I guess we have a different definition of "force"-if I put a gun to your head and demand your money, am I just making it a very unattractive option for you to refuse? Of course, that is physical force. What about when the IRS says "Pay your taxes or we'll seize your house?" That's not -physical- force, per se, but I'd very much call it coercive force regardless.
Certainly, the dictionary seems to have some definitions which don't involve phsyical coercion and seem to fit the bill here:
4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
It seems the same would apply to underselling other competitors in the area, especially when done below cost while backed by the big corporate war chest until other businesses in the area must close down. This forces (that word again!) those who live in that area to work and shop there if no alternative is available. This -is- a blatantly coercive tactic, and it is quite evidently an attempt to force suppliers not to do business with others. And just because the suppliers per se have a "choice" (accept our dictates or don't do business with the biggest retailer in the country), does not mean they have any more of a -real- choice then you do in paying that tax bill. Monopoly abuse at its finest, and the sad part is, people actually step up to defend this type of behavior.
Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.
Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.
Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.
You are absolutely, WRONG! But thank you for playing. In fact, I do believe I saw a story on some website recently ("dotslash" or something like that? I don't recall) about Wal-Mart attempting to FORCE video producers to deal with them!
While I dislike spam as much as anyone, I really don't see how you can "outlaw" the harvesting of email addresses either. If you post your email address to a website, you really have no reasonable expectation that it is any longer "private information". I certainly don't have any expectation that the email address I use here, even given the auto-obfuscation of it, will in any way remain private. I have a -truly- private email address which I give only to friends, family, and business associates, and that one gets no spam.
Now, back to the robots.txt issue. We're not talking about Ma and Pa Kettle not knowing that the email address you use to sign up for the "daily joke" will be sold to spammers and back the world over. We're talking about a simple protocol that any semi-competent Web designer has been familiar with since the day they wrote their first HTML tag. And since the vast majority of sites -do- want to be indexed (and, yes, cached) by search engines, the logical response is that those few who don't should opt-out. Google provides an easy, well-documented, widely known mechanism to do so. That should be the extent of their responsibility.
I'm not sure there's always a best way to handle these things - sometimes it could be informing everyone, at other times it could just mean scrutinizing accounts more closely while keeping everything quiet. It's a hard thing to balance.
The same rule as always applies here-SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY DOES NOT WORK. You could be dealing with a couple of punk kids who randomly stole a laptop and are off at the first opportunity to pawn it-or you could be dealing with organized gangsters who know damn well what they got and are going to set out to exploiting it the second they can get started. You've no way to know. If you've had a potential breach (virus/keylogger infection, stolen tape/backup record/laptop containing sensitive data, ANYTHING) then you notify your customers right away. This should be required by law and punishable by jail time if anything else is done. If they suffer expenses as a result of your negligence, you pay them immediately and unquestioningly. If they have to sue you to get payment out of you, you pay triple plus attorney's fees. And next time, maybe you remember to be more careful.
Stallman and the FSF -aren't- against software copyrights as a matter of principle. He does call for reducing the length of copyright and the scope of what it can restrict, but not for an outright abolition. On the other hand, the FSF (and incidentally I agree) regards patents as inappropriate in any case involving software. That is, in fact, their position-software should be eligible only for copyright, never for patents.
You can read more here, which probably explains it a lot more thoroughly then I do.
I believe you're thinking of the Rayovac Renewal, which is now discontinued. It looks like there are still some rechargeable alkalines on the market though.
AND...I'm sure glad I never had you, remind me never to attend school where you teach!
I have a lot of respect for MOST professors, and in my experience, most of them are happy to share their knowledge and experience with anyone who wants to learn it. You are the exception to that, and your power trip gives the good ones a bad name.
As to your "intellectual property"...really, get over yourself.
