You mean the same legal scholar with the anti-gun voting record? The one that voted for retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that broke the law? The one that thinks the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the power to compel the citizenry to do business with for-profit enterprise? The one that thinks the 1st amendment doesn't apply when citizens band together under the guise of a corporation?
Well, except those two wars, brought to you by the wonderful people at Haliburton and Blackwater!
I thought the first war had something to do with that hole in lower Manhattan. Who knew it was all Halliburton's fault? When will they be indicted for the 3,000 Americans they killed?
they provide somewhere around 40% of the service that you pay for.
Please point out where Comcast promised you anything other than "up to X mbit/s". I've never seen a cable company promise a specific amount of bandwidth, except on commercial connections where you pay for the privilege. Roadrunners advertising all says "Up to 10 mbit/s" or "Up to 15 mbit/s" The "up to" bit isn't even in the 2 point font that legalese typically comes in. It's right there on all of their marketing materials.
What makes DSL "crap"? It's usually cheaper than cable and if the ISP knows their stuff you'll always get what you pay for. When I had Verizon DSL I got 100% of my bandwidth 24/7. By contrast, I've never been able to peg Roadrunner except at 3am. Their "turbo" tier is a joke too -- I can't peg the standard tier during normal hours, why the hell would I pay more money to get more bandwidth I can only use at 3am?
DSL might be slower than cable but it's a perfectly viable option for many (most?) people.
There was water leaking into the conduit between my house (in California) and the local box.
My favorite POTS story involves an old woman whose phone stops ringing. She still knows that she's getting incoming calls though because her dog barks whenever someone calls her. One of her kids reports the problem to the phone company and a tech is sent out to troubleshoot the problem. Turns out to be a grounding issue -- the ground wire got separated from the ground rod. Why was the dog barking when calls came in? She chained the dog to the outside d-marc and the chain was in contact with what was left of the ground wire. The poor dog was being electrocuted every time somebody called her.....
Actually it was the annexation of French Indochina that prompted the oil cut off. FDR embargoed scrap metal and other products due to the actions in China but specifically exempted oil because it was well known that the Japanese were dependent on US supplies and cutting them off would escalate the situation. The annexation of French Indochina was a dagger aimed at the Philippines (then a US Commonwealth) and not something that could be ignored.
Still, I think FDR hoped to solve the dispute without a war. His focus was always on Europe. Even after Pearl Harbor the Pacific was treated as a sideshow. By some estimates the Pacific only received 15% of US war production. The rest went to Europe to fight Nazi Germany, in accordance with the Europe First policy agreed to at the Arcadia Conference.
As an aside, the fact that we so utterly defeated them with such a small amount of our industrial output is further evidence of the insanity in Tokyo in 1941. Going to war with a country that has 11 times your GDP? Yeah, that's going to end well.....
After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil.
And why did the US cut off oil exports? Could it have had anything to do with Japanese actions in China and their annexation of French Indochina (aka: Vietnam)?
The Japanese were acting like assholes long before FDR cut off their oil.
and I buy carbon offsets for my gasoline, electricity, and gas use.
You realize that's effectively nothing more than a way for environmentalists to feel better about themselves, right?
I have the option of buying 100% wind energy from my power company. In theory my electrical use would be carbon free. In reality I know that wild farms have a fixed production rate and every kilowatt hour I consume has to be made up by another energy source. Unless that source is nuclear or hydro it's going to come from a carbon based fuel.....
But it is the crew who need refuelling, the food supplies will only really last about 2 months.
Actually it's more than three months for some boats. The standard deterrence patrol for a Ohio class SSBN lasts 100 days. I'm not sure if fast attack boats have the same amount of food storage -- perhaps one of our resident bubbleheads can comment?
Almost every product is in some way petroleum-based
So what? Peak oil is based on the assumption that usage continues at the current rate. If oil was no longer needed as a fuel source it seems probable that we would have more than enough to make plastics and the like. The amount of oil used for these applications pales in comparison to the amount that we burn in our power plants/ships/cars/airplanes.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Exoplants have at least one ex-politician that flies around in a private jet lecturing everybody else about their carbon footprint;)
So what? I'm tempted to burn a Quran just because of the goddamn overreaction to this whole thing. You realize that if the media and President Obama had just ignored this moron it would have passed without much fanfane? Who knew that all you had to do to get the attention of the leader of the free world was to act like a jackass? Wonder if I can get the President to acknowledge me if I do something equally stupid?
I never said that slander was criminal. But it is illegal.
