It was the LAW that harmed them, not the prosecution. The prosecution is an inevitable effect of the law written as it is written.
The Prosecutor's Office could have decided NOT to prosecute them. Happens all the time. Courts are funded for just so many trials every year, the rest get plea bargains. Conspiracy theories on the political ambitions of the district attorney in question are left as an exercise to the reader...
You know, there is such a thing as "Public interest" when it comes to state prosecution. Do you believe was the public interest was served by prosecuting these kids?
Yup. If your view of children is rights-less chattels emancipated by the age of consent, absolutely. If your intent is to get legal sanction to brainwash your under-18 citizens with whatever viewpoint the State sees as desirable in order to maintain control of said under-18 citizens for life, you bet. If you have the money to influence your government to legitimise whatever Puritanical viewpoint you happen to be carrying, without a doubt.
The majority brief actually included a part where they justified continuing this charade because these pictures MIGHT harm this couple in the future.
So, the court decided that they MIGHT harm the kids in the future decides to judicially harm these same kids NOW. Welcome to the loving nanny-state, where if you make your own decisions for your life, you will be punished.
I dislike Jack Thompson for his smearing, his wild accusations, and his consistent histrionic bullshit, which can be quoted voluminously (so why quote a paraphrase?), but he is still a lawyer, and he is a *competent* lawyer who understands exactly what's gone wrong with the law.
They gave him a license and let him 'practice' it?
...but since this is the internet, I'd probably make more money if I copyright the 'Dirty Sanchez', 'Standing up in a shower doing it from behind' and 'Two midgets, a trapeze and the running start'.
You forgot 'the cheerleader and the giraffe'. Too late, I already copyrighted it!
But, gut feeling tells me that no they dont have a basis for suing you if you followed all the rules about giving them sufficient notice and all that.
At the risk of sounding trite, I'm betting he's from the US, where the only growth industries are prisons and law schools. In the US you can sue anybody any time for anything. For instance, I could sue you because it's Friday. All I have to do is convince a lawyer that it being Friday hurts me and it's YOUR fault and he'll file it for me.
Actually, for law enforcement, it's not an expense, it's a windfall of budget increases, more employment, its entire infrastructure benefits, on and off the books. For the taxpayers...well, it's all a matter of how they feel, regardless of actual crime stats.
Those who object to their taxpayer dollars being spent like this will of course be found guilty of something, backed up by video evidence, and packed off to a prison where they can work for some corporation at 10 cents an hour. Amazing how much labor is done in prison, where the Minimum Wage doesn't apply...
Someone explain to me why Slashdot has so many people who are afraid to death of cameras?
We're not afraid of cameras. We just don't like what they represent, which is the death of privacy. What's that, you say? 'Why should I worry about privacy if I have nothing to hide?' We don't necessarily hate the technology, we just don't trust the people who will have access to the data collected by this technology. People who were not voted into office, that cannot be impeached for malfeasance, people that believe that violation of every law on the books from the Constitution on down is justified 'to protect the people'. My question is, who protects us from them? In an era when any Slashdot reader has access to cheap and dependable software to create the video of their dreams, who is to stop these people from manufacturing their own 'surveillence video' for evidence in a trial? How do you detect the fraud? Who is the jury going to believe, the witness on the stands or the witness on tape?
The easiest way to discredit anyone is to frame them for murder. Suppose they framed a Federal whistleblower? Suppose they framed a dissident? Suppose they framed you? Maybe you think the government is all touchy-feely and has no agenda. That's fine. What guarantees are there that future incarnations of government are going to be as benign as you believe it is now? Personally, I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, then grew increasingly uncomfortable with its growing useage in military applications. He did not invent it originally for military purposes. Surveillance cameras aren't specifically designed with political or law enforcement applications. They will be used for these purposes.
This is ironic. Didn't Sony originally DEFEND the concept of personal recording with their Betamax VCRs? I believe that was a landmark case. I'll bet they (Sony) don't even remember they did that.
Sure they did. But they had a product to sell that took advantage of that technology. They're not selling the add-on device in this case, therefore no sales for them. Remember, in any court case, it helps to follow the money.
Even if it gets kicked up to SCOTUS doesn't mean it'll get heard. Remember, SCOTUS has the option of not hearing a case. There is nothing in the law that requires them to hear a case. This is one of those that will never be heard.
Wrong. A potential employer does not require my permission to receive lies about my character from a credit reporting agency. All they have to do is pay the parasite for the "information".
Actually, they need permission. You give it to them when you sign the release so they can do 'background checks' on you, which is pulling your credit report and getting a copy of your police report. They don't wanna be hiring somebody susceptible to bribery (aka 'bad credit report') or prone to go postal (aka 'lottsa stuff on their police report'). Especially these days when ex-employees can and do sue for almost anything. I'm [b]not[/b] saying all such suits are wrong, but a good sized number of them do bear a closer look.
A government can arrest you, imprison you, and even kill you. Governments all around the world are waging wars, rounding people up, and torturing them. What business can do that?
raditionally Democrats want Big Government to take away your rights, while the Republicans want to keep the government as small as possible. These days, though, that seems not to be the case -- the Republicans want to fuck over the people, legislate morality, expand the military, and kill all non-Christians; where the Democrats want to fuck over the people, raise taxes, and ban guns.
Which just goes to convince me more and more of the need to reboot the system.
Course, mention that in a couple more years, I'll be advocating it from Gitmo...
I figure all of the television audience (that hasn't read the book) will be convinced that the last episode is actually a huge cliffhanger/teaser for the next season and be dissapointed when it never comes, and if the series was popular enough, SciFi will eventually decide to create a second season, probably without Stephenson involved other than to sign rights in exchange for a pile of money, which will be craptacular and make you hate the first season. Either way, it's going to end with pitchforks and torches outside SciFi headquarters.
