"I just don't understand why government feels the need to tax everything repeatedly..."
governments do not FEEL anything. Revenue must be collected to pay for the operations of government. That includes social services.
if you make the tax code overly simple so that it only touches a couple of things, then you will artificially twist the entire economy to avoid those things. if it was all income tax, people would work under the table, if it was all sales tax people would just buy and sell under the table, if it was all property tax, merchants would be getting filthy rich without paying their share for the roads they use. If it was all road tolls, then this would unfairly tax imported goods, and raise the cost of exports (interstate). If it was all import duties then the cost of local goods will increase due to lack of competition and local producers will reap undeserved windfall profits. every tax has a side effect. You are trying to balance these out so the tax system is fairer and tax evasion is both more difficult and less rewarding (since you still pay all the other taxes you failed to evade).
There are also added complexities. You have multiple levels of government and not every level is able to apply any tax under the sun. Cities may not have the power to raise an income tax? There is also historical accident.. a bad tax was added, and it just stays there since the political cost of replacing it with a fairer tax doesn't justify it. The GST in canada is much fairer than the tax it replaced, but introducing GST to replace the older and less fair Manufacturers Sales Tax, destroyed the Canadian Progressive-Conservative party. It no longer even exists.
As a democratic society it was decided that these taxes are the way to pay for the cost of having a government. If you disagree then go and lobby your fellow citizens. It may help if you bothered a read a few books on political economics first so you don't come across sounding like a total knucklehead. Then again being a knucklehead seems to be a plus these days.
"Someone stated in another discussion that the government splits up taxation into all of these separate things to hide how much we're really paying, and that if we saw how much of our income really went to the government, then we'd flip out and be all "holy shit, taxes are too high!" He might be on to something..."
Money doesn't go to government. It passes through government and is redistributed in other ways. In effect you are obligated as part of your duties as a person enjoying the protection of the state to spend some of your labour supporting that state. this labour is collected from you in the form of taxes. But have you noticed the debt keeps increasing? that happens when you spend more than you collect and you borrow money to make up the difference. The government isn't getting rich.
"Actually, it is, in a public venue. JT was in violation of Florida obscenity laws by doing what he did. Just as much as if he had posted straight porn to a court docket."
I am talking about sealing the filing. I am not defending the lawyers method of delivery. If there is a problem with viewing the porn in a public venue, that still doesn't mean the filing should be sealed. It merely puts the onus on whoever requests a copy to not view it in a public venue. If your local corner store can distribute this porn then in theory it is not illegal for the Clerk of the Court to distribute it either provided they take the usual safeguards that people take when distributing porn. It is their statutory reponsibility afterall to make the filings available to the public.
It is not open to them to simply decide to censor things unless there is a legal justification. According to Florida law lawful porn does not harm adults who choose to view it in private and thus it should not be sealed simply because it is lawful porn because that infringes the right of the adult public (the ones with the greatest interest in the legal system) from viewing this filing in private (the usual way most filings are viewed anyway).
You dont seal things merely on the basis of irrelevance or offensiveness. If that was the case then a witnesses statement "I think all jews should be burned alive after being raped, and Hitler was a wonderful loving human being" could be censored and the public would never understand why the jury interpretted the witnesses actions as hateful.
Seemingly this lawyer was being negligent and probably should face some kind of consequence. but that is a seperate question from whether the court is obligated to accept the filing, and if it accepts it, what its legal obligation is to make it publically available.
in this case the judge found the court was under no obligation to tolerate the filing, and since the judge found the porn to be irrelevant anyway, then the trial would still be fair even if the judge simply rejected the whole filing as unacceptable. if the filing it rejected, then nothing need be sealed, because it wouldn't be on the public record anyway.
If it is accepted then the only basis I know of for sealing it would be that it is harmful to the public. But if it was harmful then anyone could sue any corner store for selling porn on the basis it was harming them or get an injunction against the corner store to protect the public.
anyway, we both probably agree that judges can't simply order things out of the blue. They need legal authority first.
Interestingly enough, the judge merely "requested" that the Clerk of the Court not allow public access.
He did not ORDER it.
And moreover the blocking of public access was for NONE of the reasons you have stipulated as legal justifications. And it would not actually hold up except by some forced interpretations of words.
He ruled the images "indecent, obscene and offensive" and based his decision to order the lawyer to justify the filing, upon another court case which ruled "No court need tolerate the use of obscene, indecent, and scandalous pleadings." Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 (Table), 1990 WL 61990, at *3 (9th Cir. 1990).
"You're looking to hoist Mr Thompson by his own petard. The judge is looking to preserve the dignity and process of the court. Both are worthy causes, but I suspect that you might feel differently talking from the bench instead of the cheap seats.:)"
I'm not looking to hoist Mr. Thompson up by anything. I'm only looking to dispel the myth that judges have power to just order things at a whim. There must be a legal justification for the order. Its not enough to simply say "my goodness I'm offended! seal it".
Sealing of any filing tends to render the trial unfair. And Adams v. Nankervis doesn't provide authority for keeping anything sealed, rather it provides authority to reject the pleading outright.
According to the PDF you sent a link to, the Judge has not actually made any ruling as to whether or not he is going to "tolerate" the filing or not. But if he does "tolerate" it, he has not ordered anything sealed or explained what legal basis exists for the seal.
"Can the judge order the stuff stricken from anything publically viewable? I imagine he can."
