Just because you want it that way doesn't make it so.
First Cash v. John Doe : the court rejected the motion to file his motion under seal, effectively exposing him
Manalapan v. Moskovitz : the anonymous blogger at issue isn't one of the parties to the suit and isn't involved, basically the court said it wouldn't reveal the identity of the blogger if the state didn't have any reason for requesting the info.
Dominick v. MySpace : EFF argued that the petition violates the First Amendment right to remain anonymous until a litigant can demonstrate a viable legal claim.
Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago : not resolved, but there isn't a clear legal claim against the anonymous.
E. Van Cullens v. John Doe : plantiff withdrew the claim after a anti-SLAPP countersuit was filed, essentially admitting he wasn't likely to prevail.
RIAA v. Verizon : a good victory, but not at all relevent
Doe v. Cahill : this one is actually fairly close to what we have here. The allegedly defamatory statements are, "Anyone who has spent any amount of time with Cahill would be keenly aware of such character flaws, not to mention an obvious mental deterioration" and "Gahill (sic) is a paranoid". It should be noted that Cahill is a city councilman, and thus a public figure, and therefore defamation suits are less likely to prevail. The Delaware Supreme Court held, "that a defamation plaintiff must satisfy a "summary judgment" standard before obtaining the identity of an anonymous defendant."
So even in the case on point (in Delaware, not New York) the court would have released the personal information had the plaintiff raised a claim that could withstand a summary judgment.
In this case, the court found, "Here, petitioner... has sufficiently established the merits of her proposed cause of action for defamation."
So again, your supposed right to anonymity ends as soon as someone can bring a claim against you that can survive some preliminary scrutiny. This case, Cohen v. Google, survived scrutiny as did First Cash v. John Doe and the court unmasked the blogger. In Dominick v. MySpace, E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, and Doe v. Cahill, the court didn't find a sufficiently meritorious claim to unmask the anonymous blogger.
If you had a RIGHT to anonymity the court couldn't unmask you EVEN IF there was a legitimate claim against you. This is why the graffiti artist isn't a strawman, under your imagined right to anonymity, the court would be bound to respect anyone trying to be anonymous, in spite of clear evidence of wrong doing.
2 small issues: First, couldn't the judge have allowed the case to go through as a Jane Doe case with gag orders issued to all involved not to reveal the defendants identity?
Second, while the right to privacy isn't explicitly enumerated, it flows naturally from the 4th and 14th, and SCOTUS has said as much in Griswold v. Connecticut and Row v. Wade. Your right to privacy doesn't extend to public acts, like blogging.
sure, but that doesn't remove the possibility that the journalist is making the statement up completely. Especially given (very necessary) Journalism Shield laws.
Gossip columnists in particular tend to play fast and loose with anonymous sources and ethics.
while you might be right, the general idea that you can turn defaming speech into protected speech is sound.
For example: A police official familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the department is considering filing charges against Mr. Smith for selling cocaine to school children..
If nerdrage were capable of tearing the space time continuum, the universe either would have been destroyed long ago, or we'd have found a way to exploit it and be enjoying faster than light travel.
I'll spell it out for you IANAL. That doesn't make my point any less valid. "I know you're wrong, but I won't tell you why," isn't the most convincing of arguments, but I have researched this, so I'll offer some evidence anyway.
We have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly. Generally this means that most anonymous speech cases are not adjudicated on the anonymity factor, but how they impact the well established and explicitly stated rights. For example, in NAACP v. Alabama, the court found that subpoena of the NAACP's membership lists violated the due process clause and the right to assemble. In Talley v. California and Watchtower v. Village of Stratton SCOTUS found that mandatory registration of solicitors ran afoul of free speech protection.
However, you have to look no further than the paid for statement of next campaign ad you see, or the disclosure requirement on the next political donation you give to see that there is no universal right to anonymity.
Imagine a graffiti artist arguing that he can't be prosecuted under vandalism law because he was exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymous free speech. The very idea that we can't seek out your identity if you're suspected of doing something illegal because of protected anonymity is absurd.
Since you (likely) don't have an agreement with the printer manufacturer not to disclose your personal data, they could turn over the info to cops without so much as a warrant. (the caveat to that is if the fine print on the warranty/registration card granted you some privacy - in which case the police might have to get a court order) The only person who would be on the hook is you - provided the speech itself was not protected.
Well he's bound by contract, not by law. Yes, you can reach an agreement where one party won't reveal the others identity, but were he to breach his contact he'd end up paying restitution to the school, not to the state, and he wouldn't end up in jail.
In very, very few cases is anonymity protected. Police informants might be one of them, adoption records another. But even in the watergate issue, had Bob Woodward told the readers of WaPo deepthroat's real name, Mr Felt wouldn't have much recourse. Of Course Bob Woodward would be finished as a journalist, but legally there's not much that could be done.