Seems we have, and thanks for yours as well, and the clarifications. I was under the impression that most of the "hate speech" laws, in Germany and the like, forbade -any- mention sympathetic to the Nazis, denying the Holocaust, being racist, etc. (I could still swear I heard of a case not a year ago where a German citizen was prosecuted for "Holocaust denial", but maybe there's more to it then that, and I can't find it offhand.) It would seem I have some more research to do there.
Ah, but there's the difference. I am -not-, in any means, for any freedom of the KKK to "hunt down" blacks or for the right to -actually- encourage violent actions. But there's the difference...
I should have the right to say "I hate all black people!" Or even to say "I wish all Jews were dead!" Now, granted, I might cross the line should I say "Kill those people!" to a group who I know is likely to obey me.
Think of the speech which you would least like to hear, which would most greatly shock and offend you. Think of the worst possible picture you can think of being painted, the most offensive book you can conceive of being written. THOSE are the types of speech in need of free speech protection, not speech no one would dislike anyway.
As to Goebbels? If the people there had exercised -their- free speech by shouting down and ridiculing him, we'd never have heard of the guy. To others? Same thing. If someone's saying something you disagree with, don't keep your mouth shut!
Oh, and as to the words you not so kindly put in my mouth. I -do- freely acknowledge that speech can hurt. If I tell my best friend to fuck off, it's going to hurt. If I tell someone who loves me the feeling is not mutual, it's going to hurt. But we do not ban these things. Rights stop where someone's -life-, -health-, or -property- (in that order) may be endangered, not where someone's feelings might get hurt.
(as long as their speech isn't racist, attacking the constitution or denying the Holocaust). This is what we call `Free Speech' over here.
You have an awfully odd definition of "free." Of course, that's becoming the case here too-you're very free to say whatever you like, so long as you stay within this fenced enclosure a mile away from where anyone will actually see you. That's the free speech zone. Supportive signs only where you'll actually be seen please.
During Senator McCarthy's time, you could say whatever you want so long as it wasn't pro-Communist. That's not free speech. Free speech -is- the right for the KKK and the neo-Nazis to hold their rallies and say what they've got to say. (Of course, it's also my and your right to say that they're a bunch of morons.)
If I hand out cards to all sorts of people, stating that my name is John Smith, I'm vice president of silly walks at Acme Industries, my phone number is (123)456-7890, and my email is jsmith@acme.com, can I really then make a case that I had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for that data?
That's not to say that I like data-mining, mind you, but if everyone from grocery stores to the NSA can get away with it on the grounds that the information was already publically available, I really don't know what anyone would make a case against this site on.
Still not entirely sure that's entirely feasible...what about someone tasked with a statistics report required to find baseball stats, and who otherwise couldn't care less about baseball? A person from Boston (or London, or Moscow) getting set to move to LA? Even with such seemingly "local" sites, you've still got a potentially global audience. In fact, this is one of the great strengths of the Web-if I take a sudden interest in cricket, I can go look at a ton of different websites on the sport, even from the US. If those sites have captchas based on "local" culture, not so, as I likely don't know about it.
Much better would be to make subtle changes to the image each time it's used, that would be trivial to a human (moving each letter five pixels in a random direction) but enough to confuse an image-recognition program.
And as you said, at some point, you can't ever keep out 100% of unwanted visitors-and once you get to 99%, you might shut out a significant number of ones you -would- want trying to go that last step. Those 1% are the clever ones anyway, and are still going to find a way. You'll just end up in an arms race while annoying the hell out of those who actually like and use the site.
I apologize, it seemed as though you were interested in a discussion on the issue and knew a few things. If I'd known you were more interested in namecalling I'd not have wasted your time.
Suggesting that a young single woman flying out of Sweden with a round-the-world ticket is equally as likely to hijack/destroy the plane as a group of young single "middle eastern" men with one-way tickets flyng out of Saudi Arabia, is letting your idealistic bleeding-heart-leftist-stupidity get in the way of common sense.
