Why do you think it's absolute bullshit? With the mom in jail, where exactly do you think is going to happen to the kid the *next* time the dad goes to jail? Had the mom been in jail at the time of the dad's arrest, the cops *would have had to* call Child Welfare Services to take custody of the kid that very day, before the cops even left the premises.
And as should be clear from the story, the dad can wind up in jail even from a false accusation.
How aggravating for your friend. Try to keep in mind that the judge's priority here is what is best for the child -- and that is not necessarily what either parent fairly deserves as a result of their behavior. If they believe that the best life for the child in this will come at the expense of fairness to one or both of the parents, that's the decision they are supposed to make.
Even from your own account, I can understand why the judge wouldn't hold the mother in contempt, as well as why the DA wouldn't press charges. Even though she lied, wasted police resources, and got your friend an undeserved night behind bars, a Mom-in-jail scenario would dramatically increases the risk that the kid will wind up in the juvenile system.
HTML V5 is gonna be locked down tighter than a nun's thighs...
In the interest of accuracy, there is a fair amount of flash content out there that appears to indicate that nun's thighs are not particularly tightly locked down.
Even today I heard someone claim that smoking pot does not have worse health effects than tobacco smoke (think about it : no filters on the sigarettes -> you're actually inhaling burning leaves directly into your lungs which will never again come out. Healthy ? Of course not)
The person who made that comment has probably been keeping up with the material. I'm guessing that either you or they paraphrased the results to the point of inaccuracy. Last month a study came out indicating that moderate marijuana smoking does not impair lung function, unlike moderate cigarette smoking.
Night classes will allow you to keep paying your bills while you test the waters of a new career. Look through the class catalog of a nearby university or community college, and plan out what courses or even new degrees you'd need for an acceptably paying move.
You're past mid-career, so any major change at this point will require major retooling of your resume, contacts, awareness, and mindset. You're entrenched in your field right now, and shouldn't expect to become ideally informed about another field from your self-research alone.
It is possible that even at your age, a new degree, an internship, and/or considerable volunteer work will be required for you to get your foot into some new door. You will be much better informed, and probably better positioned, after at least a semester's worth of classes, job hunting, and resume & cover letter revision.
Hopefully the divorce is amicable. In that case, you and your divorcing spouse might have different interests, ideas, and conceptions about what's valuable, what you'd like, etc. Rather than trying to determine some objective way to split it then starting the discussion there, a mediator can help begin by finding out what she wants, having you explain what you want, and looking for a mutually acceptable outcome. Since you're divorcing, communication problems between you two are likely; a mediator is trained to help keep the discussion productive.
If the divorce is not amicable, anticipate that her interests might also include her trying to harm/punish/annoy/deprive you by disputing ownership on things she doesn't otherwise actually want. In that case, it makes sense to simply ensure that you have secured copies of all sensitive data, then write off everything you've listed as lost and start over.
I find the dangerous precedent is your implication that nonprofessionals have some right to compel services from a professional while in blatant disregard of said professional's professional advice. Doctors should have considerable leeway in firing patients, as long as they satisfy their AMA professional obligations. It's their practice, so they should be able to practice how they choose, with the patients of their choice.
Doctors should have almost absolute* leeway when it comes to firing patients for dangerous, voluntary behaviors like intentionally avoiding vaccinations.
It sounds like you're not including the agricultural use of the Ogalala aquifier ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquiferrel=url2html-18303http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer>. Agricultural use of this aquifier for irrigation is of the scope that complete depletion of this source has been consistently pegged around 2050.
Throw in lots of fracking with little regard to seepage on top of this (it's almost entirely under fracking-friendly flyover country), and it seems disturbingly possible that this massive natural storage reservoir of fresh water --about one seventh the amount of water in the entire Great Lakes basin-- will either be depleted or fouled beyond use within our lifetimes.
Why isn't this being treated as a crime? It has all the characteristics of a sexual assault. People are being forced into situations, including specific body positions, where they can *and actually are* being used against their will for the sexual gratification of others. That the perpetrators are on the clock and doing this in the course of their professional duties aggravates it as an offense, but doesn't affect the sexual nature of this type of assault.
