He admitted, presumably only *after* he was punished. He never got a chance to defend himself, now did he? If he wasn't guilty, would he have had a venue or opportunity to defend himself? What if it were you accused, and you *hadn't* downloaded the movie in question (maybe it was a roommate using a shared computer or somebody using your computer as a wifi access point).
Just because he wasn't technically entitled to any due process doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of where it happens, you deserve a right to defend yourself from accusations.
even if he was "guilty", in a court of law, would that same evidence be admissable? think about it. Private corporations shouldn't be allowed to play police.
Who gets to define "douchebag"?... and there goes your freedom.
Seriously, I have see canadian defamation law abused, and more importantly, I've seen it frighten people away from speaking out about things that really do need to be spoken about. In Canada, you're guilty until proven innocent when it comes to defamation, and that's quite frankly just plain wrong.
Theft implies he could have and would have purchased it otherwise. It also implies he took the opportunity to watch the film away from somebody else, which is not the case.
Freedom of speech is one of our leading problems? Ok then. I'm glad I have the second amendment in case you try and mess with *my* first. Do what you will in your own country, though.
And you could argue that so does not showing a realistic depiction of violence. You could also argue it teaches kids that people just fall down after shooting them in the face.
And some decisions I agree with, like overturning the gun ban in DC. Personally, i'm glad there is a balance even though I might not agree with everything (I'm a libertarian). I can thing of nothing nothing worse than a partisan supreme court.
Restrictions on the freedom of speech *are* a bad thing... always and without exception. "Defamation" has a chilling effect on free speech as it's rarely used for it's intended purpose, and thankfully, in many US states, there are anti-SLAPP statues on the book to protect people from malicious prosecution for exercising their first amendment rights. Canada has very few protections in this area.
real world example: let's take "AARC" or "Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre" in Canada (see the CBC report). The kids abused in that program often (but not always) cannot objectively prove their statements about abuse true if it was not witnessed or the witness is afraid to testify (which is not to say it did not happen.). Canada's defamation laws make it difficult for them to speak out against AARC. They live in fear that if they speak out they can be financially ruined and thrown in jail... just because they have no proof to back up what they experienced. I manage a forum where victims of AARC are threatened on a frequent daily basis for speaking out.
Yes, bush was a disaster, but if you expect Obama to be any better, you're fooling yourself.
Maybe, but canada's freedom of speech laws suck. Take defamation, for example. In the US, thanks to the 5th amendment, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made a false statement (and if the plaintiff is a public figure they have to prove the false statement was made with knowledge of falsity, or "actual malice"). In Canada, a defendant has to prove a statement true, which is often much more difficult when it's one person's word against another's, for example. Opinion is also something that is given a lot more leeway in the United States.
That's a much more complex argument where things such as "national security" and the "drug war" would have to be taken into account (not that I agree with it, and i see where you're going). A private home, on the other hand, is a man's castle, and warrentless searches of a person's home are pretty clearly forbidden by the 4th amendment.
I have zero faith in politicians and government agencies to pass and enforce legislation that is constitutional, but the court system has for the most part kept them in check. Agree or not with which way they rule, the supreme court tends to make decent decisions in that regard.
In a time where every single home emits some sort of RF, the FCC's claim is outdated. Holding the 1934 law as constitutional would give the FCC the authority to inspect pretty much any house in the country, completely defeating the point of the 4th amendment. There is no way in hell they would win in court.
Could it be that people prefer games with violence because without it, something is obviously missing. It's also condescending to the player, implying a person isn't mature enough to see a more realistic portrayal of a violent act.
Without it, a game comes off as a cartoon. I don't notice it so much when it's there and have never found it a bother, but when it's not there, it's noticeable. If you shoot somebody in the head with a shotgun and they just fall down without a drop of blood, something is wrong. It's just plain not realistic.
Knowing what a person will do is not the same thing as controlling what a person will do. A person still has the ability to make choices.
You might be able to argue that you could influence me some way to jump out the window right here and now, but honestly, I don't think there is any possibility of that happening, even with unlimited chances.
Slashdot Mirror
You migth win if you had a right to appeal, but was that the case? Again, it's up to speculation.
He admitted, presumably only *after* he was punished. He never got a chance to defend himself, now did he? If he wasn't guilty, would he have had a venue or opportunity to defend himself? What if it were you accused, and you *hadn't* downloaded the movie in question (maybe it was a roommate using a shared computer or somebody using your computer as a wifi access point).
