Other people are allowed to infringe on your right to free speech as much as they like.
No they aren't. Other people can deny you access to THEIR property if it's being used to further your free speech (CmdrTaco could ban you from/. if he was so inclined) but that's it. They can't try to muzzle you when you use your own property or the property of another. They can't slug you if you are standing on the street corner exercising your free speech with a megaphone.
The former student also admitted initiating denial of service attacks against University of Akron computer servers on or about March 14, 2007, which caused the entire University of Akron computer network to be knocked off-line for approximately 8 12 hours, preventing all students, faculty and staff members from accessing the network. The University claimed that response and remediation efforts to restore network services cost over $10,000.
$10,000 in damages during other crimes (theft, vandalism, etc.) would certainly net you a felony charge. In my state the maximum sentence for a Class E (the least severe) Felony is 24 months, so 30 months isn't that far off the mark. Why should he be treated any differently than someone who destroys and/or steals $10,000 worth of property?
One could argue that a DDoS does not just harm the targeted site. It also harms their uplink provider. By extension that harms every site connected through that provider. It also has some impact on the networks that the pwned machines are connected to.
Or will use eminent domain or asset forfeiture to get the government to take it from you.
Guess who said it was ok to use eminent domain for the advantage of private enterprise? It was the left leaning Justices on the Supreme Court. The right leaning Justices all dissented in that particular case....
Hopefully I-1098 was actually a bad idea, because otherwise Ballmer just scammed the Washington electorate.
How did he "scam" them? He inserted his thoughts and ideas into the public debate. Nobody held a gun to a voters head and said "You must do what Mr. Ballmer says is right."
In the future, this will become mandatory in more jurisdictions in some cases, where babies are genetically tested in the womb, and parents begin to be found liable for genetic problems of their children that they knew about and did not abort.
Do note that the term "Border" got redefined to be anywhere within 100-miles of the physical border inland entry points. International airports count as entry points. 2/3rds of the US population is technically within this area.
At least the winner of your race got 50%+1. The city I live in has a Mayor that almost everybody hates. 60% of the electorate voted against him. But he's still Mayor because it was a three-way race.
If a soldier comes up to your house wielding an M-16 asking to be let in to spend the night, I don't think there is really much that you can do to stop them
Sure there is. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.
Actually he didn't do what he said he would do with regards to health care. Candidate Obama condemned the notion of a mandate to buy health insurance and effectively leveraged the issue against Clinton during the primaries. President Obama signed a bill containing such a mandate into law.
What's your point besides the members of the GOP occasionally support gun control just as their Democratic counterparts do?
All the jurisdictions I listed are dominated by the Democratic Party, some to the point that the GOP is nearly irrelevant. All of them have laws in place that make it prohibitively expensive and/or difficult to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. All of them have laws in place that limit the types of firearms you are allowed to own and the types of accessories you can use with those firearms. All of them have Legislatures dominated by Democrats that continue to push for more and more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Name me a single state in the United States with restrictive gun laws that's dominated by the GOP to the extent the states I listed are dominated by the Democrats.
The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Perhaps you meant the Ninth?
No, I did mean the 10th, but the 9th certainly qualifies as an amendment that both parties ignore.
Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.
All of which have grown way outside of the Federal Government's original mandates. Do you honestly believe that the interstate commerce clause was intended to grant the Federal Government the power to criminalize the growing of cannabis for personal consumption?
I understand that the Democrats railed against the overturning of a law that prohibited a corporation set up for the express purpose of political advocacy from publishing a movie about a presidential candidate in the run-up to an election.
What more do I need to know? Why don't you offer some ideas instead of a single sentence telling me how much I don't understand?
Slashdot Mirror
Other people are allowed to infringe on your right to free speech as much as they like.
No they aren't. Other people can deny you access to THEIR property if it's being used to further your free speech (CmdrTaco could ban you from /. if he was so inclined) but that's it. They can't try to muzzle you when you use your own property or the property of another. They can't slug you if you are standing on the street corner exercising your free speech with a megaphone.
From TFA:
The former student also admitted initiating denial of service attacks against University of Akron computer servers on or about March 14, 2007, which caused the entire University of Akron computer network to be knocked off-line for approximately 8 12 hours, preventing all students, faculty and staff members from accessing the network. The University claimed that response and remediation efforts to restore network services cost over $10,000.
