I made no such argument. You are right that there are some rights and protections written out in the constitution, which is why there is no slavery in this state. However when it comes to other matters States have quite a bit of leeway, as long as it doesn't run afoul of any federal regulations.
I'm arguing that Louisiana has just as much right to base their laws on something other than whatever that common law is from the first post as every other state has the right to base theirs off whatever they want.
I'm sorry, but where does it say that Louisiana has to have every law in lockstop with every other state? Or for that matter every state having to have the exact same laws as every other state?
I'm not trying to defend the law mentioned in the article, it does need to get removed from the books. Until such a time as it does we will just have rely on the courts to dismiss any attempts to prosecute anyone under it.
So, the obvious answer is to pirate a copy of the book. If the DOJ is going to deny Snowden the proceeds of the book then I see no reason to give them the money.
It also strikes me that there's another potential way for the court to dodge doing anything, namely by using the dishonest argument of 'it doesn't specifically require filters' that was trotted out time and time again leading up to the vote, where they could simply use that as an excuse to dismiss and ignore that the practical results of such a demand on platforms does in fact require filters.
If the court actually does come out and say "it doesn't specifically require filters" then I would continue to offer services without such filter and if anyone tries to call me on it point them to that ruling.
Sounds like some federal agents didn't follow procedure and check that all the paperwork attached to the evidence (chain of custody and warrants) was all proper. Again, politicians and police chiefs wonder why 'no one respects the police anymore!', crap like this is the cause.
Can we nominate the ISPAUK for an internet villain award for their use of DC Comic villains, Marvel Comic Villans, AND Disney villains? I'm willing to bet they didn't get a license to use them and I doubt it falls under their so called Fair Dealing either.
But his latest is that next week he'll be hosting a hearing with the most ridiculous of moral panic titles around: "Protecting Innocence in a Digital World.
So the part of me that really dislikes politicans is saying "You want to hold a meeting about 'preserving innocence on the internet'? I think someone should look a little closer into what this guy does in his leasure time.. especially his Internet activites. "
The judge wrote that each company had the power to effectively delay reader comments on Facebook and monitor if they were defamatory before "releasing" them to the audience.
Do they do things that differently in Australia? Can I, as a private citizen, declare something is defamatory and force someone to take it down? Usually it takes a judge to declare a statement is defamatory. How is this not going to put civil discourse into an absolute zero wasteland?
They want people to respect copyright laws, but then they go and pull things like this? Sorry Mr. Record Exec, this isn't a "do as I say, not as I do" society. If you can't respect copyright laws, what makes you think anyone else will?
I have to admit that after their last showing in court and the history of megamerges, I'm not holding my breath that the outcome will be a benefit to the general public.
I really wish that some of these more public facing agencies that are supposed to be working to the general public's benefit, would actually do what they are supposed to.
Why would they ask the Executive Branch (the supposed enforcers of the law) as opposed to the Legislative Branch who actually wrote the law and what their intentions were?
It really bothers me when a politician won't even CONSIDER a bill simply because it doesn't follow the party line or someone from another party put it forward. Even more so when there is evidence that many citizens are in favor of what the bill is seeking to correct, or even worse, when there are close to two dozen States who are writing and passing their own laws regarding the matter.
Once enough states get their own law passed the telecoms are going to start screaming that 'every state has different laws, it is impossible for us to comply with each state individually! (so we just wont comply with any of them!)'
As much as I applaud Judge Trebilcock for his actions and stance, this just means the Task Force will shop around for a different Judge (unless the county is so small as to not have another Judge the cases can be brought before). Here is hoping that more Judges around the country start taking this stance.
We have proposed to Congress and regulatory agencies a method to create a public-private partnership to map America's broadband infrastructure so policymakers and providers can better target scarce funding to communities with limited or no service options."
With $4.5 billion in new broadband subsidies on the line
Scarce funding huh? The only reason it is scarce for 'communities with limited or no service options' is because they are never will to actually spend the money in those regions.
I'm pretty sure the standard is that a State can pass a more restrictive law then a Federal version (if there is even one) but not less restrictive. So unless there is an actual federal law that says they can obtain this information without a warrant (as opposed to being given a "go ahead it is not illegal" by the courts) then the States can put in a limitation.
Not to be a downer or anything, but how is the State doing this to Honda Finance (owner of the car) any different from the State taking the car away from a husband/wife co-ownership of an already paid off vehicle where one person was not involved in whatever triggered the seizure?
On the post: Cop Peforming A Welfare Check Kills Woman By Shooting Her Through Her Own Backyard Window
So is he going to claim qualified immunity or is the union going to claim it for him when they provide the lawyer.
And I really hate that that was my first thought instead of him getting charged with murder and it sticking.
On the post: Louisiana's Terrible Criminal Defamation Law Again Being Used To Unconstitutionally Target A Critic Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I made no such argument. You are right that there are some rights and protections written out in the constitution, which is why there is no slavery in this state. However when it comes to other matters States have quite a bit of leeway, as long as it doesn't run afoul of any federal regulations.
I'm arguing that Louisiana has just as much right to base their laws on something other than whatever that common law is from the first post as every other state has the right to base theirs off whatever they want.
On the post: Louisiana's Terrible Criminal Defamation Law Again Being Used To Unconstitutionally Target A Critic Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sorry, but where does it say that Louisiana has to have every law in lockstop with every other state? Or for that matter every state having to have the exact same laws as every other state?