People have been trying to find out deepthroat's identity since the day the story broke - and many names had been aired as possibly being deepthroat.
Yes, but in those cases your anonymity was only protected to the extent that someone didn't track you down.
If you're a revolutionary looking to pamphlet, for example, I imagine you'd go to pretty long lengths to ensure your printer won't turn you over to the authorities. Additionally, if your printer did turn you over, the argument, "he promised he wouldn't" doesn't wouldn't carry much weight.
To extend the analogy, someone decided to use google as their printer, without bothering to verify that google wouldn't tell anyone her identity. In other words, you don't have a right to make anonymous public speech. You do have a right to take steps to protect your anonymity yourself - if those steps are insufficient that's your own problem.
The right to anonymity, so far as it exists, is an extension of your right to privacy. You don't have any expectation of privacy when hanging signs on telephone poles or making posts on blogs because those are PUBLIC acts.
I think you're wrong, but if you can provide some information to back up your position I'd be interested to read it.
We (in the US) have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to anonymous free speech.
It's true that there's an important history of anonymous political speech, and it's true that you're free to take steps don and protect your anonymity, but it's not true that the law protects you if someone manages to unmask you.
that's only because you can detect hydrazine at ppb levels.
The acceptable exposure limit for hydrazine is 0.01 ppm, the exposure limit for N2O4 is 3-5 ppm.
Hydrazine is a sensitizer and a carcinogen. N2O4 will react with the first thing it touches and become inert - meaning you really only have to worry about the acute effects.
I don't want to huff either, but it looks to me like N2O4 is safer.
Flow over a well designed (read: functional) airfoil is laminar. Turbulent flow results in flow separation and stalling.
You've also got your relationship between (specific) volume and pressure backwards. Lower specific volume means less pressure - which contributes to lift.
The idea of god the watchmaker has stood the test of time remarkably well. The important thing to recognize is that it's a non-scientific proposition. There is not and never will be any evidence one way or the other. You can choose to believe one side, and I another, and we can still agree on all maters of substance.
Evolution doesn't necessarily say anything about abiogenesis.
Natural selection is evolution, and it is random. If you want to talk about directed evolution, there's an article around here somewhere about really terrible designs.
Darwin's fundamental breakthrough in developing evolutionary theory was considering populations, not getting hung up on individuals. Some guy already tried to develop a theory of evolution based on individuals. It didn't work out.
just because there are people who make that point doesn't make it a good point.
There are people who think Obama was born in Kenya, so ya...
The reason it's a really terrible debating point is because, as another poster said, there are only a handful of cures specifically mentioned. No matter how many instances of cures are mentioned there's always going to be something left out. Why didn't Jesus cure Lupus?
It's stupid, either Jesus can cure cripples, lepers, the blind AND amputees or none of them.
That's certainly interesting, but I'll note that that's the same test that has the really offensive Darwinism/abortion question on it. This is the first time I'm hearing about this guy, but if the amputation question is any guide, I suspect that the big blank space for arguing against creationism is really just room for you to set up straw men.
In other words, being familiar with your caricatures of your opponents arguments really isn't the same as thinking critically.
I actually have a pretty high opinion of apologetics.
The reason this isn't apologetics is that you have to be able to argue against good counterpoints. This is rote regurgitation of the "teacher's" blind worldview. In order to sucessfully debate you have to make an effort to understand what your opponent is saying. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in you ears and saying "nanana can't hear you." Followed by reciting talking points.
no one's suggesting that the government put the trolls in the stocks. We just think it's a stupid requirement. And you know what, we're free to say so.
Those of us who have experienced a liberal education know that while professors may have their own preconceived notions, in general, they'll give favorable marks to a well argued contrary position. In fact, these professors are better often positioned to recognize (and reward) a well reasoned critique than even those who hold the contrary positions.
Contrast that to some of the final exam questions for this "teacher's" course:
No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a wellconfirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?
Shorter: "Please pander to me by knocking down the straw man I've just set up."
This is not education. This is indoctrination. Critical thought, self examination, and probing questions are not welcome. The goal of the trolling requirement is akin to hammering an online poll so that it seems like your view point is more prevalent than it really is.
For the record, I am not of the opinion that a scientific mindset is incompatible with a belief in god.
In general I agree. The arrest was not for burglary though, but for "disorderly conduct" and like it or not, it is possible to be disorderly on your own front porch. However, the threshold for what qualifies as disorderly conduct in MA is remarkably high, and this was pretty clearly a "contempt of cop" arrest. At a minimum Crowley should face some disciplinary action.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you want it that way doesn't make it so.
First Cash v. John Doe : the court rejected the motion to file his motion under seal, effectively exposing him
Manalapan v. Moskovitz : the anonymous blogger at issue isn't one of the parties to the suit and isn't involved, basically the court said it wouldn't reveal the identity of the blogger if the state didn't have any reason for requesting the info.
