Don't forget that they will very likely be tried as adults because they were fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions for something that is only illegal because they are NOT capable of doing exactly that.
That's not why child porn is illegal. It can't be.
Consider: I'm (significantly) over 18 years of age, so the law assumes I understand the consequences of my actions. That includes knowing the consequences of distributing pornographic images of myself, which I have the legal right to do.
Hypothetically, let's say that before I turned 18 and instantly became aware of the consequences of my actions, I took some photographs of myself masturbating, but never distributed them. It would be patently illegal for me to distribute (or even possess them) them now, despite my being well over the age of majority, because it would be child pornography.
If the child porn laws were merely about protecting those who don't understand the consequences of their actions, it would be legal for me to distribute those photos at the present time, because I am deemed (at present), to understand the consequences of my actions, and am in no need of such protection.
Possibly Massachusetts law is incompatible with the US Constitution in this regard. I am inclined to believe it is.
What in the world makes you think there is a Constitutional issue here?
The First Amendment only deals with prior restraint, not damages caused by the tort of defamation. It is 100% legal in the US for me to go around defaming people all day long. To legislate away that right would be blatantly unconstitutional.
What the First Amendment does not grant me is the right to inflict damages through speech with impunity. If I were to say, "XLawyer is a shitty lawyer who doesn't know jack shit about the US Constitution," that would be defamatory speech (per se, as I would have impugned your professional fitness), and you would be able to pursue me for the damages you suffered based on my statements.
That's all that is happening here. Staples has every right to publish whatever they want (see US Constitution, Amendment I). They do, however, need to be prepared to make whole the parties that they damage in the process.
I don't know about general social mores in the US, and perhaps calling people Sir is something that everyone does
I think you're reading too much into this "Sir" thing. In the US, anyhow, what is meant by using "Sir" is an acknowledgment of authority, and a demonstration of respect for that authority, nothing more. And like it or not, a police officer acting within his jurisdiction is an authority. The use of "Sir" is much more common in the southern parts of the US, than in the northern parts.
That being said, I come from the north, and live in the south, so I am not used to saying "Sir" to anybody. I have never said "Sir" to a police officer, and that has never caused me any problem.
You can think of "Sir" as a synonym for "officer", or a simple acknowledgment of title. It is certainly not meant to be, nor would it be taken as, groveling.
I enjoy the internet, sometimes it lets me see how much better my own country is than others in various things, (the opposite too).
Seriously, stay off the Internet then. The last thing an Australian needs is a bigger ego.
If I want a reliable open source database for a serious project, I'd go for PostgreSQL in a heartbeat.
It's funny that you say that. I would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL for any high-availability application because of Postgres's piggish refusal to include replication and clustering as part of the package.
I find it hilarious that when MySQL developers pig-headedly refused to include transactions in the database saying that was an application-level problem, the PostgreSQL community cried loud and shrill foul. Hilarious, because now I believe that the PostgreSQL developers are eating crow for taking the same attitude toward replication and clustering. I could never use Postgres in a production system because there is no high-availability solution.
And, no, I'm sorry, but Slony is not replication--it's an ugly hack misusing triggers. And pgpool is not clustering, considering I can't even add a node to the cluster without locking out all database clients. I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable.
MySQL has really figured out the high-availability thing, as far as open-source databases go. You should read about their clustering solution sometime.
It sounds like you've heard from these people before, and they backed down after you refused to comply with their request. This is probably due to their lack to desire to pursue a claim against you all the way in The Netherlands.
Unfortunately, past performance says nothing about the future. I am not a lawyer, but according to US copyright law, I don't see how this could be construed as a fair use. Consult an attorney or decide for yourself.
I am, however, a landlord, so I am familiar with the thinking that goes into whether or not to pursue action in court. Some questions to ask yourself:
How much damage are you causing them by posting so many questions from the test? It could be significant, as knowing the questions ahead of time could invalidate the test.