I'm not trying to defend the law mentioned in the article, it does need to get removed from the books. Until such a time as it does we will just have rely on the courts to dismiss any attempts to prosecute anyone under it.
On the post: Louisiana's Terrible Criminal Defamation Law Again Being Used To Unconstitutionally Target A Critic Of Law Enforcement
Re: Re:
Any particular reason we need to change our laws to accommodate the rest of the States?
On the post: AT&T Ponders Dumping DirecTV After Investor Backlash, But It's Not Likely To Help
Re:
I gather it isn't so much a suite to get money as a suite to get the company exec's to do or stop doing something business wise.
On the post: DOJ Decides To Help Publicize Snowden's Memoir By Suing Him For Failing To Run His Book By The CIA And NSA First
So, the obvious answer is to pirate a copy of the book. If the DOJ is going to deny Snowden the proceeds of the book then I see no reason to give them the money.
On the post: It's On: Details Emerge Of Polish Government's Formal Request For Top EU Court To Throw Out Upload Filters
If the court actually does come out and say "it doesn't specifically require filters" then I would continue to offer services without such filter and if anyone tries to call me on it point them to that ruling.
On the post: Court: It's Cool If The (Federal) Government Searches A Phone The (Local) Government Seized Illegally
Sounds like some federal agents didn't follow procedure and check that all the paperwork attached to the evidence (chain of custody and warrants) was all proper. Again, politicians and police chiefs wonder why 'no one respects the police anymore!', crap like this is the cause.
On the post: UK ISPs Vilify Mozilla For Trying To Secure The Internet
Can we nominate the ISPAUK for an internet villain award for their use of DC Comic villains, Marvel Comic Villans, AND Disney villains? I'm willing to bet they didn't get a license to use them and I doubt it falls under their so called Fair Dealing either.
On the post: The UK's Entire Approach To 'Online Harms' Is Backwards... And No One Cares
I guess they think "Out of sight, out of mind" and "What they don't know won't hurt them."
They really want to go back to the news being local issues only and hide what is going on in the wider world.
On the post: Senator Lindsey Graham To Host Special 'But Think Of The Children Online!' Moral Panic Hearing
So the part of me that really dislikes politicans is saying "You want to hold a meeting about 'preserving innocence on the internet'? I think someone should look a little closer into what this guy does in his leasure time.. especially his Internet activites. "
On the post: Australia Says Media Companies Can Be Sued Over User Comments On Facebook
Do they do things that differently in Australia? Can I, as a private citizen, declare something is defamatory and force someone to take it down? Usually it takes a judge to declare a statement is defamatory. How is this not going to put civil discourse into an absolute zero wasteland?
On the post: A True Story Of 'Copyright Piracy': Why The Verve Will Only Start Getting Royalties Now For Bittersweet Symphony
They want people to respect copyright laws, but then they go and pull things like this? Sorry Mr. Record Exec, this isn't a "do as I say, not as I do" society. If you can't respect copyright laws, what makes you think anyone else will?
On the post: DOJ Staffers Think T-Mobile's Merger Benefit Claims Are Nonsense
I have to admit that after their last showing in court and the history of megamerges, I'm not holding my breath that the outcome will be a benefit to the general public.
I really wish that some of these more public facing agencies that are supposed to be working to the general public's benefit, would actually do what they are supposed to.
On the post: Supreme Court Asks White House To Weigh In On Copyrightability Of APIs
Why would they ask the Executive Branch (the supposed enforcers of the law) as opposed to the Legislative Branch who actually wrote the law and what their intentions were?
On the post: House Passes Net Neutrality Bill, McConnell Promises It Won't Survive Senate
It really bothers me when a politician won't even CONSIDER a bill simply because it doesn't follow the party line or someone from another party put it forward. Even more so when there is evidence that many citizens are in favor of what the bill is seeking to correct, or even worse, when there are close to two dozen States who are writing and passing their own laws regarding the matter.
Once enough states get their own law passed the telecoms are going to start screaming that 'every state has different laws, it is impossible for us to comply with each state individually! (so we just wont comply with any of them!)'
On the post: Judge Rips Drug Task Force For Going On Asset Forfeiture 'Shopping Sprees'
As much as I applaud Judge Trebilcock for his actions and stance, this just means the Task Force will shop around for a different Judge (unless the county is so small as to not have another Judge the cases can be brought before). Here is hoping that more Judges around the country start taking this stance.
On the post: Telecom Lobby Suddenly Pretends To Care About Accurate Broadband Maps
Scarce funding huh? The only reason it is scarce for 'communities with limited or no service options' is because they are never will to actually spend the money in those regions.
On the post: Utah Senate Passes Bill That Would Lock The Government Out Of Warrantless Access To Third Party Records
Re:
I'm pretty sure the standard is that a State can pass a more restrictive law then a Federal version (if there is even one) but not less restrictive. So unless there is an actual federal law that says they can obtain this information without a warrant (as opposed to being given a "go ahead it is not illegal" by the courts) then the States can put in a limitation.
On the post: Auto Finance Company Sues Massachusetts City Over Its Unconstitutional Sale Of Seized Vehicles
Not to be a downer or anything, but how is the State doing this to Honda Finance (owner of the car) any different from the State taking the car away from a husband/wife co-ownership of an already paid off vehicle where one person was not involved in whatever triggered the seizure?
Next >>