On what basis? Gay porn is not illegal to view. No one's life is in danger. The court is not in the business of obfuscating from the public what happens in the courtroom. Once you go down that road then you may as well start correcting grammatical errors and spelling of affidavits, witnesses' testimony and whatever else the Judge thinks the public may not want to see. What if there was no porn but material which criticized Muhammad? What if it was material that criticized the President? What is the legal basis upon which to decide what kind of so called inappropriate material is sealed or not sealed?
Anyone who wants to see the filing should be able to see the entire filing. Just because the judge finds it irrelevant is a question of law. What if the judge is in error? What if it is extremely relevant? No one would ever know if it was sealed. The only possible party who would be affected is the party responsible for disseminating this material to the public. I could see them coming back to the court and asking for relief, because there is likely a law forbidding dissemination of porn to minors. On the other hand, the fact that this porn serves a legitimate purpose of documenting the administration of justice, I wouldn't be surprised if the court ruled that it should be made available even to minors. On the other hand they could rule that the interests of justice are served in this case by restricting access to adults.
But a blanket sealing of the filing would seem to go way to far unless someone comes forward with a decent legal justification.
This kind of censorship should only be used in the interest of protecting the third parties or the public from grievous harm, not simply because someone out there might be shy about sexuality.
The entire administration of justice would fall into disrepute if there was an appearance that a party was not absolutely free to make any kind of argument they think is appropriate, no matter how absurd or ridiculous every other person in the planet deems it to be. And if the courts started censoring the proceedings, this would be a terrible price to pay simply to "protect" someone from seeing some gay porn that is otherwise perfectly legal and easily accessible at the local public library.
If people act like buffoons in the court room.. so be it. it should be documented as it occurred and made public.
"I don't know about everybody else, but the fact that all states can exist, yet I can only perceive them separately, is no stranger to me than that all moments of time exist, yet I can only perceive each one separately."
Occam's razer refers to complexity. Not strangeness.
I don't know anyone in my neighborhood that's more afraid of police than they used to be. There are only people that are frustrated that there aren't enough police to keep gangs like MS-13 from being as scary as THEY are. If you're concerned about the ability of law enforcement officers to judge when and how to use force, then campaign for the higher taxes needed to pay the much higher salaries needed to attract and retain the physically fit, dedicated, experienced, philosopher kings you think would be better in that career.
if more money was spent on public education and healthcare then the cost of physically fit, dedicated, experienced, philosopher kings would go down. And furthermore fewer people would be desperate enough to want to join a gang in the first place.
To fight crime you start by giving people hope and prospects.
"Last I checked you don't need a broadcasting license to print and distribute a newspaper."
And you'll fund this effort how? You'll dream of doing something like this why? Poverty and lack of education, is just as much a form of state/corporate sanctioned oppression as censorship. They all go hand in hand to further the accumulation of power for its own sake.
We are currently innundated with messages from school to mass media that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and everyone has one; that lying for self-gain is normal and altruism doesn't exist. So even if you published the truth, the only people who would believe you are the one who already know, everyone else assumes that you have some angle. Because we all know that only a crazy person would actually ruin themselves economically in order to try to express ideas for no self benefit, therefore ultimately the only reason we accept for publishing something is 'profit motive'.
Todays heros are billionaires and corporate executives. Heroic for being the best at being greedy. If you aren't a greedy manipulative self-centered materialist no one cares what you have to say. You are a threat to our paranoid workaholic, black and white way of life.
"Technological advances aside, how to we compete with close to free labor?"
depends what you are talking about when you say "compete". And it depends on what you mean when you say "we".
The real question should be how do we maximize the standard of living. It does not follow that america's standard of living is connected in any way with its competetiveness internationally.
Your employer can be the most competetive corporate machine on the planet, while you live in squallor on the verge of starvation. In fact, that is probably more likely than not. If you have any luxury whatsoever then clearly your employer is paying you ABOVE the minimal cost of labour and it is in its best interest to figure out a way to pay you less.
"Soooooo, they used two numbers (mass of clay & # of comets) to generate a 1e24 to 1 odd against life having started here? Seems like they might have left one or two variables out of their equation. Hopefully this is just junk reporting rather than junk science."
The most obvious one is "mass of all comets to have hit the earth prior to the date that life appeared on earth". It doesn't matter how many commets are out there. It doesn't matter how many commets hit the earth after life already appeared. We know life is here and approximately when it appeared. How many commets BROUGHT clay here PRIOR to that event.
their math assumes (among other things), that if life emerges on a commet anywhere, that it will immediately travel through space and pollinate all the other commets.
A more reasonable approach would be to assume that generally life can't travel from commet to commet and therefore the only way life on earth started in a commet, is that if it started in one of the commets which at some point actually hit the surface of the earth prior to life already existing here.
all the commets still floating out there in space are irrelevant. They are NOT the source of life on earth because they are still OUT THERE.
There could be a billion times more commets out there and it would not matter 1 iota. All that matters is how many commets struck the earth and how much of this potential living clay did they bring prior to the date that life already existed, compared to how much of this clay already existed on the earth at that time.
and thats assuming that life survives atmospheric-entry 100% of the time.
"You'll note that time periods with low or negative inflation were times of currency crisis - because the wealthy hoarded their money and little was left in circulation to sustain the economy."
wait.. are you saying it was hoarding which caused the crisis? or hoarding was caused by the crisis?
