In terms of the libraries, I would modify my original example. Instead of local public libraries, please consider the Library of Congress, which is a federally-managed library.
There having been no objection to your request to revise and extend your remarks....:-p
Any child may walk into the Library of Congress and examine a copy of Playboy.
Never actually been to the LoC, so I didn't know this. Thanks for the info!
Perhaps this is what R. Dreyfuss hopes will happen.
Oh, I'm sure it is. It isn't a fast process, though (and I'll bet Dreyfuss knows this, so I'm not revealing anything earth-shattering). The courts, esp. the Supreme Court, are real resistant to change in this regard. (And I think this is a good thing. They are VERY aware of the repercussions that their decisions have and try to make sure that they don't make a ruling that might be regretted later. Even so, they sometimes end up doing just that.)
You claim that the govt. deserves to have control over the public airwaves. Well, the govt. owns the public libraries operated in every city in this country.
I assume that you're in the United States. Local governments operate the public libraries, not the federal government. However, the fed. gov't influences the policies of local libraries by providing funds to libraries that meet certain qualifications (read: establish certain policies). Of course, any local library is free to reject the federal provisions (and the funds that go with them).
For some reason, though, the government does not apply FCC restrictions to the content of the books it buys to fill these libraries.
The way federal law is written, the FCC isn't part of the library-funding structure, so their rules don't apply.
At some point, our society decided that books=art and regulating the content of the printed page is censorship. Dreyfuss is pushing for his medium (public television) to also qualify as art.
There is a general principle used by the courts that covers this. Books, paintings, statues, etc. existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and are considered to be covered by the first amendment as an existing form of expression that was intended to be covered. Newer technologies are looked upon more skeptically by the courts and are not automatically covered by Constitutional protections--they have to be argued into being protected by really good lawyers. (One day I'll try to find some example court cases, but don't have the energy to do it now.)
I think I didn't phrase my remarks well enough to avoid a slight misinterpretation. I concur with your points, except for what I perceive to be an incorrect understanding of my earlier reply.
I intended, by example, to indicate that just because a message is in storage, that does not mean that it is not in transit. I see the entire message transmission process as beginning with when it leaves the sender to when it reaches the recipient, whether by electrons, wood pulp or baked clay tablets. Any intermediate storage is part of that transmission process. By that definition, the judge was (and maybe still is) an idiot. What I'm saying is that his logic, regardless of the ruling, was incorrect.
I haven't yet read the 9th circuit ruling that you quoted from, but based on your quote, it seems that the appeals court got it right. (God, I'm agreeing with the 9th Circus on something--would someone please stick a thermometer in the ground and check the temperature down below?)
Or am I just making things worse by trying to explain...?
No, the ruling is flat-out wrong -- the judge's brain is broken. When I mail a letter to a friend, at some point it is stored in a bin in the post office and is not actually being moved from my apartment to my friend's. Using the same logic, a government official can open my letter without a warrant because it isn't being 'transmitted' at that moment.
I'm sorry, did you say something? I was busy reading the Fifty Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911: "Within Fahrenheit 9/11, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite."
...is closing in on $100M gross.
For a fictional movie, I guess it's not doing too bad, but it's not making any records in that category.
Probably 70% of the people were in their 60's or older.
Hmm, that's the age group that looks back on FDR-style socialism with nostalgia.
(Unfortunately, sending "legit" marketing crap to that address would probably not really help, even if we (the general public) don't want it. All the FTC is interested in is v1agr@ and Kathmandu Temple Kiff crap.)
Take a close look at the Saturday numbers. (By the way, they weren't up yet when I posted the link earlier.)
They show a 4.9% decrease in revenue from Friday to Saturday, and a 25.6% decrease from Saturday to Sunday. For comparison, White Chicks had an 8.8% increase from Friday to Saturday (and a 27% drop from Sat. to Sun.). Hell, even Dodgeball, in its second weekend, saw a 5.4% increase from Friday to Saturday! The Terminal, in its second weekend, had a 29.5% Saturday increase over Friday's numbers. Use this list to pick various movies and see how their revenue changed from Friday to Saturday to Sunday--most of them went up where Moore went down.
