rubbish. part of sex ed is teaching what the age of consent is, and why it exists. do people really think kids don't know about sex until we tech them?!
when did the fact information is your greatest protection become lost?
Agreed... but teaching children how to have sex responsibly before the legal age of consent in Wisconsin is setting up children to become victims as well as offenders of the law.
The sex ed doesn't need to be fixed at all in this case, it's the crazy laws that insist that a fantasy world exists where kids don't have sex with each other before the age of consent.
I'm not arguing that you're probably right. But the same things were being said when the EFF built their machine, and when DES was originally formulated.
My point wasn't that you're wrong, it was that you're likely right... but don't let the simplified version of your argument blind you to the fact that it is a complicated argument, that can and will change, and could potentially change "over night".
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"
Anyone having sex before the age of 12 is a victim of "Sexual assault of a child", even if that person is under the age of 12 themselves.
Wisconsin consent laws are apparently that fucked up.
Thus, if you're 11 and you willingly choose to have completely nonviolent, consensual, loving sex with another person, you're a victim of sexual assault.
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.
Fucking idiot.
If the children are under age 12, then yes, it will lead directly to more statutory rape, because Wisconsin law holds that anyone having sex with a person under the age of 12 is committing statutory rape, regardless of their age.
He may not sound like he's making sense, but then the laws he's dealing with seem to be written towards a fantasy land.
Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"
Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
Wisconsin state law (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf 948.02(b)) specifically prohibits sexual intercourse before the age of 12, period. It does not provide exceptions for the individual being the same age. Two 11 year olds having sex together will result technically in both of them committing a Class B Felony.
Remember that case where the two boys were charged with statutory rape, after a bunch of girls heckled a girl into killing herself? Yeah, it's possible for minors to commit statutory rape against each other.
I believe the age-of-consent laws in Wisconsin poorly designed, and focused more on the idea of "if we make it illegal, they won't do it." Unfortunately, the DA in this case is oddly correct. The new state law providing for education in how to responsibly have sex (providing they are below the age of 12) can be construed to promoting the children to commit statutory rape against each other.
I don't think it's him saying that teaching them about responsible sex will result in them seeking out to become rape victims, but rather that he pretty much considers any sex outside of marriage as illegal.
I don't really feel the necessity often to point out to a lawyer the difference between morality and legality...
But then I don't know Wisconsin state law regarding age of consent. If they're teaching proper sexual responsibility like condoms and stuff before their age of consent, then they are potentially encouraging children to violate the law.
Yeah...get back to me when you manage to bruteforce a 128-bit AES key on your GPU farm. Only then can you claim that "Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days."
They kind of said the same thing about DES encryption, until the EFF made a custom built hardware decryptor.
As always, it's a bit of a balancing game... we continue to measure effectiveness of an algorithm against general purpose machines, rather than special purpose.
I'm not saying he is right, or that you're right (but more likely you) but rather the picture is a bit more fuzzy... in fact, if it weren't fuzzy, then the encryption technology would be so well understood that there would be better attacks upon it.
Right, but not prosecuting a criminal because it might leak national security information has hardly ever been the prerogative of this government. The military could have had a closed court martial, tried the individuals for breaking engagement rules, and lying to cover up the information, all without exposing any national security.
The government instead decided to push facts into the media that do not conform to the video presented, and now we know what they did.
If a government does not want to compromise their national security on video tapes or documents, then they should not commit crimes or fraud based on those same.
"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"
I don't know how many times I've been criticized for pointing out that gmail TOS do not include anonymity - the government can just ask and google will roll over on you - it's nice to see others finally "getting it."
First rule my dad ever told me about doing anything wrong: "Don't tell anyone about it."
Of course, he had to get a security clearance eventually, and they found out he had had 5 affairs, and they told him that he had to tell my mom, so he couldn't be a blackmail target...
But seriously, a reasonable number of criminals get caught because they were bragging about their crimes.
Al Sharpton on The Colbert Report just yesterday noted that he was one of thousands in the same conditions, and that even though he was able to rise above it, the majority of the people he knew growing up are dead or in prison.