How many assets do you have? If you are "collectible" (i.e. the claimant could collect a judgment against you), they are more likely to pursue you because you'll be paying their costs.
How much would it cost for them to pursue you in The Netherlands? Personally, I have no idea. But if the cost is prohibitive, they could decide to just let the matter rest again (for a while, anyway).
So, is it worth it for them to pursue you?
So far, all they've done is had an in-house lawyer send you a notice at a cost of a first-class letter. Hardly a commitment of resources. But if you're costing them a lot of money, I would not expect this matter to just "go away", and from a fair use perspective, I think you have an exceptionally weak defense.
It's "Unclear" whether or not the copyright holder would pursue a claim against an unauthorized publisher in The Netherlands. My uneducated guess is that the copyright holder "Might" give up after sending a few notices.
Umm.. Isn't the entire idea of RAID that if a disk fails in your array, it does not cause catastrophic failure?
Every time I've ever had a disk failure, I find out about it in an email, and think to myself, "Hmmm... really should get to the store soon to buy a new HD, eh?..."
Certainly never had to wipe an array as a result of one measly disk failure. A single disk failure should never be an emergency.
I definitely agree that your best shot at extras is in the seedier places. But I don't really like going to the seedier places. Personal preference.
Regarding the girls playing their cards close to their chests (no pun intended, I'm sure), that's precisely what the above technique was meant to address (I didn't invent the technique, by the way). These girls are masters in the art of implying that they're going to give you waaay more than they actually intend to give. They string and string you along until your wallet is empty and then they leave for the next customer. Thanks, but no thanks.
Using the above technique, you get your answer in 5 minutes, and for $25. That is a wise investment. The last thing you want to do is plunk down some major cash for VIP, only to find out all she's willing to do is give you a few floor dances in the VIP room.
In my experience, people who touch the girls are usually man-handled by the bouncer and thrown out on their asses.
Have you ever actually witnessed this? Or do you simply watch too much television?
I have never seen anyone roughed up by a bouncer at a strip club, and I've been to a lot of clubs. The worst that has ever happened to me using the above technique was the girl telling me I wasn't to touch her there. Like I said above, I consider this a positive outcome. I wasn't paying her $25 to touch her boobies. I was paying $25 to see if she will do real extras, and I got my answer.
Tapping phone lines, cross-referencing numbers, wiring up hotel rooms, clogging up court dockets, etc. Don't get me wrong--it does happen from time to time--but that's an awful use of police resources, and the cops know it. When the do do it, it's just for show.
How satisfying is it for the cop to set up an elaborate and costly sting operation to catch a provider, and have her walk away with probation or a few days of community service? Or catch a client, only to have the DA decline to prosecute, because the clients are hardly ever prosecuted?
In the end, I don't think it would be very effective at all. In my city, the vice squad regularly patrols the streets making arrests. But yet the "commerce" continues.
Though most prostitutes that aren't complete crack ho skanks with AIDS (i.e. the kind of girl you'd ask out on a normal date) cost more than dinner at the fucking Olive Garden
I think if you give serious consideration to all costs involved and run the numbers, you'll find that prostitutes compare favorably with traditional relationships in terms of cost.
Try keeping track of it sometime, how much you spend on a girl before she'll have sex with you. And compare that with the cost of an attractive prostitute ($150-$250).
Even funnier is if you keep track of it over time. My wife and I have what I consider to be a healthy sex life, but if I had to add up everything being in the relationship cost me (including kids) and divide that by the number of times we have had sex, the result would definitely suggest that hiring prostitutes instead of getting married would have been a sound financial decision.
Remember, if it flies, floats, or fornicates, rent, don't buy. It's cheaper in the long run.
I think consensual sexual relationships can be prostitution, but I don't think it's necessarily so. FWIW, I think actual prostitution should be legal, so this isn't any squeamishness on my part talking.
I would not, for instance, consider my relationship with my wife to be prostitution. We both work and provide for the family, we both share in the household chores. When we have sex, it's generally for the purpose of mutual satisfaction.