No, it's not. Your only response to slander is to sue me for damages inflicted upon you. If you can't prove damages (I could post right now that you are a child molester but I doubt anyone would take it seriously on/.) then you don't have a case.
At least we agree there is no absolute freedom of speech.
Actually there is.
So, if you knew that a riot would happen and that there would be a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person if you were to announce the burning of a Koran, followed by the burning of said book, then that would be reckless endangerment, right? If not, why.
Read the law I quoted. It requires that the actors actions place others in harms way. The action of burning a book harms no one. The reaction to that book burning by certain extremist elements is the problem -- but we don't muzzle speech based on the inability of others to respond in a mature manner to such speech.
If you can say a few words and take no action and be convicted of reckless endangerment, how is that not a restriction on what you can say?
Because there's no law against saying "fire!" There's a law against placing other human beings in harms way. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference.
f anything it seems you just don't understand what free speech is- it's the ability to say what you want without fear of repercussions
No, that's not what free speech is. Free speech does not come without repercussions. I can tell my boss to go fuck himself -- perfectly legal speech in any civilized nation -- are you going to claim that I don't have free speech because he can fire me for having said that?
Exactly, you don't take the chance- despite the fact he was just exercising speech
He wasn't "just" exercising speech. He had a weapon and stated his intention to use it.
do we stop the pastor's book burning because it might potentially lead to otherwise needless deaths
The action of burning books harms no one. The reaction to that book burning is the problem, but we don't restrain people from engaging in speech based on the inability of others to control themselves in the presence of that speech.
It's not a justification, it's the truth. Reckless endangerment laws do not criminalize speech. They criminalize behavior that places other human beings in physical danger. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference but the fact remains that it's not illegal anywhere in the United States to scream "fire!"
you seem to be accepting the fact that someone merely bearing arms and exercising free speech should be dealt with because you personally think they will do wrong, they might not, it might all be a bluff
Whether or not it's a "bluff" is irrelevant. If I point a gun (or a nuclear weapon, to use your absurd strawman) at your body and announce my intention to kill you then you can safely assume that your life is in danger and respond accordingly.
Slander is a civil matter in the vast majority of the United States, not a criminal one, so that example is moot. Fraud is illegal regardless of which form it takes, as is reckless endangerment. Firing a gun across a roadway is reckless endangerment -- is the next strawman going to claim that we have no right to keep and bear arms because using them in such a manner is illegal?
but "reckless endangerment" should be strictly illegal when committed with just the spoken word.
It doesn't matter what form it takes. Reckless endangerment is reckless endangerment. Here's New York State's definition: "A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person."
Sorry, but there's no free speech issue there. Claims to the contrary will not make it so.
At issue, much like the case of shouting "fire" in a crowded feature we have a choice between allowing free speech/freedom of expression, and someone losing the fundamental right to life.
That example is really worn out. It's not illegal to shout "fire!" It's illegal to commit the crime of reckless endangerment. That crime is usually defined as engaging in acts which the actor knows (or should know) are likely to cause harm to others. It's absurd to draw the conclusion that such a law permits the infringement of speech.
Taken literally, if rights were absolute, then in the US a muslim could walk into the centre of times square shouting "Allah akbar, death to the infidels" (freedom of speech) towing behind him a nuclear weapon (the right to bear arms) and no one could touch him, not until it was too late.
That example is equally stupid. Such a person could be legally killed in any American jurisdiction. They've demonstrated the ability to cause harm, the opportunity to use it and their willingness to do so. The 2nd amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms. It does not grant you the right to use them unlawfully against another.
I think we are done here, unless you have something more interesting than straw man arguments to proffer.
We don't submit our civil liberties to a cost benefit analysis. One could easily make the argument that we'd be better off without free speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 2nd amendment, etc. Those policy choices are off the table in a Constitutional Republic though.
Slashdot Mirror
especially one led by a legal scholar
You mean the same legal scholar with the anti-gun voting record? The one that voted for retroactive immunity for telecommunications corporations that broke the law? The one that thinks the commerce clause gives the Federal Government the power to compel the citizenry to do business with for-profit enterprise? The one that thinks the 1st amendment doesn't apply when citizens band together under the guise of a corporation?
That legal scholar?
Well, except those two wars, brought to you by the wonderful people at Haliburton and Blackwater!
I thought the first war had something to do with that hole in lower Manhattan. Who knew it was all Halliburton's fault? When will they be indicted for the 3,000 Americans they killed?
its not worse either
That rather depends on your vantage point, now doesn't it? GWB never tried to tell me that I must buy a product from a for-profit industry.....
and whats it got to do with this new administration, really?