"If a pub owner person wants to allow smoking and attracts those clients, then they shouldn't be legally prohibited. You're more than welcome to use the one across the street that has a no smoking sign in the window."
hey I would agree, if the pub owner had no employees. But as it stands he is an employer and is responsible for the safety of his employees. As long as a pub is a place of employment the employees need to be protected from dangerous cigarette smoke.
you are very enlightened. No thought can escape the iron grip of such powerful reasoning.
you say "anything goes in war"
I never said anything goes in war. I merely said there has never been a peace time. The lack of a peace time does not imply a state of open warfare.
But if I understand the meaning of the word "anything", I would take it to mean that you are claiming that "war crimes" are also acceptable.
I was feeling a little offended at the hypocracy of our world leaders.. but now I see that morality was never an imperitive because apparently "Anything goes". I disagree with this position, but at least now I see its merely a matter of rational argument.
thanks for clearing that up.
I shall point out that rather that use sophistry, you need merely indicate when there was a bona fide peace to prove your thesis.
But no.. I'm afraid I wont "shut up". You'll have to shut me up.
"victims of violence often blame themselves, even for things they don't deserve at all, such as surprise mass murder on civilians during peacetime. it's a psychological weakness"
there was a peace time? ohh... ho ho ho.. such wonderful dreams children have. I cherish such innocence.
"crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off,"...
"likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west"
Are you suggesting that the root motivation of terrorist behavior is that terrorists are crazy? What is this "bloody agenda"? The agenda of craziness? I'm not saying 'acceding to every demand' is a solution. But "terror" is the ultimate purpose of ALL war tactics. The only kind of war, which is not a war OF terror, is genocide. In all other cases the goal is to terrorize your enemy and persuade the population to turn against its own leaders to make the terror stop. And in all war you ALWAYS call the enemy crazy. And in all war you always tell the people that the enemy is not going to stop even after it gets what it wants. And in all war you say God (or some other noble principle) is on your side.
"you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves"
ok.. I blaim the perpetrators... OMFG!! they stopped!
or here is another take on your nonsense:
they've been blaiming us for 500 years.. And look where it got them!
"Whats the value of your neighbor with cancer? At what point do you cut him off?
Everything has a price."
At the point where the cost/benefit exceeds your budget. In this case cost is measured in dollars, and benefit is measured in 'years of quality life'. Hypothetically, if the state has allocated a budget which can provide $40k per QUALY (year of quality life), then any treatment which costs less than $40k per QUALY is allowable and any treatment more expensive than this is not.
So in this example, spending $40k for a chemotherapy which on average gives another 2 years of life is worthwhile. So is spending $800k on a treatment which gives another 20 years. A treatment which is expected to give 6 months of life but costs $1million would not be allowed in this socialized scenario.
On the otherhand if society as a whole became richer and was willing to pay $2 million per QUALY then this more expensive option is brought back to the table. Likewise, the treatment would also come back on the table when the provider figured out how to provide it at a cost of $20k or less.
It may seem cruel, but if you are telling another 20 people to die 1 year early so 1 dude can live 6 months longer, it is very rational and fair.
There is also seemingly magical effect.. when the loved ones and family of the wealthiest people in society can't get access to these high faluttin treatments until they are available to everyone.... they suddenly become available to everyone.
We are not talking about an infinite budget. We have a finite budget and we need to maximize healthcare outcomes on that specific budget.
The healthcare industry hates socialized healthcare because they dont want the customer to make rational economic decisions. They prefer needy customers who will spend $1000 paying for a treatment which isn't worth more than $6 based on its actual healthcare outcomes.
In a 40k per QUALY scenario, a treatment which reduced a mild headache that cost $4k per month, simply would not be allowed, and thus the drug company would need to reduce the cost at least to fall within the allowable zone. This way competition between drug companies to provide the highest quality product within the price window is encouraged. but higher cost healthcare either must produce commessurably and provably superior results (justifying the cost) or else it isn't even an option.
Unless the wealthiest and most powerful people are forced to sit in the same boat as the poor. We can never expect them to give everyone in society access to the same healthcare.
If you are allowed to pay out of pocket for treatments which exceed the QUALY cost of the social medicine system, then you can be assured, those treatments will never come down in price, and instead drug companies will offer them for sale to the wealthy, and offer them in combination with medical experimentation on the poor. Allowing for profit medicine is tantamount to saying 'forcing the poor to consent to medical experimentation is ok'.
"We'll live. The U.S. Supreme Court has done a lot of good, especially in reigning in the worst excesses of the legislature, and one result of an independent judiciary is sometimes they're going to do things you don't like.
I feel sorrier for the people in those countries where the courts simply apply the law, and are never allowed to challenge it."
God forbid... a judge that actually interpretted the law the way it was written. What would become of our liberties if the law actually meant the same thing that the words on the page mean? I say to hell with law. Judges should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please. People should have to wait until their day in court to find out what arbitrary meaning the law has on a day to day basis. Its a free country!
uhh.. btw: how exactly do Judges challenge the law anyway?
Apparently you aren't aware of this: The Bill of Rights is nothing but a law. It isn't a commandment of God.
It isn't the Independant Judiciary which reigned in the excesses of legislature, it was the Bill of Rights. A law which takes precedence over mere acts of congress or legislature. The Judiciary has the responsibility and authority to reconcile any contradictions between the Bill of Rights and legislation, and when that can't be done, the legislation is of no force or effect. The Judiciary has absolutely 0 authority to "challenge" the law. And once the Judiciary think they have some authority which derives from a higher power than "the supremacy of law", then that judiciary has lost all legitimacy and the people must rise up against it and destroy it, lest it create a totalitarian dictatorship.