What is the difference between this, and putting up a hidden bathroom camera, besides the concealment of the bathroom device? Or from peeping into the windows of these women at their homes or offices?
It's correct that constitutional rights will conflict, but these compromises aren't easy; they're messy, and require legal expertise and courts. The conflict here is that Europeans have *two* rights that conflict, while Americans have only one in the equation. European constitutions (most constitutions, actually) ensure both (1)a right to freedom of expression, and (2) a right to human dignity.
This the conflict between these two rights that results in, for example, barring the names of Sedylmayer's convicted murderers: it pits the dignity of the released convicts against freedom of expression. The right to dignity is the constitutional approach that allows free speech countries to bar, for example, Nazi symbols. OTOH in the US, here without a right to dignity, neo-Nazi's are free to have a public parade.
One thing that seems to unite Americans of all backgrounds is a horrible fear of allowing some speech restrictions in the name of basic dignity. Think about this: the God Hates Fags WBC fucks are free to protest funerals in the US, but they are not able to pull this crap in Europe. Extreme examples of free speech as sued by hate groups have led me to believe that the US would be better off if we also had a constitutional right to dignity.
Receipts, business papers, envelopes, paper currency, coupons used & unused, every surface of every DVD/CD/album cover, handwritten notes to self, napkins, gum wrappers, each side of the thumb drive I'm saving the scans to, even pens and pencils.
And yet, most Muslims are not taught this. Very many Muslims are completely ignorant that Allah is the same as Yahweh is the same as God. They are denied this information...
Are you sure about this? The claim that islam is a perfected version of judeo christianity seems to be a consistent theme that I've run across in a few different countries, in the inevitable conversion attempts that will occur when one visits mosques. It's basically an upsell, styling both older traditions as well intended, but inferior editions.
My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's three years ago. It is simply brutal to see what this disease does to the people you love. But given the inevitable outcome of Alzheimer's, I'll grasp at any straw I can find if it presents some remote hope of a different outcome. This kind of perspective can't help but make one feel as if you're vulnerable to hucksters. There have been similar claims about more dubious Alzheimer's treatments, such as coconut oil, but when it comes down to it my approach is "Will it kill him or hurt him? If not, then let's try it, what have we got to lose."
The human testing and approval process for treating Alzheimer's with bexarotene will simply take too long to be of any benefit to him. I want to get a physician to approve this medication for the off-label use for my father, so we can try it on him.
I hope it is not reckless nor irresponsible to see if I can use my father as a sort of non-controlled subject for this study. But it seems that I have the choice between (1) risking a negative, possibly fatal or crippling, reaction for a remote chance at reversing a fatal, painful disease, or (2) waiting responsibly for the gears of formal human medical approval turn, test, find that this works, and approve prescribing it for patients. What kind of a choice is that?
This situation actually comes up with some regularity. The mechanism prosecutors use is a guarantee of immunity for any crimes other than those currently being prosecuted.
Since the accused won't risk prosecution for any other crimes, the possibility of self-incrimination is eliminated. This allows the prosecution to compel disclosure.
Public libraries are not exclusively funded by local tax revenue, but you seem to believe that they are. For example, about ten years ago SPL (the library in TFA) generated ~$300 million through fundraising. This was enough to pay for a big new downtown main branch, along with a bunch of major branch upgrades. (Apparently the Lake City branch didn't get much of a cut, if they're running into space problems like this.) Their budget, like that of other public libraries, continues to be a mix of both private and public local, state, and federal funds.
Library budgets are often one of the first items on an eager local candidate's chopping block; this has happened to SPL, repeatedly. Libraries have developed alternative resources for funds; they have had to as a matter of survival.
This isn't the first time a library's collection policy has been controversial enough for a story with legs enough to generate the kind of moralistic outrage that inevitably sells ads. But if you have one, I'd certainly be interested to hear an actual, real example of any large city completely defunding its library system, closing it, firing all staff, and disposing of the entire collection.
