Are you suggesting that this is an example of a bad decision?
Obviously. If the constitution sucks, amend it, but don't ignore it. Otherwise, the same arguments for "re-evaluating" rights will come back around to bite you when your other freedoms are on the chopping block.
Because, you know, it seems like the government might have an "interest" in silencing critics, especially with the War on Terror and all. Don't worry, I'm sure any laws they pass will be "narrowly tailored" to the specific things you can and can't say, and the specific places you can and can't say them.
It was an example of their thought process, and it's not far off the mark, really. The line is still incredibly murky, since they decided to incorporate the 2nd amendment through "Due Process".
Do both the federal and state government retain the ability to ban specific models and calibers of guns? Yes. How many models and calibers banned is too many? 10 models? 100 models? 90% of all models? I'm sure the Supreme Court will "know it when they see it".
Can both federal and state government put up huge permit fees, yearly taxes, and other barriers to gun ownership? Of course. Does a $200 permit fee infringe upon the 2nd amendment? Does a $200,000 permit? Where is the line? I'm sure the Supreme Court will "know it when they see it".
Can the city of Chicago, after they got slapped down in federal court for banning handguns altogether, require people to have practice time on a gun range before they will grant a permit, and yet also prohibit gun ranges within the city limits? Because that's what they are doing now.
Remember, the person I was replying to said:
To me, most of their decisions sound like pure opinion
And he's completely right. They make up the lines as they go along.
Specifically, on what exactly are supreme court decisions based on? To me, most of their decisions sound like pure opinion, which would make them "benevolent dictators" in a way.
Pretty much. The court gets to decide if there is a "government interest" in doing the thing (there is), and whether or not their solution is "narrowly tailored" enough to pass constitutional muster (it is).
Government: We'd like to ban guns! Supreme Court: Can't. Second amendment. Government: Correction. We'd like to only ban the guns on this list. *hands the Supreme Court a list of every gun model ever produced* Supreme Court: Hmmm, well now. Since someone could theoretically come up with a new gun type tomorrow that isn't on this list, the people still have the theoretical ability to own a theoretical gun, so why not? Government: Also, we'd like to ban guns in all public locations. Supreme Court: Sure. Government: And private residences! Supreme Court: Nope, sorry. Too far. Government: Well, what if we allow each person to keep one gun at home, provided it's dismantled, and the pieces are placed in separate, triple-locked boxes and distributed around the house? Supreme Court: Narrow enough for me! Wouldn't want to infringe on people's right to bear arms, now would we?
"addresses a substantial or important governmental interest."
There it is. My favorite catch-all phrase from the judiciary that justifies them sitting on their asses while the government does whatever the hell it wants to do.
We should be allowed to carry on anything to the plane (including hunting knives, etc) and it just shouldn't be an issue, right?
Other than firearms/explosives, sure.
Taking over a plane with a box cutter just isn't going to happen again.
I'm sick of seeing the same ACs disagree with Mike on every post just for the sake of disagreeing.
Indeed. That's definitely the most irritating part. You could call them trolls, but honestly I think it's just the face of partisanship; people choose a side and then feel compelled to defend that side regardless of fact or logic. They disagree with Mike about intellectual property, so if he also comes out against kicking puppies, the only thing they have left is to defend puppy-kicking as the morally correct choice, because if they agree with him about anything, Mike will "win".
It's no different than the issues we face at the national level, really. It's never about intellectual honesty, and always about spin. It's never about "Are they right?", and always about "How can we make them look wrong?"
I guess I'll assume this is sarcasm, or addressed to someone else. How is government intervention regarding the prices offered in the market "pro-capitalism"?
preserve the quality of the online gaming systems they provid
I don't think most people have a problem with Sony banning modded consoles from the PSN (I know I don't; it's their network, after all), but I draw the line at suing people for modding the physical property they own.
Are you sure? I've seen multiple instances in the past where Mike has linked to a YouTube video that he knows the studios are playing DMCA whac-a-mole with in an attempt to keep it off the internet.
Since he knew the YouTube video was infringing when he posted the link, wouldn't that constitute contributory infringement, and since this site has ads, criminal infringement?
For him to be criminally "aiding and abetting", wouldn't there have to be a crime first? That is, if the people whose videos he was embedding were not making money off of their illegal streams, then what crime was committed?
Is is possible to criminally aid and abet a civil infraction?
Hmm, so willfully linking to what you know to be a criminal site makes you a criminal too. Therefore, by posting your link, you just willfully linked to what you know to be a criminal site, making you a criminal in turn.
Should I call law enforcement or will you turn yourself in voluntarily?
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Re: Re:
Obviously. If the constitution sucks, amend it, but don't ignore it. Otherwise, the same arguments for "re-evaluating" rights will come back around to bite you when your other freedoms are on the chopping block.
Because, you know, it seems like the government might have an "interest" in silencing critics, especially with the War on Terror and all. Don't worry, I'm sure any laws they pass will be "narrowly tailored" to the specific things you can and can't say, and the specific places you can and can't say them.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re: Re: Re:
It was an example of their thought process, and it's not far off the mark, really. The line is still incredibly murky, since they decided to incorporate the 2nd amendment through "Due Process".