Dominick v. MySpace : EFF argued that the petition violates the First Amendment right to remain anonymous until a litigant can demonstrate a viable legal claim.
Fix Wilson Yard v. City of Chicago : not resolved, but there isn't a clear legal claim against the anonymous.
E. Van Cullens v. John Doe : plantiff withdrew the claim after a anti-SLAPP countersuit was filed, essentially admitting he wasn't likely to prevail.
RIAA v. Verizon : a good victory, but not at all relevent
Doe v. Cahill : this one is actually fairly close to what we have here. The allegedly defamatory statements are, "Anyone who has spent any amount of time with Cahill would be keenly aware of such character flaws, not to mention an obvious mental deterioration" and "Gahill (sic) is a paranoid". It should be noted that Cahill is a city councilman, and thus a public figure, and therefore defamation suits are less likely to prevail. The Delaware Supreme Court held, "that a defamation plaintiff must satisfy a "summary judgment" standard before obtaining the identity of an anonymous defendant."
So even in the case on point (in Delaware, not New York) the court would have released the personal information had the plaintiff raised a claim that could withstand a summary judgment.
In this case, the court found, "Here, petitioner ... has sufficiently established the merits of her proposed cause of action for defamation."
So again, your supposed right to anonymity ends as soon as someone can bring a claim against you that can survive some preliminary scrutiny. This case, Cohen v. Google, survived scrutiny as did First Cash v. John Doe and the court unmasked the blogger. In Dominick v. MySpace, E. Van Cullens v. John Doe, and Doe v. Cahill, the court didn't find a sufficiently meritorious claim to unmask the anonymous blogger.
If you had a RIGHT to anonymity the court couldn't unmask you EVEN IF there was a legitimate claim against you. This is why the graffiti artist isn't a strawman, under your imagined right to anonymity, the court would be bound to respect anyone trying to be anonymous, in spite of clear evidence of wrong doing.
Agree almost completely.
2 small issues: First, couldn't the judge have allowed the case to go through as a Jane Doe case with gag orders issued to all involved not to reveal the defendants identity?
Second, while the right to privacy isn't explicitly enumerated, it flows naturally from the 4th and 14th, and SCOTUS has said as much in Griswold v. Connecticut and Row v. Wade. Your right to privacy doesn't extend to public acts, like blogging.
sure, but that doesn't remove the possibility that the journalist is making the statement up completely. Especially given (very necessary) Journalism Shield laws.
Gossip columnists in particular tend to play fast and loose with anonymous sources and ethics.
while you might be right, the general idea that you can turn defaming speech into protected speech is sound.
For example:
A police official familiar with the case who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the department is considering filing charges against Mr. Smith for selling cocaine to school children..
If nerdrage were capable of tearing the space time continuum, the universe either would have been destroyed long ago, or we'd have found a way to exploit it and be enjoying faster than light travel.
I'll spell it out for you IANAL. That doesn't make my point any less valid. "I know you're wrong, but I won't tell you why," isn't the most convincing of arguments, but I have researched this, so I'll offer some evidence anyway.
We have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly. Generally this means that most anonymous speech cases are not adjudicated on the anonymity factor, but how they impact the well established and explicitly stated rights. For example, in NAACP v. Alabama, the court found that subpoena of the NAACP's membership lists violated the due process clause and the right to assemble. In Talley v. California and Watchtower v. Village of Stratton SCOTUS found that mandatory registration of solicitors ran afoul of free speech protection.
However, you have to look no further than the paid for statement of next campaign ad you see, or the disclosure requirement on the next political donation you give to see that there is no universal right to anonymity.
Imagine a graffiti artist arguing that he can't be prosecuted under vandalism law because he was exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to anonymous free speech. The very idea that we can't seek out your identity if you're suspected of doing something illegal because of protected anonymity is absurd.
Since you (likely) don't have an agreement with the printer manufacturer not to disclose your personal data, they could turn over the info to cops without so much as a warrant. (the caveat to that is if the fine print on the warranty/registration card granted you some privacy - in which case the police might have to get a court order) The only person who would be on the hook is you - provided the speech itself was not protected.
Well he's bound by contract, not by law. Yes, you can reach an agreement where one party won't reveal the others identity, but were he to breach his contact he'd end up paying restitution to the school, not to the state, and he wouldn't end up in jail.
Who, William Mark Felt, Sr.?
In very, very few cases is anonymity protected. Police informants might be one of them, adoption records another. But even in the watergate issue, had Bob Woodward told the readers of WaPo deepthroat's real name, Mr Felt wouldn't have much recourse. Of Course Bob Woodward would be finished as a journalist, but legally there's not much that could be done.