There isn't? I guess if you mean in the sense that "right to library" doesn't appear in the text of the US constitution, you're correct. But then if you read that particular constitution closely, you'll notice that you don't actually have any right to freedom of speech either. It reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." That's it, there's no positive right to freedom of speech either, only a restriction on Congress. If that's what you mean by "no right to a public library," then I'd agree as readily as I would that we have no right to free speech.
Private libraries can go nuts with their restrictions and threats of defunding, but there are constitutional restrictions to community standards when it comes to public libraries. For example even if every last person in a town follows a particular religious ideology, the collection cannot be restricted to material approved by that ideology. Public libraries are used to operating on shoestring budgets, see these kinds of complaints often, and still somehow continue to exist.
I am a librarian, and years ago I worked at SPL. I wasn't at that particular branch, but the other branches I worked at all took steps to limit the ability of others to view what was on the patron computer screen, via privacy screens, kiosks w/ side walls, location, or all of the above. If this branch hasn't done so already, it's probably because they simply can't afford the extra space & furniture needed.
As for content, I don't care if someone else thinks that another patron's content is *only* indecent, inappropriate for your nearby children, or creepy. Disruptive behavior from patrons is one thing, and we'll put a stop to that. But this sounds like the only disruptive element here was the content itself.
You don't have a right to make a public library G-rated only, for the sake of the innocence your kids. I will do what I can to accommodate patrons' wishes, but I'm working with a very limited budget. I empathize with the parent's discomfort, but sex and porn are indeed a part of the adult world.
If you think it's inappropriate for your children to see that sort of thing, you need to block that from your kids. I'm not your kid's morality babysitter, I'm not here to police what kind of information goes into their precious little heads.
I am certainly not going to ask someone to stop reading/watching/listening *only* because the content is offensive to others, even if the content is offensive to me personally. I am and will remain far too busy ensuring that the public can freely access as much information and media as possible. As far as I'm concerned, that includes porn.
It she weren't a lawyer, we wouldn't even be speaking about it. It's funny how lawyers seem to have extra rights in our society. They can make demands, we cannot.
Here's what your complaint seems to me, restated in car analogy: automobile mechanics often make modifications to their own cars that others cannot. Thus, automobile mechanics seem to have extra rights in our society.
I don't understand why you'd perceive an attorney's effective advocacy as some fundamental social injustice, rather than a matter of the natural consequences of formal, professional study in an area of specialization. In order to become an effective advocate, she studied for years, and practiced for years beyond that. She's good at it; and almost certainly more effective than people who didn't bother to work towards her goals.
It is an attorney's job to assert the rights and interests of their clients. Lawyers are generally more educated about how to effectively assert the same rights that nonlawyers have, and are often more informed as to how to effectively pursue any given interest.
As a lawyer, she probably writes more effectively than most people. Is that also because she has extra rights that others do not?
The reason certain athletes make dozens, and occasionally hundreds, of millions of dollars isn't because of some inherent value in the performance of their art (if you want to think about it that way.) They get this kind of money because these forms of entertainment have developed such widespead appeal that they can (and do) deliver billions of dollars of advertising space.
Look at any big venue event, be it sports game or concert. Brand logos are pasted everywhere, they're embedded in as much media as possible, and you'll be subject to countless commercial breaks, messages from sponsors, and product/service plugs.
It's the same reason that other forms of entertainment can rake in millions and/or billions, despite not being some incredible contribution to human society. It's not that the art is that good, it's simply that it's able to push enough ads to generate million dollar salaries for the stars.
I understand your outrage, but you've overgeneralized it past any point of accuracy, let alone usefulness. What you're saying is simply incorrect. Don't believe me? Ask the Electronic Frontier Foundation for starters, which is a (gasp!) corporation.https://www.eff.org/about
Non-profit corporations are every bit as much corporations as are for-profit corporations. By definition, corporate charter, and law the overriding mission of these CORPORATIONS is to actively accomplish some sort public good. US nonprofit corps currently control ~1 trillion dollars, and last stats I saw indicated they disseminated about $50 billion in *direct* financial support annually (this doesn't include the public services they provide.) This isn't some uninformed romantic fantasy; it's reality. There isn't a lot of profit in public services, yet 501c(3) corps and related foundations do indeed "band together and fund" all sorts of efforts that, while financially unprofitable, serve some actual good.