If you think that's prostitution, then I think you are defining the term too broadly.
I think that like many areas of life, different locations have different local customs.
I have no doubt that your dancer friends and girlfriends have the most rigid moral compasses, but please let me assure you that the situation you described does not apply universally. I've gone to upscale clubs (and I can name them if you care) where sex acts not only occur, they are solicited by the dancers, themselves. I've never had sex with a dancer on-premises, but that assumes a very Bill Clintonesque definition of "sex".
There are very simple and inexpensive techniques to determine which girls follow the rules and which ones offer extras. Don't believe me? Try this:
Visit a city where you know you at least have a prayer. There are some cities with zealous enforcement, and you shouldn't waste your money there.
Visit a club where you know they turn at least a somewhat-blind-eye to extras. I'm not talking about sleazy, dive clubs, either (although you're right, you are more likely to have success there). There are plenty of upscale (read: hot chicks) establishments where extras are to be had. This information is simple to obtain in the age of the Internet.
If you know the name of a dancer who gives extras, by all means request her. But if not, pick any dancer you find attractive. (Don't bother waiting for the dancers to come to you. It's a waste of your time.)
Chat her up a bit and see if she talks dirty.
Assuming she does, purchase a public-area dance from her (cost should be around $20+$5 tip).
When she's grinding on you, "in the heat of the moment" caress her breasts and note her reaction. It will generally be one of 3 possibilities: a) she backs you off... I consider this a successful encounter, because you know not to waste any more money on her, and it only cost you $25 for that information. send her packing. b) she solicits you... Also a successful encounter, because you now know the "menu", or c) no reaction... this is a moderately successful outcome... you at least know she doesn't have much respect for the rules, but you don't really know how far she'll go
If she didn't react to the previous step, you need to go for the pussy. Again, don't manhandle her, start your hand on her thigh and nicely, but confidently go for it. At this point she is pretty much going to have to react with a "not gonna happen", or a "you need to purchase a private dance to do that".
Before you purchase that private dance, know what you want (to "take her temperature"?, for her to get you off?, oral?) and negotiate it before you buy that VIP dance. Don't take her vague implications for answers, either. This is a business transaction, and you deserve to know what you are contracting for. Also, don't be afraid to negotiate. Ask her to for a discount or, at the very least, to comp the floor dance. Hey, it's a tough economy out there!
As I'm sure you know, these girls are experts at implying, suggesting, and taunting you with things they have no intention of delivering. The above technique cuts right through the hustle without wasting unnecessary time or money. It's better for the girl too, because it saves her the aggravation of spending any more time with a creepy guy like me.
The difference being that if you actually touch the strippers, those large-muscled guys at the door will promptly come over and kick the living shit out of you.
You watch waaaaay too much TV.
I have touched strippers, and have never had any interference from any bouncer. And I'm not talking about touching her elbow, either. The worst I've ever had happen to me was to have the girl tell me that if I wanted to (ahem) take her temperature, I would need to purchase a private dance.
It helps to know before you go which clubs offer "extras". God bless the internets.
It's like any other commodity, there's competetion. Ugly girls can't cut it as hookers.
I don't think that could ever possibly be a true statement because different guys prefer different physical attributes.
Case in point: there are plenty of BBW hookers who do a good business. But personally, I like skinny women, and think obese women are hideously ugly. It would be easy for me to look at the BBW hookers and ask, "How do you ever get a customer? I would not have sex with you if YOU paid ME!" But some men like their women super-sized.
On the other hand, I've never seen the infamous Snake; but while I do not have a preference for flat-chested women, it is also not a deal-breaker for me. I could see how being flat-chested would make business kinda slow for her, though.
I think for a lot of guys, half the thrill is "buying" the woman, so her level of attractiveness is not as important as it would be otherwise.
Yeah, this is something that's really confused the heck out of me. I agree that the US needs more immigration (our birthrate is really low), so why not make our immigration laws more favorable to more productive, college-educated foreigners? You know, the ones that some other country paid to educate while we reap the benefits?