The Independance of the Judiciary is nothing more than to give an appearance of non-bias. Politics has no place in the court room. Ergo, at least according to the constitution (a law), politicians have no power to influence the interpretation of the laws they have passed once they leave congress.
To be done, Justice must appear to be done. The illusion is clearly wearing thin.
For your information. The "Independant Judiciary" is not an American invention. And America is rather a poor example of an independant judiciary, since many jurisdictions actually have judges elected by popular vote. A judge with constituents...... very unbiased I'm sure.
"IANAL, but isn't 'selective prosecution' is usually an issue in criminal courts, not civil. I can't see how it could possibly apply to civil cases because then you have to sue EVERYONE that causes you harm or else the one time that you did sue it would be thrown out as selective prosecution."
There are many legitimate reasons someone may need to sue 1 party and not another. In most cases private parties have such a legitimate reason. However since the RIAA goes on massive John Doe campaigns.. it would be hard for them to explain why they allow the Bush's the violate the law.
If the law itself is enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the courts can rule the entire law itself unenforcible. which the RIAA wants to avoid. I am not sure, but I can't see what difference it makes if the plaintiff is the people or a private party.
Justice is not supposed to play favoritism. if it did.. well. lets not go there.
"When you see so much violence, and are intimately familiar with the violence and its effects on those involved, you are less likelly to seek it out just for fun. People wanting to see depictions of torture and death is precisely what he says, a cultural effect, that I also consider somewhat disturbing."
By your logic it is a sign that they aren't getting enough violence in real life. I find that reassuring. Keep violence where it ought to be. In the realm of pure fiction.
"There is a common practice in law these days called "selective prosecution"..."
You make it sound like this practice is considered legitimate by the Courts. In fact, if you can show evidence that you are being arbitrarily prosecuted and there isn't a legitimate justification, it is grounds in some courts, to have the entire proceedings Stayed as an 'abuse of process'. You must be harmed to bring a civil action. If you have no problem allowing others to infringe on your copyright, then there is reasonable grounds to believe it isn't really a harm. Under English Common law the Court has the power and responsibility to prevent any abuse of the judicial system. Treating individual offenders differently simply because they are a celebrity or politician or the President's daughter (etc) is such an abuse. In fact, not prosecuting the President's daughter may almost be seen as some kind of a bribe or attempt to improperly influence the Executive Branch.
A plaintiff with limited resources is justified in selectively prosecuting simply because they can't possibly go after everyone at once so have to choose their battles. This is not considered arbitrary, but it is a rational, and necessary evil. But the RIAA can hardly claim they lack the resources to prosecute the President's daughter when they are going after John Doe's, who for all they know, are dead broke.
Now perhaps this selective prosecution takes place behind the scenes where no one is looking. (I think we all know it does). But the courts have no power over what happens outside the court room where there is no evidence. It falls upon witnesses to bring evidence forward.
In this case there is evidence. The president himself has publically stated his daughter is guilty of making and distributing pirate music CD. I think that is actually a criminal offense now, is it not?
"And as of the times when he brings up economic reasons: What does "cost effective" matter if humanity starts to agree vicerally with Hawkins, that colonization is necessary for the susvival of the species?"
It is necessary for the survival of the species, and therefore anything short of a cost so steep that it would pose a threat to the survival of the species on earth is worth the cost.
the author's main argument really boils down to: Why should you pay good money just to save the species, when it wont give you any material benefit in return?
It is our destiny to colonize the stars or die here on earth. There is no middle ground.
"What [money] keeps track of is how many things I've produced that other people find valuable. That's why other people give me money. Because I've given them something they value."
Money is oderless. How you got into money is irrelevant. People give you money in exchange for some commodity of value, but it has nothing to do with whether you stole that commodity or aquired it through fraud or violence. You may have compelled someone to labour to add value to the commodity, sold it and paid them a mere fraction of the value they create.
Or starvation compelled them. But whatever the reason money does NOT keep track of anything. It does not know what you have produced or stolen.
"Sure thing - there have been iPods and HD-TV's and factories and houses floating around since the Pleistocene Era. And I've done gone and cordoned them off! Good deal, that!"
IPods, HD-TVS, factories and houses are completely different things. Ipods and HD-TV's and houses (used for dwelling) are not capital investments.. merely consumable goods. Factories on the other hand are the means of production. And you'll have to work late into the night to try to justify morally how a person has the right to monopolize the means of production.
Go ahead and cordone off your consumable goods.. that seems like a good idea... you can prolong your enjoyment of them (and no one has a right to begrudge you your enjoyment of the honest fruits of your labour).. but cordoning off your factory is merely your attempt to extort a cut of the labour of other people.
"In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights."
He used the term 'cops and guns'.
Civilized society can equally discover that you have no property rights and I hope, when it does (and it inevitably will), you will use the same argument to defend societies right to send cops and guns over to seize your capital assets, and give you a chance to produce something rather than sit back smoking cigars and drinking brandy congratulating yourself on the miracle of neoliberalism while a billion people exist with no education or hope merely to starve and die pointlessly for civilized society.
Slashdot Mirror
government bureaucracy in Canadian healthcare is far less than the corporate bureaucracy involved in the US system.
"I just don't understand why government feels the need to tax everything repeatedly..."
governments do not FEEL anything. Revenue must be collected to pay for the operations of government. That includes social services.
if you make the tax code overly simple so that it only touches a couple of things, then you will artificially twist the entire economy to avoid those things. if it was all income tax, people would work under the table, if it was all sales tax people would just buy and sell under the table, if it was all property tax, merchants would be getting filthy rich without paying their share for the roads they use. If it was all road tolls, then this would unfairly tax imported goods, and raise the cost of exports (interstate). If it was all import duties then the cost of local goods will increase due to lack of competition and local producers will reap undeserved windfall profits. every tax has a side effect. You are trying to balance these out so the tax system is fairer and tax evasion is both more difficult and less rewarding (since you still pay all the other taxes you failed to evade).