Grandparent was both correct and informed: the corporate form *is* a powerful type of group organization, and it can be used for good or evil. It can be abused, and obviously is, has been before, and will in the future. It is also a form that can be used to diminish or even eradicate the influences of the worst of the for-profit corporations.
This is because, again, a corporation is a form of group organization to achieve a common goal, and that goal doesn't *have* to be profit.
In most of Europe, removing a blog like this is a no-brainer. Europe is more concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the US notion of "free speech". For Europeans free speech as a concept is to be able to express one's ideas and thoughts without harassment or fear of political oppression.
A blog designed to harass a single person with no political agenda? "Censoring" that is the sane thing to do if you ask me. Society doesn't exist to protect one person's ability to make another one's life miserable.
This is accurate AND sane because the constitutions of most European countries have something that the US Constitution does not: the human "right to dignity". These countries also enshrine the right to freedom of expression (and unlike the US they guarantee it to their citizens, rather than simply prohibiting their government from abridging it.)
Remedies are fashioned when one constitutional right interferes with another --for example when one douchebag's right to freedom of expression interferes with another's right to dignity, or for example when a group of douchebags wants to march through ethnic neighborhood X loudly proclaiming anti-ethnicity-X signs, slogans, and speech.
We Americans could do well to consider whether we should give ourselves a right to dignity. We do not have a right to dignity. Well, why shouldn't we?
Is it really more important to protect harassment, hate speech, and false defamation (in fact, if not in law)? Our current limited set of constitutional rights protects liars and frauds at the expense of others.
I find the advantage of pinned apps is that it's easier to keep one's hands on the keyboard to open them. Anytime I have to remove my hands from the keyboard it slows me down.
Win key > (first letter of app, repeat letter if multiple apps begin w/ the same letter) > enter
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes down to it, all breeches are breeches of privacy.
Why do you think it's absolute bullshit? With the mom in jail, where exactly do you think is going to happen to the kid the *next* time the dad goes to jail? Had the mom been in jail at the time of the dad's arrest, the cops *would have had to* call Child Welfare Services to take custody of the kid that very day, before the cops even left the premises.
And as should be clear from the story, the dad can wind up in jail even from a false accusation.
How aggravating for your friend. Try to keep in mind that the judge's priority here is what is best for the child -- and that is not necessarily what either parent fairly deserves as a result of their behavior. If they believe that the best life for the child in this will come at the expense of fairness to one or both of the parents, that's the decision they are supposed to make.
Even from your own account, I can understand why the judge wouldn't hold the mother in contempt, as well as why the DA wouldn't press charges. Even though she lied, wasted police resources, and got your friend an undeserved night behind bars, a Mom-in-jail scenario would dramatically increases the risk that the kid will wind up in the juvenile system.
HTML V5 is gonna be locked down tighter than a nun's thighs...
In the interest of accuracy, there is a fair amount of flash content out there that appears to indicate that nun's thighs are not particularly tightly locked down.
Even today I heard someone claim that smoking pot does not have worse health effects than tobacco smoke (think about it : no filters on the sigarettes -> you're actually inhaling burning leaves directly into your lungs which will never again come out. Healthy ? Of course not)
The person who made that comment has probably been keeping up with the material. I'm guessing that either you or they paraphrased the results to the point of inaccuracy. Last month a study came out indicating that moderate marijuana smoking does not impair lung function, unlike moderate cigarette smoking.
As far as lung function goes --which appears to be the adverse health effect you describe-- your"common-sense" reasoning simply contradicts the results from this controlled study. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/
I think the results of this study would also seem like common sense, but only to people who have smoked both pot and cigarettes.
Night classes will allow you to keep paying your bills while you test the waters of a new career. Look through the class catalog of a nearby university or community college, and plan out what courses or even new degrees you'd need for an acceptably paying move.
You're past mid-career, so any major change at this point will require major retooling of your resume, contacts, awareness, and mindset. You're entrenched in your field right now, and shouldn't expect to become ideally informed about another field from your self-research alone.