To paraphrase from the Charles Schwab commercial, you just can't put lipstick on a pig and expect people to kiss it. Moore's movie hasn't been out a week and it's already running out of steam.
When the numbers are available, this link will show us the chart for next weekend (July 2/3/4). Let's see where it is then.
Maybe the Mozilla org should change their logo to some sort of amalgamation of different types of cheese. Their new slogan could be: "Mozilla--for when you want the web to taste good."
A local newscast in Atlanta last night mentioned switching to Mozilla or Opera to avoid the problem (although it was clear from her expression and slightly stumbling speech that the bleachblondenewsbimbo doing the reporting had no clue what either of them was--she probably thought Mozilla was a type of cheese).
Re:Sports writer says: ... most powerful movie ...
on
Fahrenheit 9/11 Discussion
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Well, darn, he also made more money than Gigli, so I guess that makes the film wildly successful.
Like I said, let's see how the hit-piece^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmovie is doing in a few weeks before we start raving about its success.
he Carlyle Group, which has rather extensive ties to the Bush Family/Administration and the Bin Ladens
I guess you didn't read your own link. According to the Wikipedia article, it also has ties to many prominent Democrats, including leftist money-man George Soros and the daughter of Madeline Albright. The same Wikipedia article says the bin Ladins sold their stake in the company two years ago.
Only congress can declare war, and they haven't. So technically the US is not at war.
Ah, but Congress did. Public Law 107-243 authorizes the President to use force against Iraq.
Which takes us to the discussion about whether or not an "authorization of force" is the same as "declaring war." None other than Democratic Senator Joseph Biden says there is no Constitutional difference: "For constitutional purposes, it's the same as the declaration of war. There is no constitutional difference between authorizing the president to use this kind of force and saying, 'We declare war.'"
Anyone else notice lately how it seems every crime in America receives an absurdly harsh penalty?
I attribute it to a declining educational system that now has as its primary focus the expounding of "politically-correct" social work ideals ("Now children, since little Bobbie can't afford the box of 64 crayons, none of you can have them either") rather than actual teaching of material (reading, writing, aithmetic, science, civics, etc.). As a result, many people in this country don't have a clue what government is all about.
Here's a challenge: as any American what the original text of the Constitution explicitly said was the only federal office that people could vote for. Most people won't be able to answer correctly (unless they happen to make a wild guess and get it right). (Answer: the House of Representatives.)
Just to get technical from a federal government perspective, the bill passed by the Senate falls under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce since films are transported across state lines for the purpose of commerce. I don't see how filming up a woman's skirt falls into that category, unless the filmer were to post the recording on a web site (in which case it would only be the posting part that fell under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the filming part).
Mind you, I'm not saying that the state legislatures shouldn't do something, just pointing out that this is a little off-topic for discussion of federal laws....
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of the libraries, I would modify my original example. Instead of local public libraries, please consider the Library of Congress, which is a federally-managed library.
There having been no objection to your request to revise and extend your remarks.... :-p
Any child may walk into the Library of Congress and examine a copy of Playboy.
Never actually been to the LoC, so I didn't know this. Thanks for the info!
Perhaps this is what R. Dreyfuss hopes will happen.
Oh, I'm sure it is. It isn't a fast process, though (and I'll bet Dreyfuss knows this, so I'm not revealing anything earth-shattering). The courts, esp. the Supreme Court, are real resistant to change in this regard. (And I think this is a good thing. They are VERY aware of the repercussions that their decisions have and try to make sure that they don't make a ruling that might be regretted later. Even so, they sometimes end up doing just that.)
"American children are going to grow up thinking that women don't have nipples!"