There are also added complexities. You have multiple levels of government and not every level is able to apply any tax under the sun. Cities may not have the power to raise an income tax? There is also historical accident.. a bad tax was added, and it just stays there since the political cost of replacing it with a fairer tax doesn't justify it. The GST in canada is much fairer than the tax it replaced, but introducing GST to replace the older and less fair Manufacturers Sales Tax, destroyed the Canadian Progressive-Conservative party. It no longer even exists.
As a democratic society it was decided that these taxes are the way to pay for the cost of having a government. If you disagree then go and lobby your fellow citizens. It may help if you bothered a read a few books on political economics first so you don't come across sounding like a total knucklehead. Then again being a knucklehead seems to be a plus these days.
"Someone stated in another discussion that the government splits up taxation into all of these separate things to hide how much we're really paying, and that if we saw how much of our income really went to the government, then we'd flip out and be all "holy shit, taxes are too high!" He might be on to something..."
Money doesn't go to government. It passes through government and is redistributed in other ways. In effect you are obligated as part of your duties as a person enjoying the protection of the state to spend some of your labour supporting that state. this labour is collected from you in the form of taxes. But have you noticed the debt keeps increasing? that happens when you spend more than you collect and you borrow money to make up the difference. The government isn't getting rich.
"Actually, it is, in a public venue. JT was in violation of Florida obscenity laws by doing what he did. Just as much as if he had posted straight porn to a court docket."
I am talking about sealing the filing. I am not defending the lawyers method of delivery. If there is a problem with viewing the porn in a public venue, that still doesn't mean the filing should be sealed. It merely puts the onus on whoever requests a copy to not view it in a public venue. If your local corner store can distribute this porn then in theory it is not illegal for the Clerk of the Court to distribute it either provided they take the usual safeguards that people take when distributing porn. It is their statutory reponsibility afterall to make the filings available to the public.
It is not open to them to simply decide to censor things unless there is a legal justification. According to Florida law lawful porn does not harm adults who choose to view it in private and thus it should not be sealed simply because it is lawful porn because that infringes the right of the adult public (the ones with the greatest interest in the legal system) from viewing this filing in private (the usual way most filings are viewed anyway).
You dont seal things merely on the basis of irrelevance or offensiveness. If that was the case then a witnesses statement "I think all jews should be burned alive after being raped, and Hitler was a wonderful loving human being" could be censored and the public would never understand why the jury interpretted the witnesses actions as hateful.
Seemingly this lawyer was being negligent and probably should face some kind of consequence. but that is a seperate question from whether the court is obligated to accept the filing, and if it accepts it, what its legal obligation is to make it publically available.
in this case the judge found the court was under no obligation to tolerate the filing, and since the judge found the porn to be irrelevant anyway, then the trial would still be fair even if the judge simply rejected the whole filing as unacceptable. if the filing it rejected, then nothing need be sealed, because it wouldn't be on the public record anyway.
If it is accepted then the only basis I know of for sealing it would be that it is harmful to the public. But if it was harmful then anyone could sue any corner store for selling porn on the basis it was harming them or get an injunction against the corner store to protect the public.
anyway, we both probably agree that judges can't simply order things out of the blue. They need legal authority first.
Interestingly enough, the judge merely "requested" that the Clerk of the Court not allow public access.
:)"
He did not ORDER it.
And moreover the blocking of public access was for NONE of the reasons you have stipulated as legal justifications. And it would not actually hold up except by some forced interpretations of words.
He ruled the images "indecent, obscene and offensive" and based his decision to order the lawyer to justify the filing, upon another court case which ruled "No court need tolerate the use of obscene, indecent, and scandalous pleadings." Adams v. Nankervis, 902 F.2d 1578 (Table), 1990 WL 61990, at *3 (9th Cir. 1990).
"You're looking to hoist Mr Thompson by his own petard. The judge is looking to preserve the dignity and process of the court. Both are worthy causes, but I suspect that you might feel differently talking from the bench instead of the cheap seats.
I'm not looking to hoist Mr. Thompson up by anything. I'm only looking to dispel the myth that judges have power to just order things at a whim. There must be a legal justification for the order. Its not enough to simply say "my goodness I'm offended! seal it".
Sealing of any filing tends to render the trial unfair. And Adams v. Nankervis doesn't provide authority for keeping anything sealed, rather it provides authority to reject the pleading outright.
According to the PDF you sent a link to, the Judge has not actually made any ruling as to whether or not he is going to "tolerate" the filing or not. But if he does "tolerate" it, he has not ordered anything sealed or explained what legal basis exists for the seal.
"Can the judge order the stuff stricken from anything publically viewable? I imagine he can."
On what basis? Gay porn is not illegal to view. No one's life is in danger. The court is not in the business of obfuscating from the public what happens in the courtroom. Once you go down that road then you may as well start correcting grammatical errors and spelling of affidavits, witnesses' testimony and whatever else the Judge thinks the public may not want to see. What if there was no porn but material which criticized Muhammad? What if it was material that criticized the President? What is the legal basis upon which to decide what kind of so called inappropriate material is sealed or not sealed?