It is possible that even at your age, a new degree, an internship, and/or considerable volunteer work will be required for you to get your foot into some new door. You will be much better informed, and probably better positioned, after at least a semester's worth of classes, job hunting, and resume & cover letter revision.
Hopefully the divorce is amicable. In that case, you and your divorcing spouse might have different interests, ideas, and conceptions about what's valuable, what you'd like, etc. Rather than trying to determine some objective way to split it then starting the discussion there, a mediator can help begin by finding out what she wants, having you explain what you want, and looking for a mutually acceptable outcome. Since you're divorcing, communication problems between you two are likely; a mediator is trained to help keep the discussion productive.
If the divorce is not amicable, anticipate that her interests might also include her trying to harm/punish/annoy/deprive you by disputing ownership on things she doesn't otherwise actually want. In that case, it makes sense to simply ensure that you have secured copies of all sensitive data, then write off everything you've listed as lost and start over.
I find the dangerous precedent is your implication that nonprofessionals have some right to compel services from a professional while in blatant disregard of said professional's professional advice. Doctors should have considerable leeway in firing patients, as long as they satisfy their AMA professional obligations. It's their practice, so they should be able to practice how they choose, with the patients of their choice.
Doctors should have almost absolute* leeway when it comes to firing patients for dangerous, voluntary behaviors like intentionally avoiding vaccinations.
*Immediate life-saving exceptions aside, obviously.
It sounds like you're not including the agricultural use of the Ogalala aquifier ahref=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquiferrel=url2html-18303http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer>. Agricultural use of this aquifier for irrigation is of the scope that complete depletion of this source has been consistently pegged around 2050.
Throw in lots of fracking with little regard to seepage on top of this (it's almost entirely under fracking-friendly flyover country), and it seems disturbingly possible that this massive natural storage reservoir of fresh water --about one seventh the amount of water in the entire Great Lakes basin-- will either be depleted or fouled beyond use within our lifetimes.
Why isn't this being treated as a crime? It has all the characteristics of a sexual assault. People are being forced into situations, including specific body positions, where they can *and actually are* being used against their will for the sexual gratification of others. That the perpetrators are on the clock and doing this in the course of their professional duties aggravates it as an offense, but doesn't affect the sexual nature of this type of assault.
What is the difference between this, and putting up a hidden bathroom camera, besides the concealment of the bathroom device? Or from peeping into the windows of these women at their homes or offices?
The necessarily hardware aspects of this approach makes it seem like it will inevitably allow for breaching by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_line_communication, for starters.
It seems possible by design here to obfuscate raw power data information by shaping PLC network traffic to mimic Sony's proprietary format.
It's correct that constitutional rights will conflict, but these compromises aren't easy; they're messy, and require legal expertise and courts. The conflict here is that Europeans have *two* rights that conflict, while Americans have only one in the equation. European constitutions (most constitutions, actually) ensure both (1)a right to freedom of expression, and (2) a right to human dignity.
This the conflict between these two rights that results in, for example, barring the names of Sedylmayer's convicted murderers: it pits the dignity of the released convicts against freedom of expression. The right to dignity is the constitutional approach that allows free speech countries to bar, for example, Nazi symbols. OTOH in the US, here without a right to dignity, neo-Nazi's are free to have a public parade.
One thing that seems to unite Americans of all backgrounds is a horrible fear of allowing some speech restrictions in the name of basic dignity. Think about this: the God Hates Fags WBC fucks are free to protest funerals in the US, but they are not able to pull this crap in Europe. Extreme examples of free speech as sued by hate groups have led me to believe that the US would be better off if we also had a constitutional right to dignity.
Receipts, business papers, envelopes, paper currency, coupons used & unused, every surface of every DVD/CD/album cover, handwritten notes to self, napkins, gum wrappers, each side of the thumb drive I'm saving the scans to, even pens and pencils.
Then I'm throwing *everything* away.
And yet, most Muslims are not taught this. Very many Muslims are completely ignorant that Allah is the same as Yahweh is the same as God. They are denied this information...
Are you sure about this? The claim that islam is a perfected version of judeo christianity seems to be a consistent theme that I've run across in a few different countries, in the inevitable conversion attempts that will occur when one visits mosques. It's basically an upsell, styling both older traditions as well intended, but inferior editions.
