Dude, just shut the hell up. You don't like the story, or aren't interested in it, that's fine. Move on to the next story. Don't claim there's "nothing to see here" when there very much is something to see for those that are in the story's target demo (Android developers).
If you're asking me to keep my mouth shut deliberately, then isn't that tantamount to censorship?
No, disallowing you from posting would be censorship. Telling you not to post is just a courtesy to help you avoid looking like a dumbass.
Honestly, your post here is worthless. You're saying you don't care about the story, and yet, by your own admission, you are not of the story's target market. That would be like me going into a My Little Pony forum and saying the show sucks, even though I haven't watched it. If a story is not of your interest, just close it and move on.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" is clear the way it's written.
That is very different, however, from deciding what is and is not protected speech, which is the issue at hand. Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that everything you say is protected. Slander and libel, for instance, are not protected. They were not mentioned in the amendment.
Not to mention that it's generally not Congress writing these laws, but states and municipalities.
On the other hand, you're lumping in different things. "the government shall not retrieve emails from a server" is a pretty straightforward applications of people being secure in their papers, for instance, and both that and interracial marriage (gay marriage, last I checked, was not actually recognized except for in a handful of individual states!) are, if anything, extensions of the rights of the people, and as such are covered by the 9th (again, if they're not already covered by the 4th etc., anyway). This is vastly different from the federal government claiming new rights for itself by default.
These were examples showing where the amendment has been interpreted for new circumstances, rather than staying steadfast in the original text. If we were doing a literal interpretation, we would have to extend the Constitution for every new leap in technology. Perhaps a better example, instead of emails, would have been phone taps.
The gay/interracial marriage examples were there to show that the Constitution, and it's restrictions, also apply to the States, per judicial interpretation.
Some of the wordings in the constitution are basically set in stone. For instance, pretending that there exists exemptions in the constitution where there is not and calling it "interpretation" could probably be considered wrong.
There are other exemptions that have been found to exist that were not worded in the Constitution. Slander/libel laws, for instance. Those things are not considered protected speech.
They interpret it, and their interpretations can be wrong.
In which case it's up to later courts, or to Congress to act to correct it.
Creating exemptions is not interpretation. Interpretation is restating what has always been there. There's nothing in there about obscenity.
Yes, but the question on what is and is not protected speech has always been there. The freedom of speech is not absolute; aside from obscenities, there exist exemptions for libel/slander as well. I would say deciding what the amendment does and does not cover is interpreting it.
Similarly the constitution says nothing one way or the other about marriage for anyone. So states are free to enact any kind of marriage laws they want, as long as they don't contradict the comity clause of the constitution ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State").
The states are not free to violate the Constitution, either. They are also held to the same standards pertaining the 14th Amendment.
Why would you put someone in charge just because they pointed out a problem? Out of spite? That is like a person in a wheelchair being put in charge of fighting a fire just because they pointed out the smoke.
Not quite spite, but close. On some of the projects I've been involved with, if you complain about something, that means you just volunteered to fix it.
That used to be enough. Nowadays the other products are "good enough" at those things, and the strengths they have far outweigh the capabilities of the BBs.
Well, in an ideal world, he would be consulted for what he feels are the problems, and their potential solutions. Or, since he complained, he would be put in charge of fixing them.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law. The First Amendment has been found to not hold with obscene material, and the Miller Test was devised to help determine whether a piece of media is obscene, or if it is protected expression.
The Constitution is not set in stone; and given that we don't have the people around who wrote it, we need to interpret it to the standards of the day. There was no Constitutional protection against the government retrieving emails from a server, but it was later held that those fall under the same protections as written communication. Likewise, there was no Constitutional exemption against gay/interracial marriage in the 14th Amendment, yet many states felt that they could enact laws against those things.
I'm not the poster, but I would imagine that watching sexually explicit material (sexy video games, porn, Night Court) would put people in a state of arousal, and thus induce them to have sex. The question is, however, why is that a bad thing? If my partner and I consume sexually explicit material, and then we go have sex, who's problem is it?
And before it gets mentioned, I think it would be a huge stretch to state that consuming sexually explicit material leads to rape.
A woman goes to her gynecologist for her regular exam. While there, the doctor asks if she has any questions, or has been experiencing anything unusual.