Anyone who wants to see the filing should be able to see the entire filing. Just because the judge finds it irrelevant is a question of law. What if the judge is in error? What if it is extremely relevant? No one would ever know if it was sealed. The only possible party who would be affected is the party responsible for disseminating this material to the public. I could see them coming back to the court and asking for relief, because there is likely a law forbidding dissemination of porn to minors. On the other hand, the fact that this porn serves a legitimate purpose of documenting the administration of justice, I wouldn't be surprised if the court ruled that it should be made available even to minors. On the other hand they could rule that the interests of justice are served in this case by restricting access to adults.
But a blanket sealing of the filing would seem to go way to far unless someone comes forward with a decent legal justification.
This kind of censorship should only be used in the interest of protecting the third parties or the public from grievous harm, not simply because someone out there might be shy about sexuality.
The entire administration of justice would fall into disrepute if there was an appearance that a party was not absolutely free to make any kind of argument they think is appropriate, no matter how absurd or ridiculous every other person in the planet deems it to be. And if the courts started censoring the proceedings, this would be a terrible price to pay simply to "protect" someone from seeing some gay porn that is otherwise perfectly legal and easily accessible at the local public library.
If people act like buffoons in the court room.. so be it. it should be documented as it occurred and made public.
"...but in the US you don't really have much in the way of rights until you hit 18."
do you interpret the fact that rights are being violated as evidence that the rights don't exist?
"I don't know about everybody else, but the fact that all states can exist, yet I can only perceive them separately, is no stranger to me than that all moments of time exist, yet I can only perceive each one separately."
Occam's razer refers to complexity. Not strangeness.
I don't know anyone in my neighborhood that's more afraid of police than they used to be. There are only people that are frustrated that there aren't enough police to keep gangs like MS-13 from being as scary as THEY are. If you're concerned about the ability of law enforcement officers to judge when and how to use force, then campaign for the higher taxes needed to pay the much higher salaries needed to attract and retain the physically fit, dedicated, experienced, philosopher kings you think would be better in that career.
if more money was spent on public education and healthcare then the cost of physically fit, dedicated, experienced, philosopher kings would go down. And furthermore fewer people would be desperate enough to want to join a gang in the first place.
To fight crime you start by giving people hope and prospects.
That means full healthcare and a full education.
"Last I checked you don't need a broadcasting license to print and distribute a newspaper."
And you'll fund this effort how? You'll dream of doing something like this why? Poverty and lack of education, is just as much a form of state/corporate sanctioned oppression as censorship. They all go hand in hand to further the accumulation of power for its own sake.
We are currently innundated with messages from school to mass media that truth is merely a matter of opinion, and everyone has one; that lying for self-gain is normal and altruism doesn't exist. So even if you published the truth, the only people who would believe you are the one who already know, everyone else assumes that you have some angle. Because we all know that only a crazy person would actually ruin themselves economically in order to try to express ideas for no self benefit, therefore ultimately the only reason we accept for publishing something is 'profit motive'.
Todays heros are billionaires and corporate executives. Heroic for being the best at being greedy. If you aren't a greedy manipulative self-centered materialist no one cares what you have to say. You are a threat to our paranoid workaholic, black and white way of life.
"Technological advances aside, how to we compete with close to free labor?"
depends what you are talking about when you say "compete". And it depends on what you mean when you say "we".
The real question should be how do we maximize the standard of living. It does not follow that america's standard of living is connected in any way with its competetiveness internationally.
Your employer can be the most competetive corporate machine on the planet, while you live in squallor on the verge of starvation. In fact, that is probably more likely than not. If you have any luxury whatsoever then clearly your employer is paying you ABOVE the minimal cost of labour and it is in its best interest to figure out a way to pay you less.
"Soooooo, they used two numbers (mass of clay & # of comets) to generate a 1e24 to 1 odd against life having started here? Seems like they might have left one or two variables out of their equation. Hopefully this is just junk reporting rather than junk science."
The most obvious one is "mass of all comets to have hit the earth prior to the date that life appeared on earth". It doesn't matter how many commets are out there. It doesn't matter how many commets hit the earth after life already appeared. We know life is here and approximately when it appeared. How many commets BROUGHT clay here PRIOR to that event.
their math assumes (among other things), that if life emerges on a commet anywhere, that it will immediately travel through space and pollinate all the other commets.
A more reasonable approach would be to assume that generally life can't travel from commet to commet and therefore the only way life on earth started in a commet, is that if it started in one of the commets which at some point actually hit the surface of the earth prior to life already existing here.
all the commets still floating out there in space are irrelevant. They are NOT the source of life on earth because they are still OUT THERE.
There could be a billion times more commets out there and it would not matter 1 iota. All that matters is how many commets struck the earth and how much of this potential living clay did they bring prior to the date that life already existed, compared to how much of this clay already existed on the earth at that time.
and thats assuming that life survives atmospheric-entry 100% of the time.
"Ignorance - even of technology - is not a valid defence in the legal system"
ignorance of facts is a valid defence. Technology is a fact.
The only kind of ignorance which is not a defence is "ignorance of the law".
"You'll note that time periods with low or negative inflation were times of currency crisis - because the wealthy hoarded their money and little was left in circulation to sustain the economy."
wait.. are you saying it was hoarding which caused the crisis? or hoarding was caused by the crisis?