My father was diagnosed with Alzheimer's three years ago. It is simply brutal to see what this disease does to the people you love. But given the inevitable outcome of Alzheimer's, I'll grasp at any straw I can find if it presents some remote hope of a different outcome. This kind of perspective can't help but make one feel as if you're vulnerable to hucksters. There have been similar claims about more dubious Alzheimer's treatments, such as coconut oil, but when it comes down to it my approach is "Will it kill him or hurt him? If not, then let's try it, what have we got to lose."
The human testing and approval process for treating Alzheimer's with bexarotene will simply take too long to be of any benefit to him. I want to get a physician to approve this medication for the off-label use for my father, so we can try it on him.
I hope it is not reckless nor irresponsible to see if I can use my father as a sort of non-controlled subject for this study. But it seems that I have the choice between (1) risking a negative, possibly fatal or crippling, reaction for a remote chance at reversing a fatal, painful disease, or (2) waiting responsibly for the gears of formal human medical approval turn, test, find that this works, and approve prescribing it for patients. What kind of a choice is that?
This situation actually comes up with some regularity. The mechanism prosecutors use is a guarantee of immunity for any crimes other than those currently being prosecuted.
Since the accused won't risk prosecution for any other crimes, the possibility of self-incrimination is eliminated. This allows the prosecution to compel disclosure.
Public libraries are not exclusively funded by local tax revenue, but you seem to believe that they are. For example, about ten years ago SPL (the library in TFA) generated ~$300 million through fundraising. This was enough to pay for a big new downtown main branch, along with a bunch of major branch upgrades. (Apparently the Lake City branch didn't get much of a cut, if they're running into space problems like this.) Their budget, like that of other public libraries, continues to be a mix of both private and public local, state, and federal funds.
Library budgets are often one of the first items on an eager local candidate's chopping block; this has happened to SPL, repeatedly. Libraries have developed alternative resources for funds; they have had to as a matter of survival.
This isn't the first time a library's collection policy has been controversial enough for a story with legs enough to generate the kind of moralistic outrage that inevitably sells ads. But if you have one, I'd certainly be interested to hear an actual, real example of any large city completely defunding its library system, closing it, firing all staff, and disposing of the entire collection.
There is no right to a public library at all.
There isn't? I guess if you mean in the sense that "right to library" doesn't appear in the text of the US constitution, you're correct. But then if you read that particular constitution closely, you'll notice that you don't actually have any right to freedom of speech either. It reads "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." That's it, there's no positive right to freedom of speech either, only a restriction on Congress. If that's what you mean by "no right to a public library," then I'd agree as readily as I would that we have no right to free speech.
Private libraries can go nuts with their restrictions and threats of defunding, but there are constitutional restrictions to community standards when it comes to public libraries. For example even if every last person in a town follows a particular religious ideology, the collection cannot be restricted to material approved by that ideology. Public libraries are used to operating on shoestring budgets, see these kinds of complaints often, and still somehow continue to exist.
At least it wasn't Twilight.
I am a librarian, and years ago I worked at SPL. I wasn't at that particular branch, but the other branches I worked at all took steps to limit the ability of others to view what was on the patron computer screen, via privacy screens, kiosks w/ side walls, location, or all of the above. If this branch hasn't done so already, it's probably because they simply can't afford the extra space & furniture needed.
As for content, I don't care if someone else thinks that another patron's content is *only* indecent, inappropriate for your nearby children, or creepy. Disruptive behavior from patrons is one thing, and we'll put a stop to that. But this sounds like the only disruptive element here was the content itself.
You don't have a right to make a public library G-rated only, for the sake of the innocence your kids. I will do what I can to accommodate patrons' wishes, but I'm working with a very limited budget. I empathize with the parent's discomfort, but sex and porn are indeed a part of the adult world.
If you think it's inappropriate for your children to see that sort of thing, you need to block that from your kids. I'm not your kid's morality babysitter, I'm not here to police what kind of information goes into their precious little heads.