"Well doctor, my husband has been asking more and more for anal sex. But I'm just not sure if it's safe."
The doctor starts telling her that this is perfectly fine, and done correctly, anal sex can be pain free and enjoyable. "Just make sure he uses a condom when you do it, to help prevent pregnancy," he said.
"Pregnancy?" she asked, confused. "I didn't think you could get pregnant from anal sex."
"Of course," he stated. "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?
This happens ALL THE TIME IN THE US, even with our harsher prison system and sentences. Yet, it doesn't do shit to stop it. Clearly, your example is a bad one, as it's clearly involving people who are not mentally stable at the time.
And what's the recidivism rate, and crime rate? Because honestly, that's the only thing that matters. If being non-punitive means that fewer people will commit their first crime, and of those, far fewer will commit a second, I'd be all for it.
There is a very significant portion of the US prison population that is there for non-violent, victimless crimes. Drug possession, for one. Get all of those out, and you'd probably have the room and the resources to concentrate on the violent criminals.
Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.
Well, I'm pretty sure that punishing the kid's parents for what he did isn't going to have much of an effect on the kid himself, so anything that directly affects the kid has got to be worth a try.
That guy does genuinely sound like a good guy. Kudos to him. However, telling his story is like telling the story of good cops, the ones who don't use tasers every 5 seconds, and genuinely are in it to help the people. It'll get lost in the shuffle, and forgotten by the time the next bad cop story comes along.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell you that you're a dumbass?
Dude, just shut the hell up. You don't like the story, or aren't interested in it, that's fine. Move on to the next story. Don't claim there's "nothing to see here" when there very much is something to see for those that are in the story's target demo (Android developers).
If you're asking me to keep my mouth shut deliberately, then isn't that tantamount to censorship?
No, disallowing you from posting would be censorship. Telling you not to post is just a courtesy to help you avoid looking like a dumbass.
Honestly, your post here is worthless. You're saying you don't care about the story, and yet, by your own admission, you are not of the story's target market. That would be like me going into a My Little Pony forum and saying the show sucks, even though I haven't watched it. If a story is not of your interest, just close it and move on.
Why does that concern me?
Are you an Android developer? If so, then yes, it concerns you.
If you are not an Android developer, then shut the hell up. This story is not for you.
The developer also has the right to warn other developers in the community that one retailer is probably not worth using.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" is clear the way it's written.
That is very different, however, from deciding what is and is not protected speech, which is the issue at hand. Congress can't abridge the freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that everything you say is protected. Slander and libel, for instance, are not protected. They were not mentioned in the amendment.
Not to mention that it's generally not Congress writing these laws, but states and municipalities.
On the other hand, you're lumping in different things. "the government shall not retrieve emails from a server" is a pretty straightforward applications of people being secure in their papers, for instance, and both that and interracial marriage (gay marriage, last I checked, was not actually recognized except for in a handful of individual states!) are, if anything, extensions of the rights of the people, and as such are covered by the 9th (again, if they're not already covered by the 4th etc., anyway). This is vastly different from the federal government claiming new rights for itself by default.
These were examples showing where the amendment has been interpreted for new circumstances, rather than staying steadfast in the original text. If we were doing a literal interpretation, we would have to extend the Constitution for every new leap in technology. Perhaps a better example, instead of emails, would have been phone taps.
The gay/interracial marriage examples were there to show that the Constitution, and it's restrictions, also apply to the States, per judicial interpretation.
Some of the wordings in the constitution are basically set in stone. For instance, pretending that there exists exemptions in the constitution where there is not and calling it "interpretation" could probably be considered wrong.
There are other exemptions that have been found to exist that were not worded in the Constitution. Slander/libel laws, for instance. Those things are not considered protected speech.
They interpret it, and their interpretations can be wrong.
In which case it's up to later courts, or to Congress to act to correct it.
Creating exemptions is not interpretation. Interpretation is restating what has always been there. There's nothing in there about obscenity.
Yes, but the question on what is and is not protected speech has always been there. The freedom of speech is not absolute; aside from obscenities, there exist exemptions for libel/slander as well. I would say deciding what the amendment does and does not cover is interpreting it.
Similarly the constitution says nothing one way or the other about marriage for anyone. So states are free to enact any kind of marriage laws they want, as long as they don't contradict the comity clause of the constitution ("Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State").