Do both the federal and state government retain the ability to ban specific models and calibers of guns? Yes. How many models and calibers banned is too many? 10 models? 100 models? 90% of all models? I'm sure the Supreme Court will "know it when they see it".
Can both federal and state government put up huge permit fees, yearly taxes, and other barriers to gun ownership? Of course. Does a $200 permit fee infringe upon the 2nd amendment? Does a $200,000 permit? Where is the line? I'm sure the Supreme Court will "know it when they see it".
Can the city of Chicago, after they got slapped down in federal court for banning handguns altogether, require people to have practice time on a gun range before they will grant a permit, and yet also prohibit gun ranges within the city limits? Because that's what they are doing now.
Remember, the person I was replying to said:
To me, most of their decisions sound like pure opinion
And he's completely right. They make up the lines as they go along.
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Re:
Pretty much. The court gets to decide if there is a "government interest" in doing the thing (there is), and whether or not their solution is "narrowly tailored" enough to pass constitutional muster (it is).
Government: We'd like to ban guns!
Supreme Court: Can't. Second amendment.
Government: Correction. We'd like to only ban the guns on this list. *hands the Supreme Court a list of every gun model ever produced*
Supreme Court: Hmmm, well now. Since someone could theoretically come up with a new gun type tomorrow that isn't on this list, the people still have the theoretical ability to own a theoretical gun, so why not?
Government: Also, we'd like to ban guns in all public locations.
Supreme Court: Sure.
Government: And private residences!
Supreme Court: Nope, sorry. Too far.
Government: Well, what if we allow each person to keep one gun at home, provided it's dismantled, and the pieces are placed in separate, triple-locked boxes and distributed around the house?
Supreme Court: Narrow enough for me! Wouldn't want to infringe on people's right to bear arms, now would we?
On the post: Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Important Copyright Case: Will Review First Amendment vs. Copyright Issue
Ahhh Yes
There it is. My favorite catch-all phrase from the judiciary that justifies them sitting on their asses while the government does whatever the hell it wants to do.
On the post: NY Times Lawyers Shut Down Blog Promoting The NY Times
But . . . but . . . copyright!
On the post: Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov't For Defamation
Re:
How so?
Too bad that the sub-sites of Moooo.com don't really have legal standing (as it would only be moooo.com that would have that right).
Citation, please.
On the post: Lazy TSA Agents Let Thousands Of Bags Through Unscreened (But They Gotta See Us Naked)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We should be allowed to carry on anything to the plane (including hunting knives, etc) and it just shouldn't be an issue, right?
Other than firearms/explosives, sure.
Taking over a plane with a box cutter just isn't going to happen again.
On the post: Lazy TSA Agents Let Thousands Of Bags Through Unscreened (But They Gotta See Us Naked)
Re: Re: Re:
Other than firearms/explosives, sure.
Taking over a plane with a box cutter just isn't going to happen again.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. That's definitely the most irritating part. You could call them trolls, but honestly I think it's just the face of partisanship; people choose a side and then feel compelled to defend that side regardless of fact or logic. They disagree with Mike about intellectual property, so if he also comes out against kicking puppies, the only thing they have left is to defend puppy-kicking as the morally correct choice, because if they agree with him about anything, Mike will "win".
It's no different than the issues we face at the national level, really. It's never about intellectual honesty, and always about spin. It's never about "Are they right?", and always about "How can we make them look wrong?"
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers
Re: Re: Ugh
On the post: Music Companies In Korea Guilty Of Price Fixing, Collusion For Boycotting DRM-Free Music Retailers
Re: Re: Ugh
And my point is: So?
On the post: Judge Says No Anonymity For Anyone Who Visited GeoHot's PS3 Hacking Website Or Watched YouTube Video
Re: Re: Re: Re: They had it coming.
I don't think most people have a problem with Sony banning modded consoles from the PSN (I know I don't; it's their network, after all), but I draw the line at suing people for modding the physical property they own.
On the post: Justice Department Investigating MPEG-LA For Antitrust Violations Over VP8 Patent Threats
Re: Re: The Most Amusing Part
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you sure? I've seen multiple instances in the past where Mike has linked to a YouTube video that he knows the studios are playing DMCA whac-a-mole with in an attempt to keep it off the internet.
Since he knew the YouTube video was infringing when he posted the link, wouldn't that constitute contributory infringement, and since this site has ads, criminal infringement?
Lock Mike up? Yes/No
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is, however, civil contributory infringement. Would you like to pay by check or by credit card?
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Is is possible to criminally aid and abet a civil infraction?
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should I call law enforcement or will you turn yourself in voluntarily?
On the post: ICE Arrests Operator Of Seized Domain; Charges Him With Criminal Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I don't see any difference between a website that embeds video streams and a website that embeds video streams.
(I can't believe I just had to say that. "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!")
Next >>