They haven't so far, even though SciFi shows wrestling.
I STILL haven't figured out what wrestling has to do with science fiction, unless they're talking about the wrestlers' tax returns...
No, it's Levy paid to CRIA for blank CD's and audio tapes (not HDDs or DVDs), but you can't be sued for downloading music or videos.
OK, so what this is REALLY all about is bringing Canada the 'joys' of civilisation - clogged courts, frivolous lawsuits and legalised extortion as RIAA's Canadian clone swings into action. Gotcha. They must not have had enough cash laying around for 3 hookers for every guest at last year's Christmas party and figured this would be a good way to skim some 'coke & hookers' cash...
Yes. Always the same shit from the environmentalists - "humans going to blow up the planet". Greenpeace actually said, in one of their 90s pamphlets "humans about to destroy all life on earth"... Idiots. We may be able to take care of small flightless birds, we may be pretty good at wiping out most of the fish stocks, but humans could never destroy life on earth.
Course we can't. Roaches have 600 times the radiation resistance that humans do, right up there with Neocons. Course, who can tell the difference these days?
Slashdot Mirror
The Prosecutor's Office could have decided NOT to prosecute them. Happens all the time. Courts are funded for just so many trials every year, the rest get plea bargains. Conspiracy theories on the political ambitions of the district attorney in question are left as an exercise to the reader...
Dude, you need to get a grip.
Oh, wait...
Yup. If your view of children is rights-less chattels emancipated by the age of consent, absolutely. If your intent is to get legal sanction to brainwash your under-18 citizens with whatever viewpoint the State sees as desirable in order to maintain control of said under-18 citizens for life, you bet. If you have the money to influence your government to legitimise whatever Puritanical viewpoint you happen to be carrying, without a doubt.
So, the court decided that they MIGHT harm the kids in the future decides to judicially harm these same kids NOW. Welcome to the loving nanny-state, where if you make your own decisions for your life, you will be punished.
They gave him a license and let him 'practice' it?
Dibs on the switch. Let's watch him twitch...
You forgot 'the cheerleader and the giraffe'. Too late, I already copyrighted it!
Gotta get them outta their mom's basements and meet some girls first before they can do that...
Some personal hygene will lessen their odds, of course.
What do you think this is, a cheerocracy????
Corrected.
At the risk of sounding trite, I'm betting he's from the US, where the only growth industries are prisons and law schools. In the US you can sue anybody any time for anything. For instance, I could sue you because it's Friday. All I have to do is convince a lawyer that it being Friday hurts me and it's YOUR fault and he'll file it for me.
Questions?
Those who object to their taxpayer dollars being spent like this will of course be found guilty of something, backed up by video evidence, and packed off to a prison where they can work for some corporation at 10 cents an hour. Amazing how much labor is done in prison, where the Minimum Wage doesn't apply...
We're not afraid of cameras. We just don't like what they represent, which is the death of privacy. What's that, you say? 'Why should I worry about privacy if I have nothing to hide?' We don't necessarily hate the technology, we just don't trust the people who will have access to the data collected by this technology. People who were not voted into office, that cannot be impeached for malfeasance, people that believe that violation of every law on the books from the Constitution on down is justified 'to protect the people'. My question is, who protects us from them? In an era when any Slashdot reader has access to cheap and dependable software to create the video of their dreams, who is to stop these people from manufacturing their own 'surveillence video' for evidence in a trial? How do you detect the fraud? Who is the jury going to believe, the witness on the stands or the witness on tape?
The easiest way to discredit anyone is to frame them for murder. Suppose they framed a Federal whistleblower? Suppose they framed a dissident? Suppose they framed you? Maybe you think the government is all touchy-feely and has no agenda. That's fine. What guarantees are there that future incarnations of government are going to be as benign as you believe it is now? Personally, I believe that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, then grew increasingly uncomfortable with its growing useage in military applications. He did not invent it originally for military purposes. Surveillance cameras aren't specifically designed with political or law enforcement applications. They will be used for these purposes.
Even if it gets kicked up to SCOTUS doesn't mean it'll get heard. Remember, SCOTUS has the option of not hearing a case. There is nothing in the law that requires them to hear a case. This is one of those that will never be heard.
I wouldn't mind remodulating Seven of Nine. Or B'Elana. Or both at once.
Actually, they need permission. You give it to them when you sign the release so they can do 'background checks' on you, which is pulling your credit report and getting a copy of your police report. They don't wanna be hiring somebody susceptible to bribery (aka 'bad credit report') or prone to go postal (aka 'lottsa stuff on their police report'). Especially these days when ex-employees can and do sue for almost anything. I'm [b]not[/b] saying all such suits are wrong, but a good sized number of them do bear a closer look.
RIAA.
Which just goes to convince me more and more of the need to reboot the system.
Course, mention that in a couple more years, I'll be advocating it from Gitmo...
They haven't so far, even though SciFi shows wrestling.
I STILL haven't figured out what wrestling has to do with science fiction, unless they're talking about the wrestlers' tax returns...
OK, so they'll organise it just like in 'Brazil', then charge you for collecting your data?
OK, so what this is REALLY all about is bringing Canada the 'joys' of civilisation - clogged courts, frivolous lawsuits and legalised extortion as RIAA's Canadian clone swings into action. Gotcha. They must not have had enough cash laying around for 3 hookers for every guest at last year's Christmas party and figured this would be a good way to skim some 'coke & hookers' cash...
Course we can't. Roaches have 600 times the radiation resistance that humans do, right up there with Neocons. Course, who can tell the difference these days?