I am certainly not going to ask someone to stop reading/watching/listening *only* because the content is offensive to others, even if the content is offensive to me personally. I am and will remain far too busy ensuring that the public can freely access as much information and media as possible. As far as I'm concerned, that includes porn.
It she weren't a lawyer, we wouldn't even be speaking about it. It's funny how lawyers seem to have extra rights in our society. They can make demands, we cannot.
Here's what your complaint seems to me, restated in car analogy: automobile mechanics often make modifications to their own cars that others cannot. Thus, automobile mechanics seem to have extra rights in our society.
I don't understand why you'd perceive an attorney's effective advocacy as some fundamental social injustice, rather than a matter of the natural consequences of formal, professional study in an area of specialization. In order to become an effective advocate, she studied for years, and practiced for years beyond that. She's good at it; and almost certainly more effective than people who didn't bother to work towards her goals.
It is an attorney's job to assert the rights and interests of their clients. Lawyers are generally more educated about how to effectively assert the same rights that nonlawyers have, and are often more informed as to how to effectively pursue any given interest.
As a lawyer, she probably writes more effectively than most people. Is that also because she has extra rights that others do not?
The reason certain athletes make dozens, and occasionally hundreds, of millions of dollars isn't because of some inherent value in the performance of their art (if you want to think about it that way.) They get this kind of money because these forms of entertainment have developed such widespead appeal that they can (and do) deliver billions of dollars of advertising space.
Look at any big venue event, be it sports game or concert. Brand logos are pasted everywhere, they're embedded in as much media as possible, and you'll be subject to countless commercial breaks, messages from sponsors, and product/service plugs.
It's the same reason that other forms of entertainment can rake in millions and/or billions, despite not being some incredible contribution to human society. It's not that the art is that good, it's simply that it's able to push enough ads to generate million dollar salaries for the stars.
I understand your outrage, but you've overgeneralized it past any point of accuracy, let alone usefulness. What you're saying is simply incorrect. Don't believe me? Ask the Electronic Frontier Foundation for starters, which is a (gasp!) corporation.https://www.eff.org/about
Non-profit corporations are every bit as much corporations as are for-profit corporations. By definition, corporate charter, and law the overriding mission of these CORPORATIONS is to actively accomplish some sort public good. US nonprofit corps currently control ~1 trillion dollars, and last stats I saw indicated they disseminated about $50 billion in *direct* financial support annually (this doesn't include the public services they provide.) This isn't some uninformed romantic fantasy; it's reality. There isn't a lot of profit in public services, yet 501c(3) corps and related foundations do indeed "band together and fund" all sorts of efforts that, while financially unprofitable, serve some actual good.
Grandparent was both correct and informed: the corporate form *is* a powerful type of group organization, and it can be used for good or evil. It can be abused, and obviously is, has been before, and will in the future. It is also a form that can be used to diminish or even eradicate the influences of the worst of the for-profit corporations.
This is because, again, a corporation is a form of group organization to achieve a common goal, and that goal doesn't *have* to be profit.
In most of Europe, removing a blog like this is a no-brainer. Europe is more concerned with freedom of expression and freedom of the press than the US notion of "free speech". For Europeans free speech as a concept is to be able to express one's ideas and thoughts without harassment or fear of political oppression.
A blog designed to harass a single person with no political agenda? "Censoring" that is the sane thing to do if you ask me. Society doesn't exist to protect one person's ability to make another one's life miserable.
This is accurate AND sane because the constitutions of most European countries have something that the US Constitution does not: the human "right to dignity". These countries also enshrine the right to freedom of expression (and unlike the US they guarantee it to their citizens, rather than simply prohibiting their government from abridging it.)
Remedies are fashioned when one constitutional right interferes with another --for example when one douchebag's right to freedom of expression interferes with another's right to dignity, or for example when a group of douchebags wants to march through ethnic neighborhood X loudly proclaiming anti-ethnicity-X signs, slogans, and speech.
We Americans could do well to consider whether we should give ourselves a right to dignity. We do not have a right to dignity. Well, why shouldn't we?
Is it really more important to protect harassment, hate speech, and false defamation (in fact, if not in law)? Our current limited set of constitutional rights protects liars and frauds at the expense of others.