Absolutely not-it is simply suggesting that if such a profile is used, any wannabe terrorist will find a young person to fly out of Sweden and make sure to purchase round-trip tickets in an attempt to duck the "profile." And probably succeed. Suggesting that such people do not exist and such a plot would not be possible is the true folly.
As to idealistic-leftist-etc., I know many people (including several in law enforcement) from MANY backgrounds who agree profiling is ineffective and dangerous, and who don't have the slightest bit of the beliefs you listed. Surely you can make your point without name-calling or presuming about your opponents.
Not to mention, *everyone* "profiles", every day, all the time. It's impossible (not to mention stupid) not to. Some people just can't admit to it.
I'll freely admit to it! However, most people (including me) profile on objective and non-bigoted criteria. Are you a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, or a family member? Do you look friendly and approachable or hostile and antisocial? Did I see you interact with someone and if so what did you do?
Also, "everyone" is not a government agent, which changes the rules 100%. I am -personally- allowed to hate black people, or women, or those with red hair, and refuse entirely to associate with or speak to them. (Note: I don't -support- this behavior in any way, I'm just noting it is allowed!) However, if I work at the DMV, and one of those people walks up to my desk, I -must- give them a driver's license if they meet the criteria for one. Working as an agent of the government goes by different rules then I might do things in my everyday life.
However, any profile we use will by definition be able to figure out and subvert (are 90% of the searches against Arab-looking guys? Find someone white! Or black! Are 90% of the searches against males? Find a woman!). Therefore, statistically and psychologically, the safest way is to make sure EVERYONE knows they have a chance of getting a search, be they Grandma or Mohammed in the turban.
How a person behaves is strongly influenced by their culture. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, intolerant and short-sighted religious beliefs are a significant contributor to culture.
Skin colour (more accurately, ethnicity) is not. However, there are many areas in the world where ethnicity and culture are strongly correlated. To ignore this - or, even worse, actively deny it - is folly.
Ah, you're RIGHT! You mean like white Baptists from Mississippi! We must bar them at once from boarding an airplane!
Wait, did that just sound silly? I bet it did! Why? Because it's a hideously bigoted statement, but it's bigoted against those who are more like the picture of "us" (bit different flavor of Christianity, same skin color). Now, myself, I generally have found most religions to be shortsighted and ignorant, hence my atheism. Yet that is my personal decision, and I've nothing against those who chose otherwise.
But if you do want to ban those religions with a history of violence from their members, you'd deal a pretty severe blow to air travel within the US. After all, most who travel are self-identified "Christians", it's going to be a hell of a time to search all of them. And a history of violence? I mean, look at those people, from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to their modern-day terrorist acts like abortion clinic bombings! This is obviously a religion whose believers hate peace and believe terrorism is alright! We can't let a single one of these people on a plane without a search, who KNOWS what such a dangerous lunatic might do?
Sounds a bit sillier when you -know- the religion in question and -know- the acts committed are the work of an extremist few, not the believers at large, doesn't it? Yet the exact same is true of Islam.
Ah. It appears I possibly misunderstood then, as your position earlier appeared to be a "for."
Unfortunately, however, we at some point must accept the following:
Children will sometimes be killed and sometimes in nasty ways.
We can take reasonable steps to prevent this in 99.9% of cases. However, the steps to prevent the remaining.1% of cases will be unreasonable and a "cure worse then the disease."
That means that some children will STILL be killed and sometimes in nasty ways, and that at some point we will have to accept that and say "It's now a rare problem and we've done all we can and should."
For the record, I have three daughters I love very much. So please skip the inevitable (or seemingly so) "you'll get it once YOU have kids" bit...
Criminals who abuse children should be punished, that is true. They should also be required to undergo treatment (and WHY in most cases are we waiting until the criminals are OUT of prison to begin treatment????) and to accept restrictions on being around minors, especially alone, as part of their parole. All that's well and good.