Who do you think runs Homeland Security? The underpants gnomes?
they provide somewhere around 40% of the service that you pay for.
Please point out where Comcast promised you anything other than "up to X mbit/s". I've never seen a cable company promise a specific amount of bandwidth, except on commercial connections where you pay for the privilege. Roadrunners advertising all says "Up to 10 mbit/s" or "Up to 15 mbit/s" The "up to" bit isn't even in the 2 point font that legalese typically comes in. It's right there on all of their marketing materials.
a crap DSL offering
What makes DSL "crap"? It's usually cheaper than cable and if the ISP knows their stuff you'll always get what you pay for. When I had Verizon DSL I got 100% of my bandwidth 24/7. By contrast, I've never been able to peg Roadrunner except at 3am. Their "turbo" tier is a joke too -- I can't peg the standard tier during normal hours, why the hell would I pay more money to get more bandwidth I can only use at 3am?
DSL might be slower than cable but it's a perfectly viable option for many (most?) people.
I'd pay $140 for 100meg (up and down) in a heartbeat.
You have too much money or too little life if you are willing to pay $140/mo for a home internet connection.
most junkies are in and out in 5 minutes flat
Not if you shoot them when you break into your house.....
There was water leaking into the conduit between my house (in California) and the local box.
My favorite POTS story involves an old woman whose phone stops ringing. She still knows that she's getting incoming calls though because her dog barks whenever someone calls her. One of her kids reports the problem to the phone company and a tech is sent out to troubleshoot the problem. Turns out to be a grounding issue -- the ground wire got separated from the ground rod. Why was the dog barking when calls came in? She chained the dog to the outside d-marc and the chain was in contact with what was left of the ground wire. The poor dog was being electrocuted every time somebody called her.....
Actually it was the annexation of French Indochina that prompted the oil cut off. FDR embargoed scrap metal and other products due to the actions in China but specifically exempted oil because it was well known that the Japanese were dependent on US supplies and cutting them off would escalate the situation. The annexation of French Indochina was a dagger aimed at the Philippines (then a US Commonwealth) and not something that could be ignored.
Still, I think FDR hoped to solve the dispute without a war. His focus was always on Europe. Even after Pearl Harbor the Pacific was treated as a sideshow. By some estimates the Pacific only received 15% of US war production. The rest went to Europe to fight Nazi Germany, in accordance with the Europe First policy agreed to at the Arcadia Conference.
As an aside, the fact that we so utterly defeated them with such a small amount of our industrial output is further evidence of the insanity in Tokyo in 1941. Going to war with a country that has 11 times your GDP? Yeah, that's going to end well.....
After the US cut off oil exports Imperial Japan decided to invade Indonesia to acquire its oil.
And why did the US cut off oil exports? Could it have had anything to do with Japanese actions in China and their annexation of French Indochina (aka: Vietnam)?
The Japanese were acting like assholes long before FDR cut off their oil.
and I buy carbon offsets for my gasoline, electricity, and gas use.
You realize that's effectively nothing more than a way for environmentalists to feel better about themselves, right?
I have the option of buying 100% wind energy from my power company. In theory my electrical use would be carbon free. In reality I know that wild farms have a fixed production rate and every kilowatt hour I consume has to be made up by another energy source. Unless that source is nuclear or hydro it's going to come from a carbon based fuel.....
But it is the crew who need refuelling, the food supplies will only really last about 2 months.
Actually it's more than three months for some boats. The standard deterrence patrol for a Ohio class SSBN lasts 100 days. I'm not sure if fast attack boats have the same amount of food storage -- perhaps one of our resident bubbleheads can comment?
Almost every product is in some way petroleum-based
So what? Peak oil is based on the assumption that usage continues at the current rate. If oil was no longer needed as a fuel source it seems probable that we would have more than enough to make plastics and the like. The amount of oil used for these applications pales in comparison to the amount that we burn in our power plants/ships/cars/airplanes.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Exoplants have at least one ex-politician that flies around in a private jet lecturing everybody else about their carbon footprint ;)
there are just over a dozen stars closer than 30 light years (~9 parsecs)
Yeah, and everybody knows that Vulcan has no oceans, so I'm not entirely sure what the excitement is all about ;)
The action of pulling a trigger harms no one, it's the result of the bullet that flies out the barrel that's the problem.
You are an idiot. We are done here.