Just because he wasn't technically entitled to any due process doesn't mean it's right. Regardless of where it happens, you deserve a right to defend yourself from accusations.
even if he was "guilty", in a court of law, would that same evidence be admissable? think about it. Private corporations shouldn't be allowed to play police.
Who gets to define "douchebag"? ... and there goes your freedom.
Seriously, I have see canadian defamation law abused, and more importantly, I've seen it frighten people away from speaking out about things that really do need to be spoken about. In Canada, you're guilty until proven innocent when it comes to defamation, and that's quite frankly just plain wrong.
Theft implies he could have and would have purchased it otherwise. It also implies he took the opportunity to watch the film away from somebody else, which is not the case.
And how, exactly, could he rebut the accusation? What venue could he use if he was falsely accused?
There is something called due process. He got none.
Freedom of speech is one of our leading problems? Ok then. I'm glad I have the second amendment in case you try and mess with *my* first. Do what you will in your own country, though.
What's driving our country in the ground is not freedom of speech. That's a piss-poor argument.
And you could argue that so does not showing a realistic depiction of violence. You could also argue it teaches kids that people just fall down after shooting them in the face.
FCC is not law enforcement, afaik.
Not in all states. Some states have a "stand your ground" doctrine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#Stand-your-ground
Also see Beard v. U.S.
And that is why there must be balance.
And some decisions I agree with, like overturning the gun ban in DC. Personally, i'm glad there is a balance even though I might not agree with everything (I'm a libertarian). I can thing of nothing nothing worse than a partisan supreme court.
Restrictions on the freedom of speech *are* a bad thing... always and without exception. "Defamation" has a chilling effect on free speech as it's rarely used for it's intended purpose, and thankfully, in many US states, there are anti-SLAPP statues on the book to protect people from malicious prosecution for exercising their first amendment rights. Canada has very few protections in this area.
real world example: let's take "AARC" or "Alberta Adolescent Recovery Centre" in Canada (see the CBC report). The kids abused in that program often (but not always) cannot objectively prove their statements about abuse true if it was not witnessed or the witness is afraid to testify (which is not to say it did not happen.). Canada's defamation laws make it difficult for them to speak out against AARC. They live in fear that if they speak out they can be financially ruined and thrown in jail... just because they have no proof to back up what they experienced. I manage a forum where victims of AARC are threatened on a frequent daily basis for speaking out.
Yes, bush was a disaster, but if you expect Obama to be any better, you're fooling yourself.
I'm pretty sure the FCC is not a law enforcement agency, but a regulatory agency.
Yeah, but are were you supposed to know they were from the FCC?
Also, defamation can be criminal in Canada (and the UK), while in the states it's always a civil matter.
Maybe, but canada's freedom of speech laws suck. Take defamation, for example. In the US, thanks to the 5th amendment, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made a false statement (and if the plaintiff is a public figure they have to prove the false statement was made with knowledge of falsity, or "actual malice"). In Canada, a defendant has to prove a statement true, which is often much more difficult when it's one person's word against another's, for example. Opinion is also something that is given a lot more leeway in the United States.
That's a much more complex argument where things such as "national security" and the "drug war" would have to be taken into account (not that I agree with it, and i see where you're going). A private home, on the other hand, is a man's castle, and warrentless searches of a person's home are pretty clearly forbidden by the 4th amendment.
I have zero faith in politicians and government agencies to pass and enforce legislation that is constitutional, but the court system has for the most part kept them in check. Agree or not with which way they rule, the supreme court tends to make decent decisions in that regard.
In a time where every single home emits some sort of RF, the FCC's claim is outdated. Holding the 1934 law as constitutional would give the FCC the authority to inspect pretty much any house in the country, completely defeating the point of the 4th amendment. There is no way in hell they would win in court.
And the resulting court case. I'm pretty sure the 4th amendment would triumph over the FCC's bullshit rule they presumably wrote themselves.
What research? Citation needed there.
Could it be that people prefer games with violence because without it, something is obviously missing. It's also condescending to the player, implying a person isn't mature enough to see a more realistic portrayal of a violent act.
Without it, a game comes off as a cartoon. I don't notice it so much when it's there and have never found it a bother, but when it's not there, it's noticeable. If you shoot somebody in the head with a shotgun and they just fall down without a drop of blood, something is wrong. It's just plain not realistic.
Knowing what a person will do is not the same thing as controlling what a person will do. A person still has the ability to make choices. You might be able to argue that you could influence me some way to jump out the window right here and now, but honestly, I don't think there is any possibility of that happening, even with unlimited chances.