Instead, we want to open up our borders to Mexican peasants. This does not make a great deal of sense to me.
Yes but would you reject a tenant simply because you saw a picture on the internet with them drinking?
I do not currently google applicants, so the point is moot. But if I did, it would depend on the context. If the picture had a caption that implied that the applicant threw a recent, wild, destructive party in a rental property then yes, I would reject.
Or perhaps a picture of them drinking in college 10 years ago?
No, I don't care of an applicant has a 10 year old bankruptcy. I really don't care about a 10 year old photo. People change a lot in 10 years.
Rejecting someone with alcohol on their breath is quite a bit more valid than the other.
From a legal perspective, you are mistaken. When I reject everyone whom I suspect is an alcoholic, that is deliberate discrimination on my part against the disabled. As I pointed out before, I do discriminate that way, and if I were caught, I could be subject to serious consequences. Naturally, I cover my bases by failing the application for some alternative, legal reason.
On the other hand, rejecting someone because I don't like a photo I saw of them is perfectly legal. The unphotogenic are not a protected class.
Have you ever applied for a job, been rejected, and called back to politely ask for any feedback they'd be comfortable sharing, that would help you in your job search?
I used to do that (now I own the company, so there isn't much point), and I received a ton of valuable feedback. I do not exaggerate when I assert that my best ever job interview was one in which I was not hired. The interviewer gave me invaluable feedback that I used for years of successful interviewing.
Try it sometime. I think you'll find that employers are way more candid than you'd expect. I'm pretty candid with folks who bother to ask.
For a number of classes of people ( genders, ethnic groups, etc ) the mere act of not having the right number of people of a certain class can be construed as proof that there was discrimination.
As a landlord, I am extremely familiar with the Federal Fair Housing Act. Assuming that other anti-discrimination laws work the same way, I think you are misreading the law.
Lack of representation of certain protected class members is not illegal, but it could be considered as evidence of illegal discrimination. But you aren't going to get any court verdicts based on that, alone.
So, someday, after you have posted a picture of yourself butt-naked sharing a twelve-pack with your buddies outside the local convent, and you remain unemployed, you will be able to sue. All you will have to show is that X percent of the population does such things,
This betrays a lack of understanding of the law. Read first, speak second. Protected classes are enumerated specifically, and I am not aware of any anti-discrimination law that protects irresponsible behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
that refusing instruction results in more attention and becomes a fun game, the toddler training the adult rather than the adult training the toddler.
I bet you can't put on your jacket by the time I count to 5.
(I can make games, too.... the ones I make are less likely to piss me off...)
Don't forget that they will very likely be tried as adults because they were fully capable of understanding the nature and consequences of their actions for something that is only illegal because they are NOT capable of doing exactly that.
That's not why child porn is illegal. It can't be.
Consider: I'm (significantly) over 18 years of age, so the law assumes I understand the consequences of my actions. That includes knowing the consequences of distributing pornographic images of myself, which I have the legal right to do.
Hypothetically, let's say that before I turned 18 and instantly became aware of the consequences of my actions, I took some photographs of myself masturbating, but never distributed them. It would be patently illegal for me to distribute (or even possess them) them now, despite my being well over the age of majority, because it would be child pornography.
If the child porn laws were merely about protecting those who don't understand the consequences of their actions, it would be legal for me to distribute those photos at the present time, because I am deemed (at present), to understand the consequences of my actions, and am in no need of such protection.
No, the key point is that the legal principle that truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel is under attack in Massachusetts.
Under attack? The law in question was from 1902.
Possibly Massachusetts law is incompatible with the US Constitution in this regard. I am inclined to believe it is.
What in the world makes you think there is a Constitutional issue here?
The First Amendment only deals with prior restraint, not damages caused by the tort of defamation. It is 100% legal in the US for me to go around defaming people all day long. To legislate away that right would be blatantly unconstitutional.