$10,000 in damages during other crimes (theft, vandalism, etc.) would certainly net you a felony charge. In my state the maximum sentence for a Class E (the least severe) Felony is 24 months, so 30 months isn't that far off the mark. Why should he be treated any differently than someone who destroys and/or steals $10,000 worth of property?
One could argue that a DDoS does not just harm the targeted site. It also harms their uplink provider. By extension that harms every site connected through that provider. It also has some impact on the networks that the pwned machines are connected to.
30 months sounds about right, IMHO.
Or will use eminent domain or asset forfeiture to get the government to take it from you.
Guess who said it was ok to use eminent domain for the advantage of private enterprise? It was the left leaning Justices on the Supreme Court. The right leaning Justices all dissented in that particular case....
because they live in a world where facts need not apply.
Here's a fact for you: 12.6% unemployment rate in California
Hopefully I-1098 was actually a bad idea, because otherwise Ballmer just scammed the Washington electorate.
How did he "scam" them? He inserted his thoughts and ideas into the public debate. Nobody held a gun to a voters head and said "You must do what Mr. Ballmer says is right."
Amazing, when you read the whole law instead of the bit you selectively quoted it sounds much less Orwellian than you make it out to be. Go figure.
In the future, this will become mandatory in more jurisdictions in some cases, where babies are genetically tested in the womb, and parents begin to be found liable for genetic problems of their children that they knew about and did not abort.
Which fascist jurisdictions are those?
Do note that the term "Border" got redefined to be anywhere within 100-miles of the physical border inland entry points. International airports count as entry points. 2/3rds of the US population is technically within this area.
Citation needed.
Give every non-felon American citizen that boards the aircraft a 5 shot .38 special. That should solve the problem.
Sure, the Army can kill one citizen with a gun. They can't kill all of the citizens with guns though.
What you say about beating them in court is true today -- when it ceases to be true that's when the 2nd amendment will be important.
You sound very obstinate, are you of the opinion that the way elections are held is perfectly in line with the interests of voters?
I'd like to see run-off elections. My city is lead by an idiot that only got 40% of the vote. Three-way election though.
At least the winner of your race got 50%+1. The city I live in has a Mayor that almost everybody hates. 60% of the electorate voted against him. But he's still Mayor because it was a three-way race.
If a soldier comes up to your house wielding an M-16 asking to be let in to spend the night, I don't think there is really much that you can do to stop them
Sure there is. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment.
Actually he didn't do what he said he would do with regards to health care. Candidate Obama condemned the notion of a mandate to buy health insurance and effectively leveraged the issue against Clinton during the primaries. President Obama signed a bill containing such a mandate into law.
Thanks for proving my point. You equate the ability to exercise free speech to slavery.
What's your point besides the members of the GOP occasionally support gun control just as their Democratic counterparts do?
All the jurisdictions I listed are dominated by the Democratic Party, some to the point that the GOP is nearly irrelevant. All of them have laws in place that make it prohibitively expensive and/or difficult to exercise your 2nd amendment rights. All of them have laws in place that limit the types of firearms you are allowed to own and the types of accessories you can use with those firearms. All of them have Legislatures dominated by Democrats that continue to push for more and more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.
Name me a single state in the United States with restrictive gun laws that's dominated by the GOP to the extent the states I listed are dominated by the Democrats.
Don't worry, they'll claim a mandate anyway.
You are calling it "corporate influence" because they had a vendor set up to sell snacks and refreshments? Are you kidding me?
... he laid it out much better than I did.
The Tenth amendment is about government powers, not people's rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Perhaps you meant the Ninth?
No, I did mean the 10th, but the 9th certainly qualifies as an amendment that both parties ignore.
Or perhaps you've been confused by the "tenthers" out there who don't comprehend that taxing, spending, and regulating interstate commerce are explicitly Constitutional federal powers.
All of which have grown way outside of the Federal Government's original mandates. Do you honestly believe that the interstate commerce clause was intended to grant the Federal Government the power to criminalize the growing of cannabis for personal consumption?
You're not going to see third-party candidates in the debates
I seem to recall Ross Perot and Admiral Stockdale being involved in the 1992 debates.
I understand that the Democrats railed against the overturning of a law that prohibited a corporation set up for the express purpose of political advocacy from publishing a movie about a presidential candidate in the run-up to an election.
What more do I need to know? Why don't you offer some ideas instead of a single sentence telling me how much I don't understand?
Yeah, but why would you want to? ;)
If I didn't know any better, I'd say that the whole system of government is set up to ensure that nothing happens fast
That's the general idea.