However, I have a problem with this "shadow life sentence" bit, where though you're not -technically- sentenced to life you are in effect exiled and branded for the rest of your life. Either make the sentence life or make it x years with mandatory (and actually effective!) treatment, but don't just take the cheap way out.
As to slander, I would imagine that the accused -might- be able to file it, however then they have to show a preponderance of evidence in a civil case. I'm not imagining this thing would fly far though, or at least I hope the Supreme Court would give it the good hard whack it deserves if it ever passes./p.
...had a violent criminal record involving children.
That's exactly the issue at hand here, however. The guy who did that had already been convicted of a crime. Convicts, by definition, lose some of their rights, including the right to carry firearms and a lot of their right to privacy (even to some degree once they're out, ask any ex-con how well trying to keep something "private" from a parole officer works!)
What we're talking about here, is branding people with this permanent mark who have -not- been proven guilty of criminal conduct behind a reasonable doubt, and have that put in a database for the world (and any potential employer, neighbor, landlord, partner...) to find with a simple Web search. This is absolutely unacceptable. If there is sufficient evidence that someone has molested a kid, they need to be charged and tried. If there is not, then they don't need to have the scarlet letter put to them.
I wish I had a company or a job to give you. It's all too rare to find someone with genuine ethical standards anymore, and I'd hire you in a second. Thanks for being one of them.
One would think, though, that they would have the laws against "vandalism" and/or "deliberate damage to property" under their belts well enough? Betcha they know those real quick if someone throws a rock through their window...
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we have a different definition of "force"-if I put a gun to your head and demand your money, am I just making it a very unattractive option for you to refuse? Of course, that is physical force. What about when the IRS says "Pay your taxes or we'll seize your house?" That's not -physical- force, per se, but I'd very much call it coercive force regardless.
Certainly, the dictionary seems to have some definitions which don't involve phsyical coercion and seem to fit the bill here:
4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
13. any influence or agency analogous to physical force: social forces.
18. to compel, constrain, or oblige (oneself or someone) to do something: to force a suspect to confess.
Source: dictionary.com definition.
It seems the same would apply to underselling other competitors in the area, especially when done below cost while backed by the big corporate war chest until other businesses in the area must close down. This forces (that word again!) those who live in that area to work and shop there if no alternative is available. This -is- a blatantly coercive tactic, and it is quite evidently an attempt to force suppliers not to do business with others. And just because the suppliers per se have a "choice" (accept our dictates or don't do business with the biggest retailer in the country), does not mean they have any more of a -real- choice then you do in paying that tax bill. Monopoly abuse at its finest, and the sad part is, people actually step up to defend this type of behavior.
Nobody forces people to do business with Wal-Mart.
Nobody forces people to work at Wal-Mart.
Nobody forces people to shop at Wal-Mart.
You are absolutely, WRONG! But thank you for playing. In fact, I do believe I saw a story on some website recently ("dotslash" or something like that? I don't recall) about Wal-Mart attempting to FORCE video producers to deal with them!
You might look it up.
While I dislike spam as much as anyone, I really don't see how you can "outlaw" the harvesting of email addresses either. If you post your email address to a website, you really have no reasonable expectation that it is any longer "private information". I certainly don't have any expectation that the email address I use here, even given the auto-obfuscation of it, will in any way remain private. I have a -truly- private email address which I give only to friends, family, and business associates, and that one gets no spam.
Now, back to the robots.txt issue. We're not talking about Ma and Pa Kettle not knowing that the email address you use to sign up for the "daily joke" will be sold to spammers and back the world over. We're talking about a simple protocol that any semi-competent Web designer has been familiar with since the day they wrote their first HTML tag. And since the vast majority of sites -do- want to be indexed (and, yes, cached) by search engines, the logical response is that those few who don't should opt-out. Google provides an easy, well-documented, widely known mechanism to do so. That should be the extent of their responsibility.
