Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the here-we-go-again dept
Another week, another fantastic batch of comments. The winner voted "most insightful" (by a wide margin) was the comment from Chris Rhodes in response to Philly police harassing a guy legally carrying a gun, and then having him charged with "disorderly conduct." Rhodes responds to the claim that the guy "set up" the police by carrying a gun and recording the conversation:I also like the claims by police that he "set them up."Coming in second (again by a wide margin over number three) was a comment from Marcus Carab in response to the claims by police (in a different article than the one Chris responded to above) that the public shouldn't be able to record them, because it would create "chilling effects" on the police. Carab points out what this really means:
Yep, he knew that the police would be completely ignorant of the law and purposefully set himself up to almost get shot by Officer Jackass with a chip on his shoulder. Clearly
This seems like a confession that the standards for becoming a police officer are too low. "We simply can't guarantee that all of our officers have enough training and self-control to confidently do their job when there is any level of scrutiny."For editor's choice, the first one is from an Anonymous Coward, who was part of the same discussion that Marcus' comment came from, concerning recording police. One commenter had argued that it was unfair to police to record them because it might be edited to show the police in "the worst-possible light." In response, the commenter here pointed out how that makes no sense:
So then it's unfair to put a criminal in jail for robbing a bank because you are putting him in jail for his actions committed during his worst possible light. The footage of him robbing the bank is selective in nature, you are selecting the moments of his life that portray the bank robber in the worst possible light. You are not considering the other aspects of the bank robbers life.Finally, on the insightful side, of the ledger, we have this wonderful comment from jjmsan concerning the post about Jonathan Coulton. In discussing successful business models, we're often told that the success stories we show are really "exceptions" rather than any sort of accurate rule to build on. But this comment pointed out that that argument can be flipped around:
They say people are judged by the worst thing they've done (ie: an otherwise nice person murders someone and gets put to jail for life). So why should cops be any different? If anything, those who are responsible for upholding the law should be held to a higher moral and legal standard than the rest of us (at least while on duty). The real question here is not, "why is the footage editing out all the good things that the officer does" it's, "why is the officer doing bad things in the first place".
As far as being taken out of context, I don't buy the argument that the public is too incompetent to understand the different contextual possibilities that a camera could be drawing its information from and therefore no footage should ever be permitted at all. Under that pretext, we can argue that all cameras that record the public should be abolished because there is no way of knowing whether or not they are simply taking footage out of context. Why does the "if you're not doing anything wrong then you wouldn't mind them watching you" only apply to citizens and not police?
and why should we simply assume that the police are less likely to edit footage than a regular citizen, just because the police say so? Citizens are guilty until proven innocent while police are innocent until proven guilty, but we must deny citizens the means to prove those police guilty (but police get access to the means to prove citizens guilty)?
I have to point out that under the labels the bands that made it were also an exception. Otherwise everyone who started a band would have had their music published.Jumping over to the funny side.... The winner this week topped all previous vote getters, including last week's winner, which had been the highest previous vote-getter. Honestly, this comment got so many votes that I'll be surprised if any comment tops this one for a while. It's from an Anonymous Coward on that story about the Philly cops mentioned above, but this commenter decided to wax lyrical on the topic, and channel his inner Will Smith:
In West Philadelphia born and raisedComing in second was Gracey's comment on the idea of giving young people's votes more weight, which she feared might lead to bad outcomes:
On the playground is where I spent most of my days
Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool
And all shootin' some B-Ball outside of school
When a couple of cops, who were up to no good, started makin trouble in my neighboorhood
I recorded one little fight and the cops got scared, had the D.A. trump up some charges that weren't really fair
Great...so conceivably we could end up with Lady Gaga as President?Anyone know where her birth certificate is?
Super. Just shoot me now
As for editors choice, we've got one from Pickle Monger, who responded to Senator Chuck Schumer grandstanding yet again, with an old joke:
There's an old joke:And... finally, we've got Johnjac responding to attempts by the recording industry up in Canada to tax SD cards because a few people might use them to store music. John's solution is that we should just start being a bit more direct:
A robber stops a man and says:
- Give me your money!
- How dare you?! I'm a United States Senator!
- In that case, give me my money!
Let's cut to the chase, and tax ears. 100% of pirated music is listened via ears.And, there you go. Let's see what you've got in store for this coming week...
Human ears, are the obvious place to start, but lets not forget the the horses who have been caught listening to pirate music. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1113014276.shtml
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2011/05/riaa-executive-responds-to-limewire-105m-settlemen t-controversy.html
But then again, piracy apologists aren't really concerned with facts, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But while he's not ready to predict how much of the settlement labels will pay to artists, Jonathan Lamy, Senior Vice President of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America, says there's more to the story; and whatever the outcome, the RIAA is not to blame."
The RIAA comes out on top, says it doesn't know how much will go to artists (hint: it will be zero), and moves on to the next lawsuit. When the artists get no money from the RIAA (again), the RIAA just points and says 'but...but...PIRACY!' (again).
Same old song and dance...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, if you actually read the site (which, clearly, you don't, since you insist we say stuff we have not), you would have seen that we posted that exact story.
But then again, piracy apologists aren't really concerned with facts, are they?
Kinda hilarious that you would accuse us of not being concerned with facts in a comment where you got the facts 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, I actually do respond to you quite frequently. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've responded to you more than anyone else on this site, because I know you know deep in your heart that there's a better way forward for the music industry and that people on this site can help you move forward.
We're waiting for you to start actually reading what we write here, rather than skimming and thinking you know what we say. When that day comes, perhaps you'll realize that we're here to help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of ire against police officers.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Carrying the gun was not illegal.
Maybe he wanted to record the cops doing the wrong thing.
So what if he did.
If cops can pose as johns, hookers, dealers and users to bust people for doing wrong then I see no issue doing legal things to bust cops doing wrong.
Police are the people charged with ENFORCING the law there is no excuse for them being ignorant of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Yes, there is. And that excuse - reason - is simply that there are too many to remember, which is not the officer's fault. The problem here doesn't lie with the officer's failure to know tens of thousands of laws, but in his refusal to confirm the law or to treat this man with any respect whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
I don't think that officers or civilians should have to personally know every single law. That's simply not realistic. (If you disagree, come back and enumerate the laws for us. I'll even make it 'easy' and you can just give me the total number of federal laws, and not any state, county, or municipal laws.)
We need to take a step back and return to when a 'guilty mind' was required for criminal prosecution. So if an officer held a gun-toting citizen while he verified the law and then let the gentleman go with apologies, that's fine. In addition, if someone who has a license to carry a weapon enters a place with a local ordnance against carrying that it's unlikely he knew about, he shouldn't be charged, either. See? Much more realistic and closer to 'justice'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
Of course, he expected trouble. He purchased and carried the weapon after several muggings and carrying recording equipment is just standard, especially since news reports like this abound. (Personally, I carry a thumb drive sized voice recorder to take notes, as does every officer that works that my father-in-law.)
Regardless, you can't bait someone who refuses to take the bait, which this officer could have done easily by simply respecting this man's legal rights, and calling in for confirmation when the his knowledge of the law was challenged. No one expects cops to know everything, but we do expect them to check before they draw a weapon on a citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
I disagree,
having had a cop point a gun at me on more than one occasion I can assure you it is truly terrifying, but where cops get shot I don't blame them for drawing first and taking control of the situation.
The problem was when he started with the obscenities and failure to listen or check up on the law. I get more professional treatment at Chick-Fil-A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Lots of ire against police officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]