People have been trying to find out deepthroat's identity since the day the story broke - and many names had been aired as possibly being deepthroat.
you don't have a right to anonymity when making public speech.
You only have a right to try to be anonymous. If someone discovers your identity it's your problem for not covering your tracks better.
Yes, but in those cases your anonymity was only protected to the extent that someone didn't track you down.
If you're a revolutionary looking to pamphlet, for example, I imagine you'd go to pretty long lengths to ensure your printer won't turn you over to the authorities. Additionally, if your printer did turn you over, the argument, "he promised he wouldn't" doesn't wouldn't carry much weight.
To extend the analogy, someone decided to use google as their printer, without bothering to verify that google wouldn't tell anyone her identity. In other words, you don't have a right to make anonymous public speech. You do have a right to take steps to protect your anonymity yourself - if those steps are insufficient that's your own problem.
The right to anonymity, so far as it exists, is an extension of your right to privacy. You don't have any expectation of privacy when hanging signs on telephone poles or making posts on blogs because those are PUBLIC acts.
AI and psychohistory?
really?
I just got a mental image of a game of peekaboo gone horribly wrong.
I think you're wrong, but if you can provide some information to back up your position I'd be interested to read it.
We (in the US) have a right to free speech. We do not have a right to anonymous free speech.
It's true that there's an important history of anonymous political speech, and it's true that you're free to take steps don and protect your anonymity, but it's not true that the law protects you if someone manages to unmask you.
that's only because you can detect hydrazine at ppb levels.
The acceptable exposure limit for hydrazine is 0.01 ppm, the exposure limit for N2O4 is 3-5 ppm.
Hydrazine is a sensitizer and a carcinogen. N2O4 will react with the first thing it touches and become inert - meaning you really only have to worry about the acute effects.
I don't want to huff either, but it looks to me like N2O4 is safer.
Flow over a well designed (read: functional) airfoil is laminar. Turbulent flow results in flow separation and stalling.
You've also got your relationship between (specific) volume and pressure backwards. Lower specific volume means less pressure - which contributes to lift.
The idea of god the watchmaker has stood the test of time remarkably well. The important thing to recognize is that it's a non-scientific proposition. There is not and never will be any evidence one way or the other. You can choose to believe one side, and I another, and we can still agree on all maters of substance.
Evolution doesn't necessarily say anything about abiogenesis.
Natural selection is evolution, and it is random. If you want to talk about directed evolution, there's an article around here somewhere about really terrible designs.
Darwin's fundamental breakthrough in developing evolutionary theory was considering populations, not getting hung up on individuals. Some guy already tried to develop a theory of evolution based on individuals. It didn't work out.
just because there are people who make that point doesn't make it a good point.
There are people who think Obama was born in Kenya, so ya...
The reason it's a really terrible debating point is because, as another poster said, there are only a handful of cures specifically mentioned. No matter how many instances of cures are mentioned there's always going to be something left out. Why didn't Jesus cure Lupus?
It's stupid, either Jesus can cure cripples, lepers, the blind AND amputees or none of them.
Thanks for the link.
That's certainly interesting, but I'll note that that's the same test that has the really offensive Darwinism/abortion question on it. This is the first time I'm hearing about this guy, but if the amputation question is any guide, I suspect that the big blank space for arguing against creationism is really just room for you to set up straw men.
In other words, being familiar with your caricatures of your opponents arguments really isn't the same as thinking critically.
I could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.
I actually have a pretty high opinion of apologetics.
The reason this isn't apologetics is that you have to be able to argue against good counterpoints. This is rote regurgitation of the "teacher's" blind worldview. In order to sucessfully debate you have to make an effort to understand what your opponent is saying. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in you ears and saying "nanana can't hear you." Followed by reciting talking points.
no one's suggesting that the government put the trolls in the stocks. We just think it's a stupid requirement. And you know what, we're free to say so.
Wishful thinking.
Those of us who have experienced a liberal education know that while professors may have their own preconceived notions, in general, they'll give favorable marks to a well argued contrary position. In fact, these professors are better often positioned to recognize (and reward) a well reasoned critique than even those who hold the contrary positions.
Contrast that to some of the final exam questions for this "teacher's" course:
Shorter: "Please pander to me by knocking down the straw man I've just set up."
This is not education. This is indoctrination. Critical thought, self examination, and probing questions are not welcome. The goal of the trolling requirement is akin to hammering an online poll so that it seems like your view point is more prevalent than it really is.
For the record, I am not of the opinion that a scientific mindset is incompatible with a belief in god.
In general I agree. The arrest was not for burglary though, but for "disorderly conduct" and like it or not, it is possible to be disorderly on your own front porch. However, the threshold for what qualifies as disorderly conduct in MA is remarkably high, and this was pretty clearly a "contempt of cop" arrest. At a minimum Crowley should face some disciplinary action.