What the First Amendment does not grant me is the right to inflict damages through speech with impunity. If I were to say, "XLawyer is a shitty lawyer who doesn't know jack shit about the US Constitution," that would be defamatory speech (per se, as I would have impugned your professional fitness), and you would be able to pursue me for the damages you suffered based on my statements.
That's all that is happening here. Staples has every right to publish whatever they want (see US Constitution, Amendment I). They do, however, need to be prepared to make whole the parties that they damage in the process.
I don't know about general social mores in the US, and perhaps calling people Sir is something that everyone does
I think you're reading too much into this "Sir" thing. In the US, anyhow, what is meant by using "Sir" is an acknowledgment of authority, and a demonstration of respect for that authority, nothing more. And like it or not, a police officer acting within his jurisdiction is an authority. The use of "Sir" is much more common in the southern parts of the US, than in the northern parts.
That being said, I come from the north, and live in the south, so I am not used to saying "Sir" to anybody. I have never said "Sir" to a police officer, and that has never caused me any problem.
You can think of "Sir" as a synonym for "officer", or a simple acknowledgment of title. It is certainly not meant to be, nor would it be taken as, groveling.
I enjoy the internet, sometimes it lets me see how much better my own country is than others in various things, (the opposite too).
Seriously, stay off the Internet then. The last thing an Australian needs is a bigger ego.
If I want a reliable open source database for a serious project, I'd go for PostgreSQL in a heartbeat.
It's funny that you say that. I would choose MySQL over PostgreSQL for any high-availability application because of Postgres's piggish refusal to include replication and clustering as part of the package.
I find it hilarious that when MySQL developers pig-headedly refused to include transactions in the database saying that was an application-level problem, the PostgreSQL community cried loud and shrill foul. Hilarious, because now I believe that the PostgreSQL developers are eating crow for taking the same attitude toward replication and clustering. I could never use Postgres in a production system because there is no high-availability solution.
And, no, I'm sorry, but Slony is not replication--it's an ugly hack misusing triggers. And pgpool is not clustering, considering I can't even add a node to the cluster without locking out all database clients. I'm sorry, but that is not acceptable.
MySQL has really figured out the high-availability thing, as far as open-source databases go. You should read about their clustering solution sometime.
It sounds like you've heard from these people before, and they backed down after you refused to comply with their request. This is probably due to their lack to desire to pursue a claim against you all the way in The Netherlands.
Unfortunately, past performance says nothing about the future. I am not a lawyer, but according to US copyright law, I don't see how this could be construed as a fair use. Consult an attorney or decide for yourself.
I am, however, a landlord, so I am familiar with the thinking that goes into whether or not to pursue action in court. Some questions to ask yourself:
So, is it worth it for them to pursue you?
So far, all they've done is had an in-house lawyer send you a notice at a cost of a first-class letter. Hardly a commitment of resources. But if you're costing them a lot of money, I would not expect this matter to just "go away", and from a fair use perspective, I think you have an exceptionally weak defense.
I think there's one more factor at play here:
It's "Unclear" whether or not the copyright holder would pursue a claim against an unauthorized publisher in The Netherlands. My uneducated guess is that the copyright holder "Might" give up after sending a few notices.
Apparently there is a tech at Capital One that reads slashdot.
Umm.. Isn't the entire idea of RAID that if a disk fails in your array, it does not cause catastrophic failure?
Every time I've ever had a disk failure, I find out about it in an email, and think to myself, "Hmmm... really should get to the store soon to buy a new HD, eh? ..."
Certainly never had to wipe an array as a result of one measly disk failure. A single disk failure should never be an emergency.
I definitely agree that your best shot at extras is in the seedier places. But I don't really like going to the seedier places. Personal preference.
Regarding the girls playing their cards close to their chests (no pun intended, I'm sure), that's precisely what the above technique was meant to address (I didn't invent the technique, by the way). These girls are masters in the art of implying that they're going to give you waaay more than they actually intend to give. They string and string you along until your wallet is empty and then they leave for the next customer. Thanks, but no thanks.
