The band claims that it's because they want people to listen to the whole albums, not just tracks
Whoops! I've been listening the wrong way for years.
Hey. AC/DC, I'm listening to digital tracks of your music right now, as I type. Do you want money from me or not? If so, throw your tracks on Amazon and make it easy for me to pay you. If not, your loss.
Even though the term many exactly express what she is feeling she is, probably, guilty of libel.
No, she's definitely not guilty of libel, because no reasonable person would actually consider the possibility that the human being(s?) in question were actually bags for holding the fluid used in douching.
It was an opinion, with no claim of fact, about a matter of public interest, so any libel claim would be lost at least three ways right there.
Also, it would be pretty hard to prove injury, which is a requirement for libel cases. I mean, can you imagine a school employee standing up in court and claiming, with a straight face, that their reputation had been damaged because yet another teen had called them a douchebag? Really? :P
...they are clearly allowed to regulate speech on school property - I don't remember anyone getting away with swearing, or calling a teacher a douchebag to their face, or even writing mean stuff about someone on a note.
All of those things are provably disruptive, whereas wearing a t-shirt, complaining on a blog (even if the post in question was written on a school machine), or wearing black armbands is not provably disruptive. Therein lies the difference between regulated speech and unregulated speech.
Similarly, you can tell your friends, the Internet, or a judge himself in public that a judge is a douchebag, but you can't call him a douchebag in the courtroom.
Anyway, as many court cases have shown, only speech that provably disrupts can be curtailed, and it has to be disrupted by the wearer, not by others disturbed by the wearing (i.e. gay rights shirts.).
Being a school council member is a privilege not a right.
Free speech is a right, not a privilege. Anything that chills or punishes speech is unConstitutional.
The school can certainly have a code of conduct for its student officers.
And that code of conduct cannot contain any speech-block rules, such as blocking members from calling school officials douchebags or restricting political T-shirts.
They don't have to allow the kids to protest, no matter how subtle, during school hours.
Yes, they do, you idiot. Children don't lose their rights at the schoolhouse gate, not that you're going to catch the quote, anyway.
She was denied that privilege because she violated policies that must be upheld to have that privilege.
She was denied a privilege because she exercised her civil rights. FTFY
Then the school did what they could to keep it from becoming an issue.
Then the school violated her civil rights and caused a huge issue, rather than just letting one teen vent a little bit, as most teens do.
Nothing was stopping these kids from speaking out, or protesting outside of school events.
Except being punished, like the plaintiff was.
The kids were not punished for trying to protest, just told they had to remove their shirts.
The kids were punished by having their civil rights violated.
They didn't bar her expression, she spoke and faced the consequences.
Punishment for expression is a bar of expression.
I have the right to send out a company wide email calling my boss a douchebag but I will probably face consequences.
And if you work for a private company, that's not illegal.
If he fires me do you think I should sue him?
Do you work for a private company? If not, then no.
If he tells people that they can get in trouble for wearing "Rehire Hothmonster" t-shirts to work should they sue him?
Again, were you fired from a private company? If not, then no.
I'd love to see this 'negligence' idea go in the other direction. I mean, the fact that these files are available online proves that the copyright owner was negligent in securing their files, right?
Not the same thing, because plaintiffs have no way of knowing if the wireless access used was secured with a WPA key or anything else. It's entirely possible that the teen next door broke into a defendant's secured connection and used it to download infringing material. Regardless, they're insisting that the fact that the connection was used it enough to show that they didn't secure their connections.
On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
Re: Re:
Of course, the Law of Unintended Consequences has struck and they now have a new problem, as highlighted above. :)
On the post: AC/DC Says Their Songs Will Never Be Available For Download; Rest Of Internet Laughs
Whoops! I've been listening the wrong way for years.
Hey. AC/DC, I'm listening to digital tracks of your music right now, as I type. Do you want money from me or not? If so, throw your tracks on Amazon and make it easy for me to pay you. If not, your loss.
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re:
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Schools
No, she's definitely not guilty of libel, because no reasonable person would actually consider the possibility that the human being(s?) in question were actually bags for holding the fluid used in douching.
It was an opinion, with no claim of fact, about a matter of public interest, so any libel claim would be lost at least three ways right there.
Also, it would be pretty hard to prove injury, which is a requirement for libel cases. I mean, can you imagine a school employee standing up in court and claiming, with a straight face, that their reputation had been damaged because yet another teen had called them a douchebag? Really? :P
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of those things are provably disruptive, whereas wearing a t-shirt, complaining on a blog (even if the post in question was written on a school machine), or wearing black armbands is not provably disruptive. Therein lies the difference between regulated speech and unregulated speech.
Similarly, you can tell your friends, the Internet, or a judge himself in public that a judge is a douchebag, but you can't call him a douchebag in the courtroom.
Anyway, as many court cases have shown, only speech that provably disrupts can be curtailed, and it has to be disrupted by the wearer, not by others disturbed by the wearing (i.e. gay rights shirts.).
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Reminds me of ...
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re:
Free speech is a right, not a privilege. Anything that chills or punishes speech is unConstitutional.
The school can certainly have a code of conduct for its student officers.
And that code of conduct cannot contain any speech-block rules, such as blocking members from calling school officials douchebags or restricting political T-shirts.
They don't have to allow the kids to protest, no matter how subtle, during school hours.
Yes, they do, you idiot. Children don't lose their rights at the schoolhouse gate, not that you're going to catch the quote, anyway.
She was denied that privilege because she violated policies that must be upheld to have that privilege.
She was denied a privilege because she exercised her civil rights. FTFY
Then the school did what they could to keep it from becoming an issue.
Then the school violated her civil rights and caused a huge issue, rather than just letting one teen vent a little bit, as most teens do.
Nothing was stopping these kids from speaking out, or protesting outside of school events.
Except being punished, like the plaintiff was.
The kids were not punished for trying to protest, just told they had to remove their shirts.
The kids were punished by having their civil rights violated.
They didn't bar her expression, she spoke and faced the consequences.
Punishment for expression is a bar of expression.
I have the right to send out a company wide email calling my boss a douchebag but I will probably face consequences.
And if you work for a private company, that's not illegal.
If he fires me do you think I should sue him?
Do you work for a private company? If not, then no.
If he tells people that they can get in trouble for wearing "Rehire Hothmonster" t-shirts to work should they sue him?
Again, were you fired from a private company? If not, then no.
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re:
And was school so disrupted that it warranted a violation of her Constitutional right? I think not.
On the post: School Allowed To Punish Student For Calling Officials 'Douchebags' On Her Blog
Re: Re: SCHOOL IS RIGHT!
On the post: Don't Mess With Texas When It Comes To Protecting Free Speech
Re:
On the post: Sorry, My Brain Accidentally Called You
Re: Re:
On the post: Sorry, My Brain Accidentally Called You
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
License with purchase? Either you licensed it's use or you purchased it, not both. Those terms are mutually exclusive.
On the post: If You're Arguing That Someone 'Deserves' Copyright, Your Argument Is Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Not Securing Your Internet Access To Block Infringement Is 'Negligence'?
Negligence?
On the post: Not Securing Your Internet Access To Block Infringement Is 'Negligence'?
Re: Re:
On the post: Not Securing Your Internet Access To Block Infringement Is 'Negligence'?
Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Courts Afraid Your Smartphone Might Be A Bomb
Re: Re: smartphones and bombs...
Next >>