Just because you have an example of 1% that make it through, or make it out, does not mean that they did anything special necessarily even, and the average for all of them is that life sucks, and it is not entirely their fault. In a society where 99 out of every 100 that are in their situation fail to have an opportunity to succeed, that makes it 1% their fault.
Look at the Worlds Strongest Man competition... look at everything they can accomplish. The fact that you cannot is an indication that you're lazy, and incapable.... That logic doesn't sound right, and neither should "look, this one person got out of the ghetto, so the fact that you're still here means you're lazy and incapable."
Basically, you can sue someone for libel/slander once they open their mouth and say whatever they want, but you cannot get a court order or law telling them to shut up, or stop saying it...
Sure you can. Most well-written NDAs have a clause explicitly to allow the judge to issue a gag order, escalating the infraction from civil to criminal.
** USA ONLY **
"Prior restraint" as it is called is generally viewed as incompatible with the right to free speech. As such, Near vs Minnesota, sets the basic standards of what can or cannot be restrained prior to being "spoken". And that restriction is essentially nothing less than national security.
Later, the US attempted to stop top-secret documents that were being published by the New York Times under the claim of national security, but in a 6-3 decision it was upheld that even a claim of "national security" itself was not sufficient to grant prior restraint. And that stopping someone from saying something prior to them saying it is fundamentally antithetical to freedom of speech. (Note: In the USA).
Gag orders on criminal court cases typically really only hold against the police and prosecutors, for whom such a restraint is one of the least restrictive conditions that they have to work with.
Courts have already held that anything that happens in "open court" can be spoken about freely. This is why, when a fair trial need be ensured for the defendant (against the media, or other members of the public), that it is done in "closed court".
As gag orders in criminal cases are to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, the defendant is really under no obligation to follow a gag order, as they could theoretically forfeit their right to a fair trial pretty much at any point. And seriously, who is going to be stupid enough to threaten their fair trial by blabbing about the details of the case to the press? Ok, the defendant's lawyer... which is why he is ethically bound to follow a gag order from the court.
In civil cases, again, if in open court, they cannot have a gag order. This is why NDAs have mediation clauses. One can hold a mediator to "confidentiality", while an open court case could not.
Now, hypothetically, even if someone were somehow to get an NDA civil case in closed court, and were somehow granted a gag order... the infraction would be "contempt of court" and would have an infinitesimally small chance that it could be a criminal contempt of court. So, at worse, one could be imprisoned only as long as one refuses to submit to the gag order. And it would be the opposing party who would be responsible for enforcing such an order in the first place.
Here is the Gold Standard in the USA regarding stopping people from saying something: you cannot prevent someone from saying something before the speech act is done, unless: a) you are the government, and b) there is a true threat of national security. The only way to restrict someone's speech ahead of the fact otherwise is if the someone willingly complies.
None of this at all removes any of the responsibility for having said it.
Example: I make a defamatory claim about a person. Person sues me for damages, I continue to make defamatory claims about them, they seek an injunction to stop me from saying anything, the judge slaps the lawyer around for trying to get him to issue a prior restraint injunction... I've seen it happen in court. The judge explicitly said, "you have a good defamation claim here, pursue that, but I can't make them stop." Then turned to the defendant and said, "I can't make you stop, but you will still be held responsible for everything that you're saying here. Your lawyer should be able to explain to you how it would be in your best interests to stop."
While I disagree with your blanket application in this statement, it is essentially a personal opinion.
I personally think that the majority of cops are just trying to do their job. Unfortunately, cops don't always correctly understand the law that they are applying, (and really we're all retards about the law in some way.)
I think the biggest difference is that I'm less fearful about an individual cop causing trouble, because I understand most of my rights, and I am assertive about respecting them.
I believe that a lot of abuse from cops happens because people kind of allow the cops to do things that they shouldn't be allowed to do. I witnessed a couple pulled over right outside of our window, with a cop harassing them. Eventually, the cop found drugs in their van, but these people were arguing with him the whole time... DUDE! Just shut up, and tell him he may not search any of your property.