Using the above technique, you get your answer in 5 minutes, and for $25. That is a wise investment. The last thing you want to do is plunk down some major cash for VIP, only to find out all she's willing to do is give you a few floor dances in the VIP room.
In my experience, people who touch the girls are usually man-handled by the bouncer and thrown out on their asses.
Have you ever actually witnessed this? Or do you simply watch too much television?
I have never seen anyone roughed up by a bouncer at a strip club, and I've been to a lot of clubs. The worst that has ever happened to me using the above technique was the girl telling me I wasn't to touch her there. Like I said above, I consider this a positive outcome. I wasn't paying her $25 to touch her boobies. I was paying $25 to see if she will do real extras, and I got my answer.
Tapping phone lines, cross-referencing numbers, wiring up hotel rooms, clogging up court dockets, etc. Don't get me wrong--it does happen from time to time--but that's an awful use of police resources, and the cops know it. When the do do it, it's just for show.
How satisfying is it for the cop to set up an elaborate and costly sting operation to catch a provider, and have her walk away with probation or a few days of community service? Or catch a client, only to have the DA decline to prosecute, because the clients are hardly ever prosecuted?
In the end, I don't think it would be very effective at all. In my city, the vice squad regularly patrols the streets making arrests. But yet the "commerce" continues.
Though most prostitutes that aren't complete crack ho skanks with AIDS (i.e. the kind of girl you'd ask out on a normal date) cost more than dinner at the fucking Olive Garden
I think if you give serious consideration to all costs involved and run the numbers, you'll find that prostitutes compare favorably with traditional relationships in terms of cost.
Try keeping track of it sometime, how much you spend on a girl before she'll have sex with you. And compare that with the cost of an attractive prostitute ($150-$250).
Even funnier is if you keep track of it over time. My wife and I have what I consider to be a healthy sex life, but if I had to add up everything being in the relationship cost me (including kids) and divide that by the number of times we have had sex, the result would definitely suggest that hiring prostitutes instead of getting married would have been a sound financial decision.
Remember, if it flies, floats, or fornicates, rent, don't buy. It's cheaper in the long run.
I think consensual sexual relationships can be prostitution, but I don't think it's necessarily so. FWIW, I think actual prostitution should be legal, so this isn't any squeamishness on my part talking.
I would not, for instance, consider my relationship with my wife to be prostitution. We both work and provide for the family, we both share in the household chores. When we have sex, it's generally for the purpose of mutual satisfaction.
If you think that's prostitution, then I think you are defining the term too broadly.
I think that like many areas of life, different locations have different local customs.
I have no doubt that your dancer friends and girlfriends have the most rigid moral compasses, but please let me assure you that the situation you described does not apply universally. I've gone to upscale clubs (and I can name them if you care) where sex acts not only occur, they are solicited by the dancers, themselves. I've never had sex with a dancer on-premises, but that assumes a very Bill Clintonesque definition of "sex".
There are very simple and inexpensive techniques to determine which girls follow the rules and which ones offer extras. Don't believe me? Try this:
As I'm sure you know, these girls are experts at implying, suggesting, and taunting you with things they have no intention of delivering. The above technique cuts right through the hustle without wasting unnecessary time or money. It's better for the girl too, because it saves her the aggravation of spending any more time with a creepy guy like me.
The difference being that if you actually touch the strippers, those large-muscled guys at the door will promptly come over and kick the living shit out of you.
You watch waaaaay too much TV.
I have touched strippers, and have never had any interference from any bouncer. And I'm not talking about touching her elbow, either. The worst I've ever had happen to me was to have the girl tell me that if I wanted to (ahem) take her temperature, I would need to purchase a private dance.
It helps to know before you go which clubs offer "extras". God bless the internets.
It's like any other commodity, there's competetion. Ugly girls can't cut it as hookers.
