Because it's barely on point and not particularly lucid. Also, I don't really think it's censorship if one click allows you to see the comment.
But according to techdirt, it's "censorship" when google removes certain search results from auto-completing, even though the same results show up in the search results. If that's "censorship," how is this not also "censorship"?
When 100,000 people are getting sued anonymously by just a few firms, at what point do the courts and politicians realize that something is broken with the law?
Hey Mike, I'm curious what you mean by this last sentence. Exactly what is broken with the law that these lawsuits demonstrate? Thanks.
Hey folks, this is what is going to happen to the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights. The unstated goal of our current government is "to provide a strong government program to address the nations problems and concerns". What sounds like a great idea is actually Socialism! If you listened to Obama's SOTU address all he did was say "We're great" and "We have a solution". Unfortunately the solution is Socialism. Vote him out!!!!!!!!!
So why was this post censored using techdirt's built-in censorship "report" button? He is simply expressing his views. I'm really surprised techdirt allows its readers to censor each other.
No, there is a distinction between a stop and a search. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a stop, but probable cause is still necessary for a search (unless consent is given).
Sort of. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a stop and frisk. A stop and frisk is a search under the 4th Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Besides that, there are several other scenarios where a search is allowed even though there is no probable cause and no consent, like at the border, an airport, a fire marshal, etc.
The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of of what it means. It's really not (legally) open to your individual interpretation.
I never suggested otherwise. I'm pointing you to the Amendment so you can read its plain language. The Court's interpretation is consistent with that plain language. I haven't been offering my interpretation, I've been offering the Court's opinion.
If the Supreme Court says that probable cause is needed for a search to be reasonable, then so it is (legally). If you want to argue that, you need to take it up with the Supreme Court. Otherwise, your declarations carry little weight.
The Court has not said that probable cause is needed for a search to be reasonable, as I've explained. I don't need to take anything up with the Court. What I'm telling you is their interpretation, not mine.
Respectfully, I think you're confused. Read the 4th Amendment yourself:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
It says that people are secure from unreasonable searches. It does not say that only searches based on probable cause are reasonable. The only thing it says about probable cause is that if a warrant is issued, that warrant must be based on probable cause.
What the Court has said, and I want I think is often the confusion when talking about these things, is that in general a search is unreasonable absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, except for in certain scenarios, like reasonable checkpoints, airport security, border stations, etc. In those scenarios, searches are allowed even though there is no probable cause. That's why TSA can "touch your junk," for example.
According to whom? You? Do you consider sobriety checkpoints on nights when evidence shows there are more drunk drivers, like on New Year's Eve, to be reasonable? Maybe you don't, but I do, as does the Supreme Court. Of course, reasonableness is a relative term, and you're free to disagree.
Now you're being ridiculous. I think what was meant was "no good reason". Of course there's always *some* reason, even if it's just "because we felt like it". Yeah, I see how that works.
But it can't just for be any good reason. If you read the caselaw I cited above, the Court points out that the checkpoints can't be to discover "unknown crimes of the general sort." "Because we felt like it" is not an option, not if the checkpoints are going to be upheld as reasonable by the courts.
So just doing a random check, anywhere, out of the blue, to see if you are breaking any laws, is reasonable?
Or do you not have those spot checks I mentioned?