I was talking about how I really wished I was able to practice law, because I would have walked down and helped them protect their rights. *shrug* Such is life sometimes... we watch people let the police walk all over them.
Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom from responsibility - it protects not only the act of speaking, but from being punished for it.
The thing is, freedom of speech is selective; it's purpose is to protect political (or artistic) speech, but it is limited in other cases, like libel or in this case, it might be protected by Personality Rights.
The problem is that it has already been established by case law that the government cannot prevent even defamatory speech from being made. Freedom of Speech grants us the inalienable right to say whatever the hell we want to... but it only protects certain forms of speech from responsibility.
Defamation of a public figure isn't an actionable case in law because of the First Amendment, it is protected by the fact that they do not have an valid expectation of privacy.
The difference is, as I noted below, you cannot legally stop someone from saying defamatory things about you. You can continue to compound damages against them, but you can't stop them from saying anything at all... even defamatory speech.
Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom from responsibility - it protects not only the act of speaking, but from being punished for it.
The thing is, freedom of speech is selective; it's purpose is to protect political (or artistic) speech, but it is limited in other cases, like libel or in this case, it might be protected by Personality Rights.
No, it protects you from being punished by the government, there are countless reasons one can be successfully punished in civil court for something that is clearly "protected speech"
You are free to disseminate trade secrets of a corporation you worked for, but they are free to sue the living shit out of you for it.
Quite true. Freedom of Speech actually cannot be restrained prior to the speech actually being made. All forms of speech may be made without any ability to make it immediately illegal to make it. For instance, any law, or protection order saying "you must not say anything bad about anyone" would immediately hit into trouble with first amendment rights.
Basically, you can sue someone for libel/slander once they open their mouth and say whatever they want, but you cannot get a court order or law telling them to shut up, or stop saying it... of course one would continue to compound their damages by continuing to make defamatory statements, but again, you cannot get them to shut up.
From what I was reading above (but not from TFA), the family understood that they cannot censor the distribution of the pictures, however they can reasonably expect the initial individuals who took and distributed the pictures to pay them damages for causing immense distress.
So, I'd have to say that on several fronts, your argument about netbooks fails. Care to demonstrate what your "average" netbook looks like? Perhaps you'd also like to tell me how much it weighs, and what its actual battery life is like?
I think he's mistaking Netbooks for what he wishes the Apple iPad were.
The authorities have made it plain by their actions that there's no way to get justice and stay alive. This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying.
The problem also runs deeper than the conduct of the high school authorities. What are the odds that the conscienceless perpetrators didn't present any warning signs in grade school and middle school?
A mother in one state used her son's suicide to petition the legislature to pass a bill that requires teacher and administrator intervention in bullying. She wanted to ensure that other students had ways to get justice and intervention without having to resort to suicide or--as mentioned below--homicide.
People acting like assholes happens for actual reasons. Don't wave away the effort of figuring it out. That will just make you less able to cope.
I think one of the biggest things to realize about this situation is that there is a component of social mania/"hysteria" going on here. Everyone fed upon everyone else. "Oh, everyone is doing X, so, let's try doing X+1..." Or "I got away with doing X, so let's try X+1".
It's relatively easy for a social group to exploit emotional influences to whip themselves up into a group performing evil actions. This is similar to the group think that led to the holocaust by the Nazis, just on a very much smaller scale.
In some states, the legislative wording is so broad that masturbating under the age of 18 is "sex involving a minor." Of course, that would mean the whole state could go to jail and be forever listed as sex offenders. Maybe Justice is blind because it beat-off too much.
I find it hard to believe that masturbation would ever qualify as criminal "sex involving a minor". And I believe you're engaging in hyperbole.
Even if it were, and a minor were sent to juvie for this, it would easily be overturned on appeal under a similar argument to the one that got sodomy removed from all state law books.
banged all the hot scientologists you could get your hands on
He addressed that too. Unless you were married, you weren't going to have sex with a hot scientologist. And yes, he even tried to use the loophole that it didn't say married to each other.