"If a pub owner person wants to allow smoking and attracts those clients, then they shouldn't be legally prohibited. You're more than welcome to use the one across the street that has a no smoking sign in the window."
hey I would agree, if the pub owner had no employees. But as it stands he is an employer and is responsible for the safety of his employees. As long as a pub is a place of employment the employees need to be protected from dangerous cigarette smoke.
you are very enlightened. No thought can escape the iron grip of such powerful reasoning.
you say "anything goes in war"
I never said anything goes in war. I merely said there has never been a peace time. The lack of a peace time does not imply a state of open warfare.
But if I understand the meaning of the word "anything", I would take it to mean that you are claiming that "war crimes" are also acceptable.
I was feeling a little offended at the hypocracy of our world leaders.. but now I see that morality was never an imperitive because apparently "Anything goes". I disagree with this position, but at least now I see its merely a matter of rational argument.
thanks for clearing that up.
I shall point out that rather that use sophistry, you need merely indicate when there was a bona fide peace to prove your thesis.
But no.. I'm afraid I wont "shut up". You'll have to shut me up.
"victims of violence often blame themselves, even for things they don't deserve at all, such as surprise mass murder on civilians during peacetime. it's a psychological weakness"
there was a peace time? ohh... ho ho ho.. such wonderful dreams children have. I cherish such innocence.
"crazy people will do crazy things. very little will set them off," ...
"likewise, you can't alter your behavior to prevent terrorist attacks. if the west acceded to every demand from violent jihadists, would violent jihadist become pastoral sheep farmers? no, they would go right on with their bloody agenda, they would just find some other lame excuse, because the root of their motivation is not the behavior of the west"
Are you suggesting that the root motivation of terrorist behavior is that terrorists are crazy? What is this "bloody agenda"? The agenda of craziness?
I'm not saying 'acceding to every demand' is a solution. But "terror" is the ultimate purpose of ALL war tactics. The only kind of war, which is not a war OF terror, is genocide. In all other cases the goal is to terrorize your enemy and persuade the population to turn against its own leaders to make the terror stop. And in all war you ALWAYS call the enemy crazy. And in all war you always tell the people that the enemy is not going to stop even after it gets what it wants. And in all war you say God (or some other noble principle) is on your side.
"you have to blame the perpetrators, not yourselves"
ok.. I blaim the perpetrators... OMFG!! they stopped!
or here is another take on your nonsense:
they've been blaiming us for 500 years.. And look where it got them!
"Whats the value of your neighbor with cancer? At what point do you cut him off?
Everything has a price."
At the point where the cost/benefit exceeds your budget. In this case cost is measured in dollars, and benefit is measured in 'years of quality life'. Hypothetically, if the state has allocated a budget which can provide $40k per QUALY (year of quality life), then any treatment which costs less than $40k per QUALY is allowable and any treatment more expensive than this is not.
So in this example, spending $40k for a chemotherapy which on average gives another 2 years of life is worthwhile. So is spending $800k on a treatment which gives another 20 years. A treatment which is expected to give 6 months of life but costs $1million would not be allowed in this socialized scenario.
On the otherhand if society as a whole became richer and was willing to pay $2 million per QUALY then this more expensive option is brought back to the table. Likewise, the treatment would also come back on the table when the provider figured out how to provide it at a cost of $20k or less.
It may seem cruel, but if you are telling another 20 people to die 1 year early so 1 dude can live 6 months longer, it is very rational and fair.
There is also seemingly magical effect.. when the loved ones and family of the wealthiest people in society can't get access to these high faluttin treatments until they are available to everyone.... they suddenly become available to everyone.
We are not talking about an infinite budget. We have a finite budget and we need to maximize healthcare outcomes on that specific budget.
The healthcare industry hates socialized healthcare because they dont want the customer to make rational economic decisions. They prefer needy customers who will spend $1000 paying for a treatment which isn't worth more than $6 based on its actual healthcare outcomes.
In a 40k per QUALY scenario, a treatment which reduced a mild headache that cost $4k per month, simply would not be allowed, and thus the drug company would need to reduce the cost at least to fall within the allowable zone. This way competition between drug companies to provide the highest quality product within the price window is encouraged. but higher cost healthcare either must produce commessurably and provably superior results (justifying the cost) or else it isn't even an option.
Unless the wealthiest and most powerful people are forced to sit in the same boat as the poor. We can never expect them to give everyone in society access to the same healthcare.
If you are allowed to pay out of pocket for treatments which exceed the QUALY cost of the social medicine system, then you can be assured, those treatments will never come down in price, and instead drug companies will offer them for sale to the wealthy, and offer them in combination with medical experimentation on the poor. Allowing for profit medicine is tantamount to saying 'forcing the poor to consent to medical experimentation is ok'.
"We'll live. The U.S. Supreme Court has done a lot of good, especially in reigning in the worst excesses of the legislature, and one result of an independent judiciary is sometimes they're going to do things you don't like.
... a judge that actually interpretted the law the way it was written. What would become of our liberties if the law actually meant the same thing that the words on the page mean? I say to hell with law. Judges should be allowed to do whatever they damn well please. People should have to wait until their day in court to find out what arbitrary meaning the law has on a day to day basis. Its a free country!
.. very unbiased I'm sure.
I feel sorrier for the people in those countries where the courts simply apply the law, and are never allowed to challenge it."
God forbid
uhh.. btw: how exactly do Judges challenge the law anyway?
Apparently you aren't aware of this: The Bill of Rights is nothing but a law. It isn't a commandment of God.
