Even if the notice is copyrighted, I think it's fair use to send it to a site like Chilling Effects for them to publish since it's a transformative use of the material for scholarly research.
So you think the person whose IP is being used without permission should have to ask for the violator to stop using it before suing them, but you don't think the person doing the violating should have to ask the IP holder for permission before using their IP? To me, the person violating the other person's rights is the party you should be blaming, not the innocent party who did nothing wrong.
That doesn't mean people shouldn't warn others, it simply means they don't have that duty. Let's say there was that duty, then everyone who got hurt in the fire could sue every other theater patron who failed to warn him about the fire. That's just ridiculous, IMO. Believe it or not, but most things in law actually make sense.
If only it had been used in the Whitney Harper or Jammie Thomas cases...
If I'd been on that jury, I would have brow-beat those other jurors into coming in at the statutory minimum. Those verdicts were ridiculous. (See, we don't disagree on everything.) I wouldn't, however, have agreed to nullify anything if someone suggested it.
I also question whether this is even a free speech issue. Free speech involves matters of opinion. If the jury in fact has a right and duty, as some claim, to evaluate the law, then it would not be a matter of opinion and no free speech issues ensue. Matters of fact are not subject to free speech limitations. To use the old example, it is perfectly reasonable, in fact it is a duty, to yell "Fire" if there is in fact a fire. (Subject to all sorts of stipulations about the relative danger to involved people by said fire, of course. 'Reasonable man' and so forth.)
I'm not First Amendment expert, but I don't think there's a fact/fiction split like that. This is a free speech issue if there ever was one.
As far as a duty to yell "Fire!" if there is one, I don't agree. My recollection from Torts is that if you're just a movie-goer enjoying the film, and you didn't set the fire yourself, you have no duty to warn.
If someone's license is taken away for a reason, like refusing to take a sobriety test, then the license is not being taken away on a whim. That's not what whim means.
No, you haven't. You just keep insisting that it's not a right and bizarrely arguing that people can only legally do those things which are classified as rights.
Jury nullification certainly is not unlawful or illegal. No one can be punished ro sanctioned for engaging in it, so your continued fixation on this point is solely a matter of pure sophistry.
You think that somehow it's legal to do something which you have no right to do. At this point, you appear beyond reason to me.
So if I take out a billboard along Main Street which says: "To all citizens who have received a jury summons: know this before you report - jury nulllification is legal!"... that can be suppressed by the government?
Shit, I might be a juror someday. I'd better stop using the internet or someone might try to influence me too!
LOL! Prospective in that they had received a jury summons and were showing up at the courthouse for jury selection. That's when the bad man from FIJA tried to influence them. :)
I would think so, but that's not what the government has been telling people since cars were invented. Driving is a mere privilege, revocable upon the government's whim and upon which any number of restrictions may be placed that could not be placed on something which is a right.
Can you cite one source for the claim that driving is "revocable upon the government's whim"?
And you do realize that almost all things that are your right are burdened with restrictions, right? The restrictions don't mean it's not a right.
The general public *are* the prospective jurors in any given community.
Not as within the ambit of the jury tampering laws. The prospective jurors being discussed here are those who received a summons to report to the courthouse for jury duty and were in fact reporting for duty. We're not talking about the general public at large.
LOL! *You're* the one who has turned this into a jury tampering issue by repeatedly claiming that informing people about the lawful concept of jury nullificiation is "jury tampering".
You pointed to the case above, specifically U.S. v. Thomas, then commented that it said nothing of jury tampering. I merely pointed out that it is not a jury tampering case, so the fact that it doesn't mention jury tampering is wholly unremarkable.
I am not the one who started the jury tampering idea--the judge who issued the order that is the very basis of this article specifically gave his order because of jury tampering. The reason the judge won't allow FIJA to accost prospective jurors outside the courthouse is because he says it's jury tampering. Jury tampering is very much the subject of this article to which we are commenting.
You seriously appear to be trying to argue about anything and everything with me, but your arguments just aren't hitting the mark. I don't get it.
And, one last thing, I have provided indisputable proof that in the U.S. jury nullification is not "lawful." I cannot fathom why you insist it is so.
I'm not claiming it's an exercise of a right at all. It's merely a legal power of the jury.
And again, how is exercising a right you don't have "legal"? Since you don't have the right, that makes it illegal.
Something for which you've provided absolutely no evidence other than your own say-so.
I'm telling you now for the third time to read the Turney case I quoted below. Since you can't seem to locate it, I'll quote it again:
[I]t is the intent to influence the outcome that is critical. Whether such statements violate the statute turns on the intent of the utterer; a misguided or erroneous suggestion does not violate the statute absent the prohibited criminal intent. ***
Speech aimed at influencing the juror's conduct as a juror, i.e., the juror's execution of the responsibilities imposed by the trial court in a particular case, is not constitutionally protected. Justice Frankfurter noted that: "In securing freedom of speech, the Constitution hardly meant to create the right to influence judges or juries. That is no more freedom of speech than stuffing a ballot box is an exercise of the right to vote." Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 366, 66 S.Ct. 1029, 1047, 90 L.Ed. 1295 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
Other courts that have looked at the issue have also recognized that utterances involved in the obstruction of justice are not protected by the First Amendment. In rejecting an overbreadth and vagueness habeas challenge to a witness tampering statute, the federal district court in New Hampshire held that the defendant's interest in communicating with a potential witness with the intent to tamper was “minuscule” and outside the scope of First Amendment protection. Kilgus v. Cunningham, 602 F.Supp. 735, 739-40 (D.N.H.), aff'd, 782 F.2d 1025 (1st Cir.1985). The Florida Court of Appeals similarly concluded that “[e]fforts to influence a grand jury in its deliberations respecting specific matters under investigation by it are not shielded by the constitutional guarantee of free speech.” Dawkins v. State, 208 So.2d 119, 122 (Fla.App.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 854, 89 S.Ct. 101, 21 L.Ed.2d 123 (1968). In concluding that the presence of spectators wearing “Women Against Rape” buttons at a rape trial deprived the defendant of a fair trial, the Ninth Circuit noted that “[w]here fair trial rights are at significant risk ... the first amendment rights of trial attendees can and must be curtailed at the courthouse door.” Norris v. Risley, 918 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir.1990).