The states are not free to violate the Constitution, either. They are also held to the same standards pertaining the 14th Amendment.
Why would you put someone in charge just because they pointed out a problem? Out of spite? That is like a person in a wheelchair being put in charge of fighting a fire just because they pointed out the smoke.
Not quite spite, but close. On some of the projects I've been involved with, if you complain about something, that means you just volunteered to fix it.
That used to be enough. Nowadays the other products are "good enough" at those things, and the strengths they have far outweigh the capabilities of the BBs.
Well, in an ideal world, he would be consulted for what he feels are the problems, and their potential solutions. Or, since he complained, he would be put in charge of fixing them.
The SCOTUS is charged with interpreting the law. The First Amendment has been found to not hold with obscene material, and the Miller Test was devised to help determine whether a piece of media is obscene, or if it is protected expression.
The Constitution is not set in stone; and given that we don't have the people around who wrote it, we need to interpret it to the standards of the day. There was no Constitutional protection against the government retrieving emails from a server, but it was later held that those fall under the same protections as written communication. Likewise, there was no Constitutional exemption against gay/interracial marriage in the 14th Amendment, yet many states felt that they could enact laws against those things.
I'm not the poster, but I would imagine that watching sexually explicit material (sexy video games, porn, Night Court) would put people in a state of arousal, and thus induce them to have sex. The question is, however, why is that a bad thing? If my partner and I consume sexually explicit material, and then we go have sex, who's problem is it?
And before it gets mentioned, I think it would be a huge stretch to state that consuming sexually explicit material leads to rape.
whereas sex is dirty and shameful.
At least when it's done right, it is.
Keep in mind, a lot of us also object to the banning of nudity as well. It just happens that this was concentrated on violence.
And if I recall correctly, the similar Indiana law, which also was struck down, was on both violence and nudity.
A woman goes to her gynecologist for her regular exam. While there, the doctor asks if she has any questions, or has been experiencing anything unusual.
"Well doctor, my husband has been asking more and more for anal sex. But I'm just not sure if it's safe."
The doctor starts telling her that this is perfectly fine, and done correctly, anal sex can be pain free and enjoyable. "Just make sure he uses a condom when you do it, to help prevent pregnancy," he said.
"Pregnancy?" she asked, confused. "I didn't think you could get pregnant from anal sex."
"Of course," he stated. "Where do you think lawyers come from?"
Some states in the US do as well.
How were they defrauded? Did LegalZoom not do what they said it did?
Just the other day there was a shootout between the cops and some hijackers just across the road from where I work, by a school. Being cornered, I must ask the question, why didn't they surrender? Why did they choose to fight it out (and in the process one policeman and two of the hijackers were killed)? Were they just stupid, or maybe they reckoned they could get away, and even if caught it isn't the end of the world for them? Who knows what goes through a criminal's mind, but the point is your theory doesn't tie in with their behavior. Or that of many over criminals here. Obviously this "worse penalty" isn't a sufficient deterrent. And how about the other day when there was a shootout at a school and a couple of school kids were shot?
This happens ALL THE TIME IN THE US, even with our harsher prison system and sentences. Yet, it doesn't do shit to stop it. Clearly, your example is a bad one, as it's clearly involving people who are not mentally stable at the time.
And what's the recidivism rate, and crime rate? Because honestly, that's the only thing that matters. If being non-punitive means that fewer people will commit their first crime, and of those, far fewer will commit a second, I'd be all for it.
There is a very significant portion of the US prison population that is there for non-violent, victimless crimes. Drug possession, for one. Get all of those out, and you'd probably have the room and the resources to concentrate on the violent criminals.
Someone who refers to prison as an "all-expense-paid resort" has clearly never been.
Unless, you've got some actual evidence to back up your assertion that this is more likely to keep the lad from getting into more trouble than his parents paying the fine.
Well, I'm pretty sure that punishing the kid's parents for what he did isn't going to have much of an effect on the kid himself, so anything that directly affects the kid has got to be worth a try.
That guy does genuinely sound like a good guy. Kudos to him. However, telling his story is like telling the story of good cops, the ones who don't use tasers every 5 seconds, and genuinely are in it to help the people. It'll get lost in the shuffle, and forgotten by the time the next bad cop story comes along.