{shrug} I grew up thinking they had staples across their midsection. No harm has come to me as a result.
You claim that the govt. deserves to have control over the public airwaves. Well, the govt. owns the public libraries operated in every city in this country.
I assume that you're in the United States. Local governments operate the public libraries, not the federal government. However, the fed. gov't influences the policies of local libraries by providing funds to libraries that meet certain qualifications (read: establish certain policies). Of course, any local library is free to reject the federal provisions (and the funds that go with them).
For some reason, though, the government does not apply FCC restrictions to the content of the books it buys to fill these libraries.
The way federal law is written, the FCC isn't part of the library-funding structure, so their rules don't apply.
At some point, our society decided that books=art and regulating the content of the printed page is censorship. Dreyfuss is pushing for his medium (public television) to also qualify as art.
There is a general principle used by the courts that covers this. Books, paintings, statues, etc. existed at the time the Constitution was adopted, and are considered to be covered by the first amendment as an existing form of expression that was intended to be covered. Newer technologies are looked upon more skeptically by the courts and are not automatically covered by Constitutional protections--they have to be argued into being protected by really good lawyers. (One day I'll try to find some example court cases, but don't have the energy to do it now.)
I think I didn't phrase my remarks well enough to avoid a slight misinterpretation. I concur with your points, except for what I perceive to be an incorrect understanding of my earlier reply.
I intended, by example, to indicate that just because a message is in storage, that does not mean that it is not in transit. I see the entire message transmission process as beginning with when it leaves the sender to when it reaches the recipient, whether by electrons, wood pulp or baked clay tablets. Any intermediate storage is part of that transmission process. By that definition, the judge was (and maybe still is) an idiot. What I'm saying is that his logic, regardless of the ruling, was incorrect.
I haven't yet read the 9th circuit ruling that you quoted from, but based on your quote, it seems that the appeals court got it right. (God, I'm agreeing with the 9th Circus on something--would someone please stick a thermometer in the ground and check the temperature down below?)
Or am I just making things worse by trying to explain...?
The ruling is correct -- the law is broken.
No, the ruling is flat-out wrong -- the judge's brain is broken. When I mail a letter to a friend, at some point it is stored in a bin in the post office and is not actually being moved from my apartment to my friend's. Using the same logic, a government official can open my letter without a warrant because it isn't being 'transmitted' at that moment.I'm sorry, did you say something? I was busy reading the Fifty Nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911: "Within Fahrenheit 9/11, most of rest of alleged Bush administration lies actually involve Moore's fabrications to create the appearance of a lie--such as when Moore chops a Condoleezza Rice quote to make her say something when she actually said the opposite."
For a fictional movie, I guess it's not doing too bad, but it's not making any records in that category.
Probably 70% of the people were in their 60's or older.
Hmm, that's the age group that looks back on FDR-style socialism with nostalgia.
spam should go to...an authority who can fine the sender
You mean like uce@ftc.gov?
{Whistling innocently....}
(Unfortunately, sending "legit" marketing crap to that address would probably not really help, even if we (the general public) don't want it. All the FTC is interested in is v1agr@ and Kathmandu Temple Kiff crap.)
perhaps Hildago will destroy the lifeforms on that asteroid causing them to wish they had some system of preventing impacts
The Martians have started to think that, too.
Don't think ESA has done that yet. NASA, OTOH, landed the NEAR probe on the asteroid Eros after orbiting/studying it for several weeks.
the CIAC site has a copy as well, along with another version that someone wrote.
Nah. Just kill 'em both. If you need to IM, use gaim instead of MS Messenger.
Humor like this is why I read /.dot
Yeah, I get what you're saying, then. Sorry for the confusion. I think we're on the same page.
Take a close look at the Saturday numbers. (By the way, they weren't up yet when I posted the link earlier.)