It isn't the Independant Judiciary which reigned in the excesses of legislature, it was the Bill of Rights. A law which takes precedence over mere acts of congress or legislature. The Judiciary has the responsibility and authority to reconcile any contradictions between the Bill of Rights and legislation, and when that can't be done, the legislation is of no force or effect. The Judiciary has absolutely 0 authority to "challenge" the law. And once the Judiciary think they have some authority which derives from a higher power than "the supremacy of law", then that judiciary has lost all legitimacy and the people must rise up against it and destroy it, lest it create a totalitarian dictatorship.
The Independance of the Judiciary is nothing more than to give an appearance of non-bias. Politics has no place in the court room. Ergo, at least according to the constitution (a law), politicians have no power to influence the interpretation of the laws they have passed once they leave congress.
To be done, Justice must appear to be done. The illusion is clearly wearing thin.
For your information. The "Independant Judiciary" is not an American invention. And America is rather a poor example of an independant judiciary, since many jurisdictions actually have judges elected by popular vote. A judge with constituents....
"IANAL, but isn't 'selective prosecution' is usually an issue in criminal courts, not civil. I can't see how it could possibly apply to civil cases because then you have to sue EVERYONE that causes you harm or else the one time that you did sue it would be thrown out as selective prosecution."
There are many legitimate reasons someone may need to sue 1 party and not another. In most cases private parties have such a legitimate reason. However since the RIAA goes on massive John Doe campaigns.. it would be hard for them to explain why they allow the Bush's the violate the law.
If the law itself is enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner, the courts can rule the entire law itself unenforcible. which the RIAA wants to avoid. I am not sure, but I can't see what difference it makes if the plaintiff is the people or a private party.
Justice is not supposed to play favoritism. if it did.. well. lets not go there.
"When you see so much violence, and are intimately familiar with the violence and its effects on those involved, you are less likelly to seek it out just for fun. People wanting to see depictions of torture and death is precisely what he says, a cultural effect, that I also consider somewhat disturbing."
By your logic it is a sign that they aren't getting enough violence in real life. I find that reassuring. Keep violence where it ought to be. In the realm of pure fiction.
"There is a common practice in law these days called "selective prosecution"..."
You make it sound like this practice is considered legitimate by the Courts. In fact, if you can show evidence that you are being arbitrarily prosecuted and there isn't a legitimate justification, it is grounds in some courts, to have the entire proceedings Stayed as an 'abuse of process'. You must be harmed to bring a civil action. If you have no problem allowing others to infringe on your copyright, then there is reasonable grounds to believe it isn't really a harm. Under English Common law the Court has the power and responsibility to prevent any abuse of the judicial system. Treating individual offenders differently simply because they are a celebrity or politician or the President's daughter (etc) is such an abuse. In fact, not prosecuting the President's daughter may almost be seen as some kind of a bribe or attempt to improperly influence the Executive Branch.
A plaintiff with limited resources is justified in selectively prosecuting simply because they can't possibly go after everyone at once so have to choose their battles. This is not considered arbitrary, but it is a rational, and necessary evil. But the RIAA can hardly claim they lack the resources to prosecute the President's daughter when they are going after John Doe's, who for all they know, are dead broke.
Now perhaps this selective prosecution takes place behind the scenes where no one is looking. (I think we all know it does). But the courts have no power over what happens outside the court room where there is no evidence. It falls upon witnesses to bring evidence forward.
In this case there is evidence. The president himself has publically stated his daughter is guilty of making and distributing pirate music CD. I think that is actually a criminal offense now, is it not?
"30 years ago, this level of violence was unthinkable. "
maybe thats why so many people died in the vietnam war. No one was able to think about it.
"And as of the times when he brings up economic reasons: What does "cost effective" matter if humanity starts to agree vicerally with Hawkins, that colonization is necessary for the susvival of the species?"
It is necessary for the survival of the species, and therefore anything short of a cost so steep that it would pose a threat to the survival of the species on earth is worth the cost.
the author's main argument really boils down to: Why should you pay good money just to save the species, when it wont give you any material benefit in return?
It is our destiny to colonize the stars or die here on earth. There is no middle ground.
"What [money] keeps track of is how many things I've produced that other people find valuable. That's why other people give me money. Because I've given them something they value."
Money is oderless. How you got into money is irrelevant. People give you money in exchange for some commodity of value, but it has nothing to do with whether you stole that commodity or aquired it through fraud or violence. You may have compelled someone to labour to add value to the commodity, sold it and paid them a mere fraction of the value they create.
Or starvation compelled them. But whatever the reason money does NOT keep track of anything. It does not know what you have produced or stolen.
"Sure thing - there have been iPods and HD-TV's and factories and houses floating around since the Pleistocene Era. And I've done gone and cordoned them off! Good deal, that!"
IPods, HD-TVS, factories and houses are completely different things. Ipods and HD-TV's and houses (used for dwelling) are not capital investments.. merely consumable goods. Factories on the other hand are the means of production. And you'll have to work late into the night to try to justify morally how a person has the right to monopolize the means of production.
Go ahead and cordone off your consumable goods.. that seems like a good idea... you can prolong your enjoyment of them (and no one has a right to begrudge you your enjoyment of the honest fruits of your labour).. but cordoning off your factory is merely your attempt to extort a cut of the labour of other people.
"In other words, they're mine because a civilized society will recognize and defend property rights."
He used the term 'cops and guns'.
Civilized society can equally discover that you have no property rights and I hope, when it does (and it inevitably will), you will use the same argument to defend societies right to send cops and guns over to seize your capital assets, and give you a chance to produce something rather than sit back smoking cigars and drinking brandy congratulating yourself on the miracle of neoliberalism while a billion people exist with no education or hope merely to starve and die pointlessly for civilized society.