I don't think that could ever possibly be a true statement because different guys prefer different physical attributes.
Case in point: there are plenty of BBW hookers who do a good business. But personally, I like skinny women, and think obese women are hideously ugly. It would be easy for me to look at the BBW hookers and ask, "How do you ever get a customer? I would not have sex with you if YOU paid ME!" But some men like their women super-sized.
On the other hand, I've never seen the infamous Snake; but while I do not have a preference for flat-chested women, it is also not a deal-breaker for me. I could see how being flat-chested would make business kinda slow for her, though.
I think for a lot of guys, half the thrill is "buying" the woman, so her level of attractiveness is not as important as it would be otherwise.
Yeah, this is something that's really confused the heck out of me. I agree that the US needs more immigration (our birthrate is really low), so why not make our immigration laws more favorable to more productive, college-educated foreigners? You know, the ones that some other country paid to educate while we reap the benefits?
Instead, we want to open up our borders to Mexican peasants. This does not make a great deal of sense to me.
If you ask those questions to reference you'll open yourself to a really easy lawsuit.
There is a big difference between opening yourself up to a lawsuit and something being illegal. This is slashdot, so here is your Car Analogy(TM):
When you drive your car, you open yourself up to a really easy lawsuit if you cause damage. But driving your car is perfectly legal.
The same goes for speech. When you speak, you open yourself up to a really easy lawsuit if you cause damage. But speaking is perfectly legal.
Yes but would you reject a tenant simply because you saw a picture on the internet with them drinking?
I do not currently google applicants, so the point is moot. But if I did, it would depend on the context. If the picture had a caption that implied that the applicant threw a recent, wild, destructive party in a rental property then yes, I would reject.
Or perhaps a picture of them drinking in college 10 years ago?
No, I don't care of an applicant has a 10 year old bankruptcy. I really don't care about a 10 year old photo. People change a lot in 10 years.
Rejecting someone with alcohol on their breath is quite a bit more valid than the other.
From a legal perspective, you are mistaken. When I reject everyone whom I suspect is an alcoholic, that is deliberate discrimination on my part against the disabled. As I pointed out before, I do discriminate that way, and if I were caught, I could be subject to serious consequences. Naturally, I cover my bases by failing the application for some alternative, legal reason.
On the other hand, rejecting someone because I don't like a photo I saw of them is perfectly legal. The unphotogenic are not a protected class.
Have you ever applied for a job, been rejected, and called back to politely ask for any feedback they'd be comfortable sharing, that would help you in your job search?
I used to do that (now I own the company, so there isn't much point), and I received a ton of valuable feedback. I do not exaggerate when I assert that my best ever job interview was one in which I was not hired. The interviewer gave me invaluable feedback that I used for years of successful interviewing.
Try it sometime. I think you'll find that employers are way more candid than you'd expect. I'm pretty candid with folks who bother to ask.
Yes, but there are firm legal limits on questions you can ask references.
False.
See United States Constitution, Amendment 1.
For example, an employer might discriminate against people with tattoos which might then in turn mean less people who drink on the weekend.
Suing for discrimination agains that would be perfectly valid,
False.
The tattooed are not a protected class. Discriminate away.
For a number of classes of people ( genders, ethnic groups, etc ) the mere act of not having the right number of people of a certain class can be construed as proof that there was discrimination.
As a landlord, I am extremely familiar with the Federal Fair Housing Act. Assuming that other anti-discrimination laws work the same way, I think you are misreading the law.
Lack of representation of certain protected class members is not illegal, but it could be considered as evidence of illegal discrimination. But you aren't going to get any court verdicts based on that, alone.
So, someday, after you have posted a picture of yourself butt-naked sharing a twelve-pack with your buddies outside the local convent, and you remain unemployed, you will be able to sue. All you will have to show is that X percent of the population does such things,
This betrays a lack of understanding of the law. Read first, speak second. Protected classes are enumerated specifically, and I am not aware of any anti-discrimination law that protects irresponsible behavior.