The nutty SJWs wouldn't even have to keep their mouths shut to make the nutty conservatives more wrong, they would merely have to stop saying such nutty things. (The converse is also true, of course.)
You do need a big rocket if you want to launch anything from the moon that will make it through the Earth's atmosphere with enough residual energy to damage much.
The moon's escape velocity is about 21% of Earth's. So you need only 1/22nd the kinetic energy to leave the moon's gravity well as you would to leave Earth's. However, that doesn't do much for objects with typical density (like boulders), because much of those objects will burn up upon entering the Earth's atmosphere.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. But “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” News-gathering, for example, “is entitled to first amendment protection, for ‘without some protection for seeking out the news, freedom of the press could be eviscerated,’” even though this right is not absolute. The Supreme Court has also recognized a First Amendment right to “receive information and ideas,” and there is “an undoubted right to gather news from any source by means within the law.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the First Amendment protects film. A corollary to this principle is that the First Amendment protects the act of making film, as “there is no fixed First Amendment line between the act of creating speech and the speech itself.” Indeed, the Supreme Court has never “drawn a distinction between the process of creating a form of pure speech (such as writing or painting) and the product of these processes (the essay or the artwork) in terms of the First Amendment protection afforded. Although writing and painting can be reduced to their constituent acts, and thus described as conduct, we have not attempted to disconnect the end product from the act of creation.”
(internal citations omitted)
Does that save you enough of the effort of actually reading the material that was linked in the summary?
The Constitution lays out a separation of powers between the federal and state governments. It empowers the federal government to do certain things, leaving other powers to the states or to the people. States are assumed to have general police powers, subject only to constitutional constraints. With the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, certain constitutional rights are "incorporated" against states -- so that while the state might have used its police powers to do things like prevent black citizens from voting, after the Fourteenth Amendment, that was no longer permitted. The First Amendment's protections for the rights of speech and petition for redress are among the rights that were incorporated against state governments. Thus, any state laws that purport to outlaw activities protected by the First Amendment would be unconstitutional, and every appeals court that has ruled on the question (including the one in this case) has ruled that recording police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment protects him because any law that purported to prohibit what he was doing would be unconstitutional due to 1A protections of his rights.
Courts have generally held that public officials, like the general public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Courts have speculated (because the question was not before them) that police officers might have a reasonable expectation of privacy in particular places, such as inside parts of a police station, where members of the public would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasons for that should be fairly clear. However, nothing in this case hinges on whether anyone had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the arrest of the videographer.
Courts would reject, probably as frivolous and possibly with sanctions, any claim that copyright in a police uniform would prohibit recording police performing their duties (or breaking the law while in uniform) or distributing such footage.
You seem to have confused me with someone else. I haven't said that Hillary Clinton is particularly left-leaning by today's standards. She was in some ways to the left of Obama in 2008, and she currently is to the left of all major Democrats who ran before that. Today's Democrats are largely barking moonbats, so there are lots of Dems to the left of her now.
My only contention about Clinton was that she was, and is, a Democrat, and saying that a ballot including her is "a straight Republican ticket" is delusional.
Those things are all crimes for reasons independent of the news-gathering function. In the instant case, the only reason police stopped the plaintiff was because he was recording video in a public place.
This court decision is specifically about qualified immunity for the police officers. If you want to talk about something else, like the way you imagine the Constitution works,please make it clear that you're changing the subject.
You stated what you think the Constitution should mean, but phrased it as an accepted or actual state of affairs. Don't get pissy just because someone pointed out that your comment was either wrong or extremely poorly phrased, depending on how generous a reader is being.
And you're missing the point several times over. Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights. It only applies when they want to sue government officials in a personal capacity, rather than the government itself. The rule exists because without something like it, government officials would not vigorously enforce laws due to the risk of civil liability.
Then kindly say what you mean. Don't say "you do not have to" do a thing when you mean "you should not have to do" that thing. The rules about qualified immunity were spelled out by the Supreme Court; this appeals court is bound to follow that precedent.
For additional citations, see also the US DOJ's amicus brief in a similar case before the 3rd Circuit. The core arguments start on page 18. (It doesn't look like the appeals court has ruled on that case yet, and I don't know when they will.)
If a plaintiff wants to sue government individuals as individuals for violating the plaintiff's civil rights, the officials will almost certainly assert qualified immunity, at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.
If a plaintiff cannot or will not do that, he or she can only sue the government entity, not the officials in a personal capacity.
All the justices in Branzburg v. Hayes found that some kinds of newsgathering are protected by the First Amendment, although the court ruled that there was not an unqualified right of journalists to refuse to testify about what they knew. I don't know that any case's holding speaks directly to the question.
"Clearly established" is not "just empty bullshit waffle". Read the court's ruling. It pretty clearly explains why the courts must grant qualified immunity if there is not "clearly established" law protecting what the plaintiff was doing. And, as the article here states and I said, the appeals court here did make a precedential rule that the right to record police is "clearly established" from this point forward (in the 5th Circuit). The dissent said they should not have set that precedent, which is defensible under Pearson v. Callahan, but often bad jurisprudence.
Slashdot Mirror
Forget about it, Jake, it's BeauHD.