According to the ruling I'm reading right now on google.be, I can sum up your misunderstanding in two words: Google cache.
I can respond in one filename: robots.txt.
I'm not sure there's always a best way to handle these things - sometimes it could be informing everyone, at other times it could just mean scrutinizing accounts more closely while keeping everything quiet. It's a hard thing to balance.
The same rule as always applies here-SECURITY THROUGH OBSCURITY DOES NOT WORK. You could be dealing with a couple of punk kids who randomly stole a laptop and are off at the first opportunity to pawn it-or you could be dealing with organized gangsters who know damn well what they got and are going to set out to exploiting it the second they can get started. You've no way to know. If you've had a potential breach (virus/keylogger infection, stolen tape/backup record/laptop containing sensitive data, ANYTHING) then you notify your customers right away. This should be required by law and punishable by jail time if anything else is done. If they suffer expenses as a result of your negligence, you pay them immediately and unquestioningly. If they have to sue you to get payment out of you, you pay triple plus attorney's fees. And next time, maybe you remember to be more careful.
Aww, idn't that just too bad? The wittwe pipes awen't handwing the twaffic!
For what they charge in tuition, -GET- -BIGGER- -PIPES-! Not throttle! Either that or allow students to seek outside solutions.
Incorrect!
Unless you're allowed to seek your own, it should be unencumbered, period.
Stallman and the FSF -aren't- against software copyrights as a matter of principle. He does call for reducing the length of copyright and the scope of what it can restrict, but not for an outright abolition. On the other hand, the FSF (and incidentally I agree) regards patents as inappropriate in any case involving software. That is, in fact, their position-software should be eligible only for copyright, never for patents.
You can read more here, which probably explains it a lot more thoroughly then I do.
I believe you're thinking of the Rayovac Renewal, which is now discontinued. It looks like there are still some rechargeable alkalines on the market though.
AND...I'm sure glad I never had you, remind me never to attend school where you teach!
I have a lot of respect for MOST professors, and in my experience, most of them are happy to share their knowledge and experience with anyone who wants to learn it. You are the exception to that, and your power trip gives the good ones a bad name.
As to your "intellectual property"...really, get over yourself.
Coding to handle an outage is a good practice of safe programming, not an excessive overhead.
if(!power)
turn_on_power();
Doesn't seem like that'd be too much overhead to me!
Seems we have, and thanks for yours as well, and the clarifications. I was under the impression that most of the "hate speech" laws, in Germany and the like, forbade -any- mention sympathetic to the Nazis, denying the Holocaust, being racist, etc. (I could still swear I heard of a case not a year ago where a German citizen was prosecuted for "Holocaust denial", but maybe there's more to it then that, and I can't find it offhand.) It would seem I have some more research to do there.
Ah, but there's the difference. I am -not-, in any means, for any freedom of the KKK to "hunt down" blacks or for the right to -actually- encourage violent actions. But there's the difference...
I should have the right to say "I hate all black people!" Or even to say "I wish all Jews were dead!" Now, granted, I might cross the line should I say "Kill those people!" to a group who I know is likely to obey me.
Think of the speech which you would least like to hear, which would most greatly shock and offend you. Think of the worst possible picture you can think of being painted, the most offensive book you can conceive of being written. THOSE are the types of speech in need of free speech protection, not speech no one would dislike anyway.
As to Goebbels? If the people there had exercised -their- free speech by shouting down and ridiculing him, we'd never have heard of the guy. To others? Same thing. If someone's saying something you disagree with, don't keep your mouth shut!
Oh, and as to the words you not so kindly put in my mouth. I -do- freely acknowledge that speech can hurt. If I tell my best friend to fuck off, it's going to hurt. If I tell someone who loves me the feeling is not mutual, it's going to hurt. But we do not ban these things. Rights stop where someone's -life-, -health-, or -property- (in that order) may be endangered, not where someone's feelings might get hurt.
