One option is trying to achieve the impossible and sequester every jury.
Not good enough. What about all the things they hear before they become jurors?? What if they have read books? What if they can recite every episode of every Law & Order series from memory?!
Surely, the only fair and equitable solution is to raise a special class of people from birth with no exposure to outside media or thought. Only then can we put cases before them and be sure that they were never "influenced" by anything or anyone.
Of course, they would be unable to speak or otherwise articulate to us their verdict, but surely that's a minor problem in the face of such an outrageous issue as jury partiality.
If he feels it's a big deal he can probably narrow his request to Facebook down to just the posts in question, rather than everything the accused has ever said or uploaded.
(As far as the PA thing goes, I think that was an example of "failure to pick your battles" from both sides. The original comic didn't seem offensive, so there was a failure there, but then, inexplicably, PA picked up the gauntlet. Why? You got me. Most of the outrage heaped upon them was due to their second comic, not the first.)
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue? For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
How so? He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape. I don't think he meant it in a colloquial non-literal sense, such as "and the way to stop [gamers from pwning each other online] is to have sex with anyone who asks" or "and the way to stop [systematic environmental destruction] is to have sex with anyone who asks".
China's growth has not come at our expense--it is NOT a zero-sum game.
THANK YOU. I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who could see that.
IP, on the other hand, is the masturbation of the wealthy--they dream of a world wherein they have money forever and no need to do anything to protect it because the entire system is stacked in their favor.
Also true. +1 for you, sir. IP is where a country gravitates to when it gets fat and lazy on the proceeds of its industrial success.
that does not mean someone today has a First Amendment right to stand outside the courthouse and promote it.
Yes, I can't imagine how the right to free speech would cover something as out there as discussing important legal issues with other private citizens on public land in situations that cause neither hazard nor inconvenience nor cost to others. Surely, the first amendment was crafted to only allow people to discuss non-controversial issues, with themselves, and only in their own basements (but only if a judge approves of the content).
Not to defend an anonymous troll with an awful analogy, but how does his statement promote "rape culture"? After the whole PA "Dickwolves" debacle, I'm really confused as to the bounds that some people are trying to erect around that particular word.
If you didn't agree with this guy, you'd be all over him for grandstanding.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty consistent when it comes to appeals for transparency in government. If I didn't "agree with this guy" his letter probably wouldn't have been addressed to a government agency.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re: Re:
Not good enough. What about all the things they hear before they become jurors?? What if they have read books? What if they can recite every episode of every Law & Order series from memory?!
Surely, the only fair and equitable solution is to raise a special class of people from birth with no exposure to outside media or thought. Only then can we put cases before them and be sure that they were never "influenced" by anything or anyone.
Of course, they would be unable to speak or otherwise articulate to us their verdict, but surely that's a minor problem in the face of such an outrageous issue as jury partiality.
On the post: Can A Judge Force A Juror To Reveal Facebook Account Info?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If he feels it's a big deal he can probably narrow his request to Facebook down to just the posts in question, rather than everything the accused has ever said or uploaded.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re:
Simply having a song stuck in your head will constitute willful infringement.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. Assumes that everyone can consent, which is absolutely not true. (Take children, some cognitively impaired adults, and coma victims, for example.)
I think his error there is more along the lines of "terrible analogy" rather than "promoting rape culture". Unless you believe one is the other, in which case I grant you the point here.
2. Assumes that strangers are the potential rapists, even though people are three times more likely to be raped by someone they know than a stranger, and nine times more likely to be raped in their home, the home of someone they know, or anywhere else than being raped on the street.
So it's more about ignorance or slips of the tongue? For example, he could have said "and the way to stop rape is to have sex with anyone who wants to". Would that have removed his statement from "rape culture" back into "bad analogy" territory, at least for #2?
3. Diminishes the gravity of sexual assault by using the word 'rape' to describe something other than a forced or coerced sex act.
How so? He appears (to me) to have used the word "rape" to mean actual rape. I don't think he meant it in a colloquial non-literal sense, such as "and the way to stop [gamers from pwning each other online] is to have sex with anyone who asks" or "and the way to stop [systematic environmental destruction] is to have sex with anyone who asks".
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shit, I might be a juror someday. I'd better stop using the internet or someone might try to influence me too!
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re:
Terrible troll is terrible.
On the post: IP Czar Report Hits On All The Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns Of More Draconian Copyright Laws To Come
Re: Re: Re: Re:
THANK YOU. I was beginning to think I was the only person in the world who could see that.
IP, on the other hand, is the masturbation of the wealthy--they dream of a world wherein they have money forever and no need to do anything to protect it because the entire system is stacked in their favor.
Also true. +1 for you, sir. IP is where a country gravitates to when it gets fat and lazy on the proceeds of its industrial success.
On the post: If The US Wants To Have Any Credibility On Internet Freedom It Should Drop The Attempt To Prosecute Assange
Re: Re:
On the post: Humane Association Trademarked 'No Animals Were Harmed'; Threatens King's Speech With Infringement Claim
Re:
That's not saying much. Simply breathing clears that hurdle, these days.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I can't imagine how the right to free speech would cover something as out there as discussing important legal issues with other private citizens on public land in situations that cause neither hazard nor inconvenience nor cost to others. Surely, the first amendment was crafted to only allow people to discuss non-controversial issues, with themselves, and only in their own basements (but only if a judge approves of the content).
Way to set 'em straight, AJ.
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
This is fantastic. I'm going to save that one for later.
It's not copyrighted, right? ;)
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: David Guetta: The Way To Beat 'Piracy' Is To Give Your Music Away Free
Re:
"Sure, it works for [the type of artist in the example], but it will never work for [some other type of artist]."
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, Anonymous...
Answer what? I disagree with Wyden about the detainees. How does that impact a single things you said in your post?
Try harder, shill.
On the post: Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense
Re:
Can we have an account option to filter out replies from anonymous trolls?
Thanks.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re:
Yes, asking questions about the law and (especially) the government's interpretation of it is certainly "militant".
Terrible troll is terrible.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re:
I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty consistent when it comes to appeals for transparency in government. If I didn't "agree with this guy" his letter probably wouldn't have been addressed to a government agency.
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Hey, Anonymous...
Next >>