cochlear implants there are going to be some issues related to expectations of privacy. Then again, once we get there such a concept may not exist in an meaningful legal sense.
You must've tried it in its infancy. While it's not necessarily predictable exactly which movies will take a long time to hit NetFlix, it routinely gets movies within 6 months to a year of their theatrical release, and the only incomplete series are those which are actually still in production. This is because the content producers won't deviate from their release schedule. If it hasn't hit DVD, they won't license it to anyone else either. So yes, there is a lag of a couple years in the release of any current series, but that's the content producer's fault.
Exactly. Neither the content producers nor the distributors are going to give up their revenue streams willingly, so those commercial spots leaving would be replaced by billing subscribers directly. The likelihood of that happening is pretty near zero, and as Hulu shows even people there will put up with increasing advertising despite paying for streaming.
Odd as it may sound, I actually would see Hulu increasing the breadth of their ad selection as a good thing, but only because being forced to display the same 4 ads several times during each show in a series gets tiresome very quickly.
Or if you like 6 channels which just so happen to each be in a different package. Then again, maybe the per-channel pricing will make buying 120 channels come out to the same cost as buying any 6. Wouldn't surprise me...
They don't make fees for that content the carry if those people aren't subscribing to it though, so calling it a "cable subscription" just because you have internet via a cable line and fail to purchase content is almost exactly the same sort of dishonesty practiced by traditional marketers.
Really. They need to swap the names of SyFy and the Horror (I don't recall if this is actually the official name) channel, at least as of when I last watched either of them (been several years now, so things could have changed).
Last I was aware, neither DirecTV nor DishNetwork would sell subscription service if you did not have a service address in the USA, despite reception being perfect in Central America. I know a number of people who have dual residences who pay their service in the USA and simply imported the equipment to the country they live part of the year in. Once the service is activate they can't control reception based on geographic location unless there is an actual physical line-of-sight impediment.
That said, I could understand if much of Canada is outside of the broadcast horizon and thus technically unable to receive reception even if they game the DBS sales restrictions.
After a quick search, DBS is available in Alaska. It doesn't appear it's limited to Juneau, and even if it were that would still enable broadcast to anything in Canada excepting YT, NT, NU, and very northern QC.
First, indecency standards can certainly still have meaning, because indecency is invariably derived from intent. Actually, much of the criminal law in the USA hinges on intent.
As to religious activity being given exactly the same consideration to any other activity under the law, I believe you have misread both the letter and the intent of that amendment. If it truly meant what you claim it to mean, the very act of mentioning religion specifically would be utterly redundant. A complete lack of mention would place it on equal footing with all other activity with respect to the law. As the case law surrounding the Amish clearly shows, this is not, and never has been, the case in US jurisprudence.
Only if it's enshrined in the California Constitution. I'm guessing no such county rights exist though. The origin of the "States' Rights" argument has a lot more legitimacy, given that the concept of retained rights was important enough to get an amendment to the Federal Constitution all to itself.
Fair enough. I really didn't want to assume which direction you were coming from, since there were a great many potential pitfalls there.
And I tend to agree, though I'm definitely more inclined to the smaller political scale than the larger. I'm not particularly fond of federated republics. Way too many issues and very few benefits. The "golden age" period isn't really worth the abuses necessary to build them or those which occur when they inevitably collapse under their own weight.
Depends on the implementation. The successful ones have done as you described. The "single-provider" models are rightly condemned.
And yes, I agree with you. If you read my other comments here, you'll see I'm an advocate of exactly such a system.
In the case of the person I was responding to, systemic problems in both examples do, in fact, lay directly at the feet of municipal representatives. At the end of the day, they have the lion's share of the power in whatever relationship is currently in effect whether they wield (or even recognize) it or not.
If anyone thinks Eastern Cascadia is "all-whitey" land, they've never been here or they lump Hispanics in as "all-white." Maybe Hispanics are now "white enough" for the race-baiters.
Unfortunately, there is still a small Aryan contingent alive and well in North Idaho, so perhaps they are under the mistaken impression they can grow that into what it once was. That site sounds like an attempt to make their movement more palatable to people who would otherwise, at best, ignore them.
As for me, I'd love to see the Northwest break off into its own country.
The difference is one is a violation of incredibly subjective standards while the example of flag burning can, in some cases, cause a very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. When judged against subjective standards, the standard of proof should be very high to find someone guilty of indecent behavior over a political expression of extreme displeasure which posed zero risk to anyone at any time.
As for religion, even though I am a-religious, I thoroughly believe that restrictions on religious activity should be limited strictly to cases where there is very real and articulable risk to life, health, and/or property. Even then, it should be limited to risk to those who have not, or cannot, consent to undertake those risks.
And of course it gets even more complex, since the Oregon ruling was regarding Oregon law. Rulings in other states, even if they got to the State appellate level, would not affect it. Neither, in all likelihood, would any ruling in a Federal Appellate court as it's unlikely that a case could come about regarding these issues that would bring about a Federal/State contest under the Supremacy Clause (for too many and complex reasons to be worth attempting to list).
As an avowed nudist (in the fashion of the times, anyway), he probably would have approved.
While I'm generally in agreement with what you wrote (in regard to actual practice, if not theory), two things are of note. The first is in regard to the typical application of the judge as the finder of law, while the second is in regard to the practice of entering summary judgment when there is complete agreement on both sides as to the facts of the case.
Oregon if one of the four* US States where the State Constitution specifically protects the right of a jury to find in both matters of fact and in matters of law, though this is systematically ignored and jurors informed of the opposite in jury proceedings. Specifically: In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.
You would never know that being in jury selection though, as the state jury informational pamphlet states the exact opposite. By the Constitution the judge is only allowed to instruct the jury as to how the facts they find fit within the context of the law they determine to be controlling the criminal charges, if they determine such a controlling law to exist at all.
As to the decision by the judge to enter a summary judgment via a bench trial without the agreement of the defendant, the Oregon Constitution provides but a single, crystal-clear exception to the right to a jury trial in cases where it is protected: that written application be made by the defendant and be approved by the trial judge. In capital criminal cases, this exception is specifically disclaimed; no capital crime may be subject to a bench trial under any circumstance.
*The others being Maryland, Georgia, and Indiana.
While I agree with you on the general point, the below applies to the particulars you post:
That's an interesting example to use. I'm not sure who you're calling the anti-government people in the mining example, those trying to get the mine into Wisconsin (the Republicans), those trying to prevent it (Democrats + 1 Republican), or those unwilling to compromise at all on the contents of the bill (Gogebic Taconite)?
I doubt I'd support any of their positions if I knew more about the deal, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'm really at a loss how any of that issue is an example of anti-government legislation.
That will require getting the lunatics away from the controls at the asyl^H^HCongress first. The former tasks were small potatoes in comparison.
That works. Perhaps an unusual choice given the nature of pedantry on Slashdot, but it was always possible. :)
suborned democracy
Intentional jab at the institution of democracy in general, or hilariously incorrect use of the word "suborned?"
Either way, I had a good chuckle.