(as long as their speech isn't racist, attacking the constitution or denying the Holocaust). This is what we call `Free Speech' over here.
You have an awfully odd definition of "free." Of course, that's becoming the case here too-you're very free to say whatever you like, so long as you stay within this fenced enclosure a mile away from where anyone will actually see you. That's the free speech zone. Supportive signs only where you'll actually be seen please.
During Senator McCarthy's time, you could say whatever you want so long as it wasn't pro-Communist. That's not free speech. Free speech -is- the right for the KKK and the neo-Nazis to hold their rallies and say what they've got to say. (Of course, it's also my and your right to say that they're a bunch of morons.)
Sues on the grounds of what?
If I hand out cards to all sorts of people, stating that my name is John Smith, I'm vice president of silly walks at Acme Industries, my phone number is (123)456-7890, and my email is jsmith@acme.com, can I really then make a case that I had a "reasonable expectation of privacy" for that data?
That's not to say that I like data-mining, mind you, but if everyone from grocery stores to the NSA can get away with it on the grounds that the information was already publically available, I really don't know what anyone would make a case against this site on.
Doesn't matter whether it's a revolutionary idea or not.
Actually, yes it does! One of the criteria for a patent is that it must be non-obvious.
Still not entirely sure that's entirely feasible...what about someone tasked with a statistics report required to find baseball stats, and who otherwise couldn't care less about baseball? A person from Boston (or London, or Moscow) getting set to move to LA? Even with such seemingly "local" sites, you've still got a potentially global audience. In fact, this is one of the great strengths of the Web-if I take a sudden interest in cricket, I can go look at a ton of different websites on the sport, even from the US. If those sites have captchas based on "local" culture, not so, as I likely don't know about it.
Much better would be to make subtle changes to the image each time it's used, that would be trivial to a human (moving each letter five pixels in a random direction) but enough to confuse an image-recognition program.
And as you said, at some point, you can't ever keep out 100% of unwanted visitors-and once you get to 99%, you might shut out a significant number of ones you -would- want trying to go that last step. Those 1% are the clever ones anyway, and are still going to find a way. You'll just end up in an arms race while annoying the hell out of those who actually like and use the site.
Someone forgot this is the World Wide Web, and that not everyone logging onto a given website will necessarily be from any given "culture"!
The real question is, are muslims more likely to be terrorists?
Actually the answer is no too.
I apologize, it seemed as though you were interested in a discussion on the issue and knew a few things. If I'd known you were more interested in namecalling I'd not have wasted your time.
Suggesting that a young single woman flying out of Sweden with a round-the-world ticket is equally as likely to hijack/destroy the plane as a group of young single "middle eastern" men with one-way tickets flyng out of Saudi Arabia, is letting your idealistic bleeding-heart-leftist-stupidity get in the way of common sense.
Absolutely not-it is simply suggesting that if such a profile is used, any wannabe terrorist will find a young person to fly out of Sweden and make sure to purchase round-trip tickets in an attempt to duck the "profile." And probably succeed. Suggesting that such people do not exist and such a plot would not be possible is the true folly.
As to idealistic-leftist-etc., I know many people (including several in law enforcement) from MANY backgrounds who agree profiling is ineffective and dangerous, and who don't have the slightest bit of the beliefs you listed. Surely you can make your point without name-calling or presuming about your opponents.
Not to mention, *everyone* "profiles", every day, all the time. It's impossible (not to mention stupid) not to. Some people just can't admit to it.
I'll freely admit to it! However, most people (including me) profile on objective and non-bigoted criteria. Are you a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, or a family member? Do you look friendly and approachable or hostile and antisocial? Did I see you interact with someone and if so what did you do?
Also, "everyone" is not a government agent, which changes the rules 100%. I am -personally- allowed to hate black people, or women, or those with red hair, and refuse entirely to associate with or speak to them. (Note: I don't -support- this behavior in any way, I'm just noting it is allowed!) However, if I work at the DMV, and one of those people walks up to my desk, I -must- give them a driver's license if they meet the criteria for one. Working as an agent of the government goes by different rules then I might do things in my everyday life.