They show a 4.9% decrease in revenue from Friday to Saturday, and a 25.6% decrease from Saturday to Sunday. For comparison, White Chicks had an 8.8% increase from Friday to Saturday (and a 27% drop from Sat. to Sun.). Hell, even Dodgeball, in its second weekend, saw a 5.4% increase from Friday to Saturday! The Terminal, in its second weekend, had a 29.5% Saturday increase over Friday's numbers. Use this list to pick various movies and see how their revenue changed from Friday to Saturday to Sunday--most of them went up where Moore went down.
To paraphrase from the Charles Schwab commercial, you just can't put lipstick on a pig and expect people to kiss it. Moore's movie hasn't been out a week and it's already running out of steam.
When the numbers are available, this link will show us the chart for next weekend (July 2/3/4). Let's see where it is then.
I'm lactose intolerant you insensitive clod.
Ah! anger and offense. My work here is done.
Maybe the Mozilla org should change their logo to some sort of amalgamation of different types of cheese. Their new slogan could be: "Mozilla--for when you want the web to taste good."
okthatwasbadi'msorrypleasedon'thurtme.....
A local newscast in Atlanta last night mentioned switching to Mozilla or Opera to avoid the problem (although it was clear from her expression and slightly stumbling speech that the bleachblondenewsbimbo doing the reporting had no clue what either of them was--she probably thought Mozilla was a type of cheese).
Well, darn, he also made more money than Gigli, so I guess that makes the film wildly successful.
Like I said, let's see how the hit-piece^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmovie is doing in a few weeks before we start raving about its success.
he Carlyle Group, which has rather extensive ties to the Bush Family/Administration and the Bin Ladens
I guess you didn't read your own link. According to the Wikipedia article, it also has ties to many prominent Democrats, including leftist money-man George Soros and the daughter of Madeline Albright. The same Wikipedia article says the bin Ladins sold their stake in the company two years ago.
Only congress can declare war, and they haven't. So technically the US is not at war.
Ah, but Congress did. Public Law 107-243 authorizes the President to use force against Iraq.
Which takes us to the discussion about whether or not an "authorization of force" is the same as "declaring war." None other than Democratic Senator Joseph Biden says there is no Constitutional difference: "For constitutional purposes, it's the same as the declaration of war. There is no constitutional difference between authorizing the president to use this kind of force and saying, 'We declare war.'"
Incidentally, the disinfopedia page was incredibly biased
Well, of course it was. After all, it's called the disinfopedia--an encyclopedia to spread disinformation.
The movie is breaking all-time theater records all over the United States.
No it's not. It only drew in about $8 million on Friday night. For a movie that opened on Wednesday, it's doing pretty darn poorly.
I'm waiting to see how well it's doing in a week or two. Will it still be in the theater after a couple or three weeks? I doubt it.
For those who want to write to their Representatives to ask them to vote against the bill, the bill passed by the Senate is S.1932, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (or ART Act for short). It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.
Anyone else notice lately how it seems every crime in America receives an absurdly harsh penalty?
I attribute it to a declining educational system that now has as its primary focus the expounding of "politically-correct" social work ideals ("Now children, since little Bobbie can't afford the box of 64 crayons, none of you can have them either") rather than actual teaching of material (reading, writing, aithmetic, science, civics, etc.). As a result, many people in this country don't have a clue what government is all about.
Here's a challenge: as any American what the original text of the Constitution explicitly said was the only federal office that people could vote for. Most people won't be able to answer correctly (unless they happen to make a wild guess and get it right). (Answer: the House of Representatives.)
Just to get technical from a federal government perspective, the bill passed by the Senate falls under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce since films are transported across state lines for the purpose of commerce. I don't see how filming up a woman's skirt falls into that category, unless the filmer were to post the recording on a web site (in which case it would only be the posting part that fell under the jurisdiction of Congress, not the filming part).
Mind you, I'm not saying that the state legislatures shouldn't do something, just pointing out that this is a little off-topic for discussion of federal laws....