Only if you're part of Sea Org. If you haven't signed the billion year contract yet, then you're not bound to this requirement.
I looked at the Wikipedia article. It said that the goal wasn't to conceal the existence of a ship, but to obscure what direction it was going in and where the mast was. I think this trick would probably work equally well regardless of whether or not the observer is color blind.
I would think camouflage worked for colorblind as well, but apparently my gut feelings are wrong...
But the fact remains that color blindness is a disability, even though it is a lesser disability than most.
You're an idiot. When someone registers statistically perfect scores on entrance exams and is then told that due to colorblindness they can only work in data entry, it is a disability.
When someone is completely removed from any opportunity in biology or area research, it is a disability.
We don't all aspire to be hip-hop thugs.
I learned sign-language from a deaf-from-birth friend. He did not see deafness as a disability.
Likewise, each individual person needs to make an individual choice about this matter. For some it is a profound disability, and for others it is no big deal.
Welcome to the world of "the patient must provide consent to treatment."
Slashdot Mirror
rubbish. part of sex ed is teaching what the age of consent is, and why it exists. do people really think kids don't know about sex until we tech them?!
when did the fact information is your greatest protection become lost?
Agreed... but teaching children how to have sex responsibly before the legal age of consent in Wisconsin is setting up children to become victims as well as offenders of the law.
The sex ed doesn't need to be fixed at all in this case, it's the crazy laws that insist that a fantasy world exists where kids don't have sex with each other before the age of consent.
I'm not arguing that you're probably right. But the same things were being said when the EFF built their machine, and when DES was originally formulated.
My point wasn't that you're wrong, it was that you're likely right... but don't let the simplified version of your argument blind you to the fact that it is a complicated argument, that can and will change, and could potentially change "over night".
But promotes sexual assault? What. The. Fuck? How does that work? Is there a section in the class about how to be a rape victim? A video about how cool PTSD and group counseling are? Or is it that would-be predators will see the worldly look in the newly-educated kid's eyes and think "Ah, that one's fair game, he's practically asking for it!"
Anyone having sex before the age of 12 is a victim of "Sexual assault of a child", even if that person is under the age of 12 themselves.
Wisconsin consent laws are apparently that fucked up.
Thus, if you're 11 and you willingly choose to have completely nonviolent, consensual, loving sex with another person, you're a victim of sexual assault.
using the school system to shove his religious views down everyones throats.
He thinks learning about condoms cause people to rape more.
Fucking idiot.
If the children are under age 12, then yes, it will lead directly to more statutory rape, because Wisconsin law holds that anyone having sex with a person under the age of 12 is committing statutory rape, regardless of their age.
He may not sound like he's making sense, but then the laws he's dealing with seem to be written towards a fantasy land.
Southworth also said 'I'm not looking to charge any teachers, I've got enough work to do.'"
Apparently not. Like the recent nullification suits brought to defeat health care reform, not even the originators believe there is any merit to these actions. This is all about grandstanding to promote a particular ideology at tax payer expense. It's just a shame this guy is terrorizing teachers in the process.
State law provides that anyone having sex with a person under 12 is guilty of a Class B Felony. He's literally not making this shit up... the laws are just that backwards in Wisconsin.
Kids are going to have sex. That's the long and short of it. Would you rather that they do it not knowing how to be safe and responsible? Or would you rather that they have the knowledge of how to use contraceptives to reduce the risk of pregnancy and STDs? We teach kids how to do everything else safely, but we think, "Well, kids shouldn't be having sex anyway, so if we don't tell them about it, they won't do it." Hogwash.
Wisconsin state law (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf 948.02(b)) specifically prohibits sexual intercourse before the age of 12, period. It does not provide exceptions for the individual being the same age. Two 11 year olds having sex together will result technically in both of them committing a Class B Felony.
Remember that case where the two boys were charged with statutory rape, after a bunch of girls heckled a girl into killing herself? Yeah, it's possible for minors to commit statutory rape against each other.