L1 is dynamically unstable, so the presumption is that rocks wouldn't stay there.
The nutty SJWs wouldn't even have to keep their mouths shut to make the nutty conservatives more wrong, they would merely have to stop saying such nutty things. (The converse is also true, of course.)
You do need a big rocket if you want to launch anything from the moon that will make it through the Earth's atmosphere with enough residual energy to damage much.
The moon's escape velocity is about 21% of Earth's. So you need only 1/22nd the kinetic energy to leave the moon's gravity well as you would to leave Earth's. However, that doesn't do much for objects with typical density (like boulders), because much of those objects will burn up upon entering the Earth's atmosphere.
If a self-driving car full of explosives blows up in a crowded market, is it a suicide bombing?
The turtles are 100% covered by the elephants, so the turtles will be perfectly safe.
Why can't we institute some kind of tax system where we tax people some percentage of their income, instead of levying a $12k/person capitation?!
Maybe if we felt really progressive, we could even tax people a larger fraction of their income as their income goes up.
I am shocked, shocked, that some things now need two salaries to buy when most families now have two wage earners rather than just one.
Go back and read what I wrote earlier. It's not my fault that you don't understand simple English or how laws work.
I'm not going to repeat what I already told you.
(internal citations omitted)
Does that save you enough of the effort of actually reading the material that was linked in the summary?
The Constitution lays out a separation of powers between the federal and state governments. It empowers the federal government to do certain things, leaving other powers to the states or to the people. States are assumed to have general police powers, subject only to constitutional constraints. With the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, certain constitutional rights are "incorporated" against states -- so that while the state might have used its police powers to do things like prevent black citizens from voting, after the Fourteenth Amendment, that was no longer permitted. The First Amendment's protections for the rights of speech and petition for redress are among the rights that were incorporated against state governments. Thus, any state laws that purport to outlaw activities protected by the First Amendment would be unconstitutional, and every appeals court that has ruled on the question (including the one in this case) has ruled that recording police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment.
I don't understand what you think is so obscure.
The First Amendment protects him because any law that purported to prohibit what he was doing would be unconstitutional due to 1A protections of his rights.
Courts have generally held that public officials, like the general public, do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. Courts have speculated (because the question was not before them) that police officers might have a reasonable expectation of privacy in particular places, such as inside parts of a police station, where members of the public would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasons for that should be fairly clear. However, nothing in this case hinges on whether anyone had a reasonable expectation of privacy during the arrest of the videographer.
Courts would reject, probably as frivolous and possibly with sanctions, any claim that copyright in a police uniform would prohibit recording police performing their duties (or breaking the law while in uniform) or distributing such footage.
You seem to have confused me with someone else. I haven't said that Hillary Clinton is particularly left-leaning by today's standards. She was in some ways to the left of Obama in 2008, and she currently is to the left of all major Democrats who ran before that. Today's Democrats are largely barking moonbats, so there are lots of Dems to the left of her now.
My only contention about Clinton was that she was, and is, a Democrat, and saying that a ballot including her is "a straight Republican ticket" is delusional.
That package was so loose, even your momma said it really got around.
Those things are all crimes for reasons independent of the news-gathering function. In the instant case, the only reason police stopped the plaintiff was because he was recording video in a public place.
This court decision is specifically about qualified immunity for the police officers. If you want to talk about something else, like the way you imagine the Constitution works,please make it clear that you're changing the subject.
You stated what you think the Constitution should mean, but phrased it as an accepted or actual state of affairs. Don't get pissy just because someone pointed out that your comment was either wrong or extremely poorly phrased, depending on how generous a reader is being.
And you're missing the point several times over. Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights. It only applies when they want to sue government officials in a personal capacity, rather than the government itself. The rule exists because without something like it, government officials would not vigorously enforce laws due to the risk of civil liability.
Then kindly say what you mean. Don't say "you do not have to" do a thing when you mean "you should not have to do" that thing. The rules about qualified immunity were spelled out by the Supreme Court; this appeals court is bound to follow that precedent.
For additional citations, see also the US DOJ's amicus brief in a similar case before the 3rd Circuit. The core arguments start on page 18. (It doesn't look like the appeals court has ruled on that case yet, and I don't know when they will.)
If a plaintiff wants to sue government individuals as individuals for violating the plaintiff's civil rights, the officials will almost certainly assert qualified immunity, at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.
If a plaintiff cannot or will not do that, he or she can only sue the government entity, not the officials in a personal capacity.
All the justices in Branzburg v. Hayes found that some kinds of newsgathering are protected by the First Amendment, although the court ruled that there was not an unqualified right of journalists to refuse to testify about what they knew. I don't know that any case's holding speaks directly to the question.
"Clearly established" is not "just empty bullshit waffle". Read the court's ruling. It pretty clearly explains why the courts must grant qualified immunity if there is not "clearly established" law protecting what the plaintiff was doing. And, as the article here states and I said, the appeals court here did make a precedential rule that the right to record police is "clearly established" from this point forward (in the 5th Circuit). The dissent said they should not have set that precedent, which is defensible under Pearson v. Callahan, but often bad jurisprudence.