We conclude that because AS 11.56.590 is narrowly drawn and proscribes only speech intended to influence a juror in his or her capacity as a juror in a particular case, it does not reach speech protected by the First Amendment, and thus is not impermissibly overbroad.
Which part of "Speech aimed at influencing the juror's conduct as a juror, i.e., the juror's execution of the responsibilities imposed by the trial court in a particular case, is not constitutionally protected." is unclear to you? You do not have a right to talk about nullification if that speech is tampering a juror.
I can't help but feel you disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing. It's getting really old.
As we are constantly told by those in authority, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can legally drive, but you have no right to do so.
Don't people who meet the criteria (insurance, driver's license, etc.) have the right to drive a car? And no one can infringe that right without due cause? If I had more time, I'd find better language, but the court here makes the point:
All persons have equal right to use the public streets and highways for purposes of travel by proper means with due regard to the corresponding rights of others, and it is unquestioned that an automobile is a proper means of conveyance on the public highways . . . . Certainly a citizen is not to be deprived of his right to use any means of conveyance within his control . . . . Public highways are established for the benefit of all who find it necessary or desirable to travel thereon, adopting any means of conveyance not prohibited by law.
Nothing in that case suggests that judges have the extraordinary power of muzzling the general public from speaking about the concept of jury nullification, nor does it suggests that if a citizen does so, they're guilty of "jury tampering".
Who said it did? That case makes clear there is no right to jury nullification. It's not a jury tampering case, so I'm not sure what your criticism is. The jury tampering case I quoted in the Turney case, cited below.
On the post: Is It Copyright Infringement To Pass A DMCA Notice On To ChillingEffects?
On the post: Righthaven Goes After Pajamas Media, Despite DMCA Agent & Strong Fair Use Case
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In my state, that right is codified in the motor vehicle statutes.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Kunstler on Jury Nullification
I'll try and read it, but I get the heebie-jeebies when I read stuff that's slanted too far to one side. :)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Kunstler on Jury Nullification
If I'd been on that jury, I would have brow-beat those other jurors into coming in at the statutory minimum. Those verdicts were ridiculous. (See, we don't disagree on everything.) I wouldn't, however, have agreed to nullify anything if someone suggested it.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not First Amendment expert, but I don't think there's a fact/fiction split like that. This is a free speech issue if there ever was one.
As far as a duty to yell "Fire!" if there is one, I don't agree. My recollection from Torts is that if you're just a movie-goer enjoying the film, and you didn't set the fire yourself, you have no duty to warn.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Case Law
Jury nullification certainly is not unlawful or illegal. No one can be punished ro sanctioned for engaging in it, so your continued fixation on this point is solely a matter of pure sophistry.
You think that somehow it's legal to do something which you have no right to do. At this point, you appear beyond reason to me.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Probably not, but who cares?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Prospective in that they had received a jury summons and were showing up at the courthouse for jury selection. That's when the bad man from FIJA tried to influence them. :)
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you cite one source for the claim that driving is "revocable upon the government's whim"?
And you do realize that almost all things that are your right are burdened with restrictions, right? The restrictions don't mean it's not a right.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not as within the ambit of the jury tampering laws. The prospective jurors being discussed here are those who received a summons to report to the courthouse for jury duty and were in fact reporting for duty. We're not talking about the general public at large.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Case Law
You pointed to the case above, specifically U.S. v. Thomas, then commented that it said nothing of jury tampering. I merely pointed out that it is not a jury tampering case, so the fact that it doesn't mention jury tampering is wholly unremarkable.
I am not the one who started the jury tampering idea--the judge who issued the order that is the very basis of this article specifically gave his order because of jury tampering. The reason the judge won't allow FIJA to accost prospective jurors outside the courthouse is because he says it's jury tampering. Jury tampering is very much the subject of this article to which we are commenting.
You seriously appear to be trying to argue about anything and everything with me, but your arguments just aren't hitting the mark. I don't get it.
And, one last thing, I have provided indisputable proof that in the U.S. jury nullification is not "lawful." I cannot fathom why you insist it is so.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nullification
And again, how is exercising a right you don't have "legal"? Since you don't have the right, that makes it illegal.
Something for which you've provided absolutely no evidence other than your own say-so.
I'm telling you now for the third time to read the Turney case I quoted below. Since you can't seem to locate it, I'll quote it again:Which part of "Speech aimed at influencing the juror's conduct as a juror, i.e., the juror's execution of the responsibilities imposed by the trial court in a particular case, is not constitutionally protected." is unclear to you? You do not have a right to talk about nullification if that speech is tampering a juror.
I can't help but feel you disagree with me just for the sake of disagreeing. It's getting really old.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As we are constantly told by those in authority, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can legally drive, but you have no right to do so.
Don't people who meet the criteria (insurance, driver's license, etc.) have the right to drive a car? And no one can infringe that right without due cause? If I had more time, I'd find better language, but the court here makes the point:Butler v. Cabe, 116 Ark. 26, 171 S.W. 1190, 1190 (1914).
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Case Law
Who said it did? That case makes clear there is no right to jury nullification. It's not a jury tampering case, so I'm not sure what your criticism is. The jury tampering case I quoted in the Turney case, cited below.
Next >>