I believe the age-of-consent laws in Wisconsin poorly designed, and focused more on the idea of "if we make it illegal, they won't do it." Unfortunately, the DA in this case is oddly correct. The new state law providing for education in how to responsibly have sex (providing they are below the age of 12) can be construed to promoting the children to commit statutory rape against each other.
I don't think it's him saying that teaching them about responsible sex will result in them seeking out to become rape victims, but rather that he pretty much considers any sex outside of marriage as illegal.
I don't really feel the necessity often to point out to a lawyer the difference between morality and legality...
But then I don't know Wisconsin state law regarding age of consent. If they're teaching proper sexual responsibility like condoms and stuff before their age of consent, then they are potentially encouraging children to violate the law.
Yeah...get back to me when you manage to bruteforce a 128-bit AES key on your GPU farm. Only then can you claim that "Encryption is far behind the current power of hardware these days."
They kind of said the same thing about DES encryption, until the EFF made a custom built hardware decryptor.
As always, it's a bit of a balancing game... we continue to measure effectiveness of an algorithm against general purpose machines, rather than special purpose.
I'm not saying he is right, or that you're right (but more likely you) but rather the picture is a bit more fuzzy... in fact, if it weren't fuzzy, then the encryption technology would be so well understood that there would be better attacks upon it.
Right, but not prosecuting a criminal because it might leak national security information has hardly ever been the prerogative of this government. The military could have had a closed court martial, tried the individuals for breaking engagement rules, and lying to cover up the information, all without exposing any national security.
The government instead decided to push facts into the media that do not conform to the video presented, and now we know what they did.
If a government does not want to compromise their national security on video tapes or documents, then they should not commit crimes or fraud based on those same.
Behold my lord! We have crafted for you the finest lie of the lands.
Ah, but it's a magical lie, my lord. Only the smartest of people can see it! It is invisible to the low and stupid peasants.
You're crazy... I totally see the clothes.. and so would you, if you weren't stupid. :P
"If you're doing something you don't want people to know about - STOP DOING IT!"
I don't know how many times I've been criticized for pointing out that gmail TOS do not include anonymity - the government can just ask and google will roll over on you - it's nice to see others finally "getting it."
First rule my dad ever told me about doing anything wrong: "Don't tell anyone about it."
Of course, he had to get a security clearance eventually, and they found out he had had 5 affairs, and they told him that he had to tell my mom, so he couldn't be a blackmail target...
But seriously, a reasonable number of criminals get caught because they were bragging about their crimes.
Al Sharpton on The Colbert Report just yesterday noted that he was one of thousands in the same conditions, and that even though he was able to rise above it, the majority of the people he knew growing up are dead or in prison.
Just because you have an example of 1% that make it through, or make it out, does not mean that they did anything special necessarily even, and the average for all of them is that life sucks, and it is not entirely their fault. In a society where 99 out of every 100 that are in their situation fail to have an opportunity to succeed, that makes it 1% their fault.
Look at the Worlds Strongest Man competition... look at everything they can accomplish. The fact that you cannot is an indication that you're lazy, and incapable. ... That logic doesn't sound right, and neither should "look, this one person got out of the ghetto, so the fact that you're still here means you're lazy and incapable."
Some people can push harder than others.
Sure you can. Most well-written NDAs have a clause explicitly to allow the judge to issue a gag order, escalating the infraction from civil to criminal.
** USA ONLY **
"Prior restraint" as it is called is generally viewed as incompatible with the right to free speech. As such, Near vs Minnesota, sets the basic standards of what can or cannot be restrained prior to being "spoken". And that restriction is essentially nothing less than national security.
Later, the US attempted to stop top-secret documents that were being published by the New York Times under the claim of national security, but in a 6-3 decision it was upheld that even a claim of "national security" itself was not sufficient to grant prior restraint. And that stopping someone from saying something prior to them saying it is fundamentally antithetical to freedom of speech. (Note: In the USA).
Gag orders on criminal court cases typically really only hold against the police and prosecutors, for whom such a restraint is one of the least restrictive conditions that they have to work with.
Courts have already held that anything that happens in "open court" can be spoken about freely. This is why, when a fair trial need be ensured for the defendant (against the media, or other members of the public), that it is done in "closed court".