So what? I'm tempted to burn a Quran just because of the goddamn overreaction to this whole thing. You realize that if the media and President Obama had just ignored this moron it would have passed without much fanfane? Who knew that all you had to do to get the attention of the leader of the free world was to act like a jackass? Wonder if I can get the President to acknowledge me if I do something equally stupid?
I never said that slander was criminal. But it is illegal.
No, it's not. Your only response to slander is to sue me for damages inflicted upon you. If you can't prove damages (I could post right now that you are a child molester but I doubt anyone would take it seriously on /.) then you don't have a case.
At least we agree there is no absolute freedom of speech.
Actually there is.
So, if you knew that a riot would happen and that there would be a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person if you were to announce the burning of a Koran, followed by the burning of said book, then that would be reckless endangerment, right? If not, why.
Read the law I quoted. It requires that the actors actions place others in harms way. The action of burning a book harms no one. The reaction to that book burning by certain extremist elements is the problem -- but we don't muzzle speech based on the inability of others to respond in a mature manner to such speech.
If you can say a few words and take no action and be convicted of reckless endangerment, how is that not a restriction on what you can say?
Because there's no law against saying "fire!" There's a law against placing other human beings in harms way. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the difference.
f anything it seems you just don't understand what free speech is- it's the ability to say what you want without fear of repercussions
No, that's not what free speech is. Free speech does not come without repercussions. I can tell my boss to go fuck himself -- perfectly legal speech in any civilized nation -- are you going to claim that I don't have free speech because he can fire me for having said that?
Exactly, you don't take the chance- despite the fact he was just exercising speech
He wasn't "just" exercising speech. He had a weapon and stated his intention to use it.
do we stop the pastor's book burning because it might potentially lead to otherwise needless deaths
The action of burning books harms no one. The reaction to that book burning is the problem, but we don't restrain people from engaging in speech based on the inability of others to control themselves in the presence of that speech.
It's not a justification, it's the truth. Reckless endangerment laws do not criminalize speech. They criminalize behavior that places other human beings in physical danger. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference but the fact remains that it's not illegal anywhere in the United States to scream "fire!"
you seem to be accepting the fact that someone merely bearing arms and exercising free speech should be dealt with because you personally think they will do wrong, they might not, it might all be a bluff
Whether or not it's a "bluff" is irrelevant. If I point a gun (or a nuclear weapon, to use your absurd strawman) at your body and announce my intention to kill you then you can safely assume that your life is in danger and respond accordingly.
Slander is a civil matter in the vast majority of the United States, not a criminal one, so that example is moot. Fraud is illegal regardless of which form it takes, as is reckless endangerment. Firing a gun across a roadway is reckless endangerment -- is the next strawman going to claim that we have no right to keep and bear arms because using them in such a manner is illegal?
but "reckless endangerment" should be strictly illegal when committed with just the spoken word.
It doesn't matter what form it takes. Reckless endangerment is reckless endangerment. Here's New York State's definition: "A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person."
Sorry, but there's no free speech issue there. Claims to the contrary will not make it so.
At issue, much like the case of shouting "fire" in a crowded feature we have a choice between allowing free speech/freedom of expression, and someone losing the fundamental right to life.
That example is really worn out. It's not illegal to shout "fire!" It's illegal to commit the crime of reckless endangerment. That crime is usually defined as engaging in acts which the actor knows (or should know) are likely to cause harm to others. It's absurd to draw the conclusion that such a law permits the infringement of speech.
Taken literally, if rights were absolute, then in the US a muslim could walk into the centre of times square shouting "Allah akbar, death to the infidels" (freedom of speech) towing behind him a nuclear weapon (the right to bear arms) and no one could touch him, not until it was too late.
That example is equally stupid. Such a person could be legally killed in any American jurisdiction. They've demonstrated the ability to cause harm, the opportunity to use it and their willingness to do so. The 2nd amendment grants you the right to keep and bear arms. It does not grant you the right to use them unlawfully against another.
I think we are done here, unless you have something more interesting than straw man arguments to proffer.
We don't submit our civil liberties to a cost benefit analysis. One could easily make the argument that we'd be better off without free speech, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the 2nd amendment, etc. Those policy choices are off the table in a Constitutional Republic though.
Up to the point where it is considered hate speech which this clearly is.
Hate speech isn't illegal in the United States.
just saying -- what asshole is going to defend the "rights" of the Nazis to do that?
The ACLU would. They've defended NAMBLA on prior occasions -- Nazis have nothing on that modern day boogieman.