However, any profile we use will by definition be able to figure out and subvert (are 90% of the searches against Arab-looking guys? Find someone white! Or black! Are 90% of the searches against males? Find a woman!). Therefore, statistically and psychologically, the safest way is to make sure EVERYONE knows they have a chance of getting a search, be they Grandma or Mohammed in the turban.
How a person behaves is strongly influenced by their culture. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, intolerant and short-sighted religious beliefs are a significant contributor to culture.
Skin colour (more accurately, ethnicity) is not. However, there are many areas in the world where ethnicity and culture are strongly correlated. To ignore this - or, even worse, actively deny it - is folly.
Ah, you're RIGHT! You mean like white Baptists from Mississippi! We must bar them at once from boarding an airplane!
Wait, did that just sound silly? I bet it did! Why? Because it's a hideously bigoted statement, but it's bigoted against those who are more like the picture of "us" (bit different flavor of Christianity, same skin color). Now, myself, I generally have found most religions to be shortsighted and ignorant, hence my atheism. Yet that is my personal decision, and I've nothing against those who chose otherwise.
But if you do want to ban those religions with a history of violence from their members, you'd deal a pretty severe blow to air travel within the US. After all, most who travel are self-identified "Christians", it's going to be a hell of a time to search all of them. And a history of violence? I mean, look at those people, from the Crusades, to the Inquisition, to their modern-day terrorist acts like abortion clinic bombings! This is obviously a religion whose believers hate peace and believe terrorism is alright! We can't let a single one of these people on a plane without a search, who KNOWS what such a dangerous lunatic might do?
Sounds a bit sillier when you -know- the religion in question and -know- the acts committed are the work of an extremist few, not the believers at large, doesn't it? Yet the exact same is true of Islam.
Ah. It appears I possibly misunderstood then, as your position earlier appeared to be a "for."
Unfortunately, however, we at some point must accept the following:
For the record, I have three daughters I love very much. So please skip the inevitable (or seemingly so) "you'll get it once YOU have kids" bit...
Criminals who abuse children should be punished, that is true. They should also be required to undergo treatment (and WHY in most cases are we waiting until the criminals are OUT of prison to begin treatment????) and to accept restrictions on being around minors, especially alone, as part of their parole. All that's well and good.
However, I have a problem with this "shadow life sentence" bit, where though you're not -technically- sentenced to life you are in effect exiled and branded for the rest of your life. Either make the sentence life or make it x years with mandatory (and actually effective!) treatment, but don't just take the cheap way out.
As to slander, I would imagine that the accused -might- be able to file it, however then they have to show a preponderance of evidence in a civil case. I'm not imagining this thing would fly far though, or at least I hope the Supreme Court would give it the good hard whack it deserves if it ever passes./p.
That's exactly the issue at hand here, however. The guy who did that had already been convicted of a crime. Convicts, by definition, lose some of their rights, including the right to carry firearms and a lot of their right to privacy (even to some degree once they're out, ask any ex-con how well trying to keep something "private" from a parole officer works!)
What we're talking about here, is branding people with this permanent mark who have -not- been proven guilty of criminal conduct behind a reasonable doubt, and have that put in a database for the world (and any potential employer, neighbor, landlord, partner...) to find with a simple Web search. This is absolutely unacceptable. If there is sufficient evidence that someone has molested a kid, they need to be charged and tried. If there is not, then they don't need to have the scarlet letter put to them.
I wish I had a company or a job to give you. It's all too rare to find someone with genuine ethical standards anymore, and I'd hire you in a second. Thanks for being one of them.
One would think, though, that they would have the laws against "vandalism" and/or "deliberate damage to property" under their belts well enough? Betcha they know those real quick if someone throws a rock through their window...