As gag orders in criminal cases are to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial, the defendant is really under no obligation to follow a gag order, as they could theoretically forfeit their right to a fair trial pretty much at any point. And seriously, who is going to be stupid enough to threaten their fair trial by blabbing about the details of the case to the press? Ok, the defendant's lawyer... which is why he is ethically bound to follow a gag order from the court.
In civil cases, again, if in open court, they cannot have a gag order. This is why NDAs have mediation clauses. One can hold a mediator to "confidentiality", while an open court case could not.
Now, hypothetically, even if someone were somehow to get an NDA civil case in closed court, and were somehow granted a gag order... the infraction would be "contempt of court" and would have an infinitesimally small chance that it could be a criminal contempt of court. So, at worse, one could be imprisoned only as long as one refuses to submit to the gag order. And it would be the opposing party who would be responsible for enforcing such an order in the first place.
Here is the Gold Standard in the USA regarding stopping people from saying something: you cannot prevent someone from saying something before the speech act is done, unless: a) you are the government, and b) there is a true threat of national security. The only way to restrict someone's speech ahead of the fact otherwise is if the someone willingly complies.
None of this at all removes any of the responsibility for having said it.
Example: I make a defamatory claim about a person. Person sues me for damages, I continue to make defamatory claims about them, they seek an injunction to stop me from saying anything, the judge slaps the lawyer around for trying to get him to issue a prior restraint injunction... I've seen it happen in court. The judge explicitly said, "you have a good defamation claim here, pursue that, but I can't make them stop." Then turned to the defendant and said, "I can't make you stop, but you will still be held responsible for everything that you're saying here. Your lawyer should be able to explain to you how it would be in your best interests to stop."
Because they're villains.
While I disagree with your blanket application in this statement, it is essentially a personal opinion.
I personally think that the majority of cops are just trying to do their job. Unfortunately, cops don't always correctly understand the law that they are applying, (and really we're all retards about the law in some way.)
I think the biggest difference is that I'm less fearful about an individual cop causing trouble, because I understand most of my rights, and I am assertive about respecting them.
I believe that a lot of abuse from cops happens because people kind of allow the cops to do things that they shouldn't be allowed to do. I witnessed a couple pulled over right outside of our window, with a cop harassing them. Eventually, the cop found drugs in their van, but these people were arguing with him the whole time... DUDE! Just shut up, and tell him he may not search any of your property.
I was talking about how I really wished I was able to practice law, because I would have walked down and helped them protect their rights. *shrug* Such is life sometimes... we watch people let the police walk all over them.
Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom from responsibility - it protects not only the act of speaking, but from being punished for it.
The thing is, freedom of speech is selective; it's purpose is to protect political (or artistic) speech, but it is limited in other cases, like libel or in this case, it might be protected by Personality Rights.
The problem is that it has already been established by case law that the government cannot prevent even defamatory speech from being made. Freedom of Speech grants us the inalienable right to say whatever the hell we want to... but it only protects certain forms of speech from responsibility.
Defamation of a public figure isn't an actionable case in law because of the First Amendment, it is protected by the fact that they do not have an valid expectation of privacy.
The difference is, as I noted below, you cannot legally stop someone from saying defamatory things about you. You can continue to compound damages against them, but you can't stop them from saying anything at all... even defamatory speech.
Wrong. Freedom of speech is freedom from responsibility - it protects not only the act of speaking, but from being punished for it.
The thing is, freedom of speech is selective; it's purpose is to protect political (or artistic) speech, but it is limited in other cases, like libel or in this case, it might be protected by Personality Rights.
No, it protects you from being punished by the government, there are countless reasons one can be successfully punished in civil court for something that is clearly "protected speech"
You are free to disseminate trade secrets of a corporation you worked for, but they are free to sue the living shit out of you for it.
Quite true. Freedom of Speech actually cannot be restrained prior to the speech actually being made. All forms of speech may be made without any ability to make it immediately illegal to make it. For instance, any law, or protection order saying "you must not say anything bad about anyone" would immediately hit into trouble with first amendment rights.
Basically, you can sue someone for libel/slander once they open their mouth and say whatever they want, but you cannot get a court order or law telling them to shut up, or stop saying it... of course one would continue to compound their damages by continuing to make defamatory statements, but again, you cannot get them to shut up.
From what I was reading above (but not from TFA), the family understood that they cannot censor the distribution of the pictures, however they can reasonably expect the initial individuals who took and distributed the pictures to pay them damages for causing immense distress.
So, I'd have to say that on several fronts, your argument about netbooks fails. Care to demonstrate what your "average" netbook looks like? Perhaps you'd also like to tell me how much it weighs, and what its actual battery life is like?
I think he's mistaking Netbooks for what he wishes the Apple iPad were.
The authorities have made it plain by their actions that there's no way to get justice and stay alive. This is just going to make suicide look like a more attractive option to targets of bullying.
The problem also runs deeper than the conduct of the high school authorities. What are the odds that the conscienceless perpetrators didn't present any warning signs in grade school and middle school?
A mother in one state used her son's suicide to petition the legislature to pass a bill that requires teacher and administrator intervention in bullying. She wanted to ensure that other students had ways to get justice and intervention without having to resort to suicide or--as mentioned below--homicide.
Statutory rape is one of the most bullshit legal inventions ever. It's prosecuting someone for doing something personal that both people chose to do.
Like, prostitution, drug use, and a whole host of other moral laws?
People acting like assholes happens for actual reasons. Don't wave away the effort of figuring it out. That will just make you less able to cope.
I think one of the biggest things to realize about this situation is that there is a component of social mania/"hysteria" going on here. Everyone fed upon everyone else. "Oh, everyone is doing X, so, let's try doing X+1..." Or "I got away with doing X, so let's try X+1".
It's relatively easy for a social group to exploit emotional influences to whip themselves up into a group performing evil actions. This is similar to the group think that led to the holocaust by the Nazis, just on a very much smaller scale.
In some states, the legislative wording is so broad that masturbating under the age of 18 is "sex involving a minor." Of course, that would mean the whole state could go to jail and be forever listed as sex offenders. Maybe Justice is blind because it beat-off too much.
I find it hard to believe that masturbation would ever qualify as criminal "sex involving a minor". And I believe you're engaging in hyperbole.
Even if it were, and a minor were sent to juvie for this, it would easily be overturned on appeal under a similar argument to the one that got sodomy removed from all state law books.
He addressed that too. Unless you were married, you weren't going to have sex with a hot scientologist. And yes, he even tried to use the loophole that it didn't say married to each other.
Only if you're part of Sea Org. If you haven't signed the billion year contract yet, then you're not bound to this requirement.
I looked at the Wikipedia article. It said that the goal wasn't to conceal the existence of a ship, but to obscure what direction it was going in and where the mast was. I think this trick would probably work equally well regardless of whether or not the observer is color blind.
I would think camouflage worked for colorblind as well, but apparently my gut feelings are wrong...
So, I didn't want to make assumptions.
So, I found some color paintings of these. You do realize these boats look weird and confusing to color blind people, too, right?
It's not that we can't see colors. We just see them differently.
Oh, I know you can see them, and that they look weird and confusing to you as well.
I never said that it wouldn't make it look weird and confusing either. I said: "You perhaps won't be able to appreciate much of the colors".
I'm not color-blind, and did not want to make any definitive statements about if you would or could.
But the fact remains that color blindness is a disability, even though it is a lesser disability than most.
You're an idiot. When someone registers statistically perfect scores on entrance exams and is then told that due to colorblindness they can only work in data entry, it is a disability.
When someone is completely removed from any opportunity in biology or area research, it is a disability.
We don't all aspire to be hip-hop thugs.
I learned sign-language from a deaf-from-birth friend. He did not see deafness as a disability.
Likewise, each individual person needs to make an individual choice about this matter. For some it is a profound disability, and for others it is no big deal.
Welcome to the world of "the patient must provide consent to treatment."