The cops can't just pull anyone over for no reason to check if the driver is breaking any laws. That would be unreasonable. The cops can set up roadblocks/checkpoints where they check every car, but only for certain types of searches. The caselaw I quoted above lays out some of the contours of what they can do at these spot checks. For example, they can look for drunk drivers, but they can't look for trunks full of narcotics without any particularized reason to do so. They can look for bombs in your trunk if they're investigating a plausible tip that someone on that highway has a bomb in their trunk, but they can't make drivers get out of their cars and turn out their pockets without good cause. The idea is that at roadblocks/checkpoints, every car is treated the same. All the cops can do is ask questions, look in the drivers' eyes to see if they're bloodshot, check for proper paperwork, etc. They can't just pull people out of their cars, frisk them, and go through the car unless they have good reason.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
But according to techdirt, it's "censorship" when google removes certain search results from auto-completing, even though the same results show up in the search results. If that's "censorship," how is this not also "censorship"?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110127/01360912852/will-googles-new-hamfisted-ce nsorship-autocomplete-raise-questions-human-meddling.shtml
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Hey Mike, I'm curious what you mean by this last sentence. Exactly what is broken with the law that these lawsuits demonstrate? Thanks.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: 4th Amendment
So why was this post censored using techdirt's built-in censorship "report" button? He is simply expressing his views. I'm really surprised techdirt allows its readers to censor each other.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re:
Benjamin Franklin
I've always thought that quote is stupid. If you're not willing to trade freedom for security, you wouldn't have any security.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sort of. Reasonable suspicion is the standard for a stop and frisk. A stop and frisk is a search under the 4th Amendment. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
Besides that, there are several other scenarios where a search is allowed even though there is no probable cause and no consent, like at the border, an airport, a fire marshal, etc.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never suggested otherwise. I'm pointing you to the Amendment so you can read its plain language. The Court's interpretation is consistent with that plain language. I haven't been offering my interpretation, I've been offering the Court's opinion.
If the Supreme Court says that probable cause is needed for a search to be reasonable, then so it is (legally). If you want to argue that, you need to take it up with the Supreme Court. Otherwise, your declarations carry little weight.
The Court has not said that probable cause is needed for a search to be reasonable, as I've explained. I don't need to take anything up with the Court. What I'm telling you is their interpretation, not mine.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
Respectfully, I think you're confused. Read the 4th Amendment yourself:
It says that people are secure from unreasonable searches. It does not say that only searches based on probable cause are reasonable. The only thing it says about probable cause is that if a warrant is issued, that warrant must be based on probable cause.
What the Court has said, and I want I think is often the confusion when talking about these things, is that in general a search is unreasonable absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, except for in certain scenarios, like reasonable checkpoints, airport security, border stations, etc. In those scenarios, searches are allowed even though there is no probable cause. That's why TSA can "touch your junk," for example.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to whom? You? Do you consider sobriety checkpoints on nights when evidence shows there are more drunk drivers, like on New Year's Eve, to be reasonable? Maybe you don't, but I do, as does the Supreme Court. Of course, reasonableness is a relative term, and you're free to disagree.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it can't just for be any good reason. If you read the caselaw I cited above, the Court points out that the checkpoints can't be to discover "unknown crimes of the general sort." "Because we felt like it" is not an option, not if the checkpoints are going to be upheld as reasonable by the courts.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re:
/sarc
You'll never know. :)
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or do you not have those spot checks I mentioned?
The cops can't just pull anyone over for no reason to check if the driver is breaking any laws. That would be unreasonable. The cops can set up roadblocks/checkpoints where they check every car, but only for certain types of searches. The caselaw I quoted above lays out some of the contours of what they can do at these spot checks. For example, they can look for drunk drivers, but they can't look for trunks full of narcotics without any particularized reason to do so. They can look for bombs in your trunk if they're investigating a plausible tip that someone on that highway has a bomb in their trunk, but they can't make drivers get out of their cars and turn out their pockets without good cause. The idea is that at roadblocks/checkpoints, every car is treated the same. All the cops can do is ask questions, look in the drivers' eyes to see if they're bloodshot, check for proper paperwork, etc. They can't just pull people out of their cars, frisk them, and go through the car unless they have good reason.
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Government Putting Quite A Lot Of Effort Into Tracking Down 'Anonymous'
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't think military operations should be afforded some secrecy?
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no probable cause. Just checking to see if you are breaking the law.
Under the 4th Amendment, searches don't have to be based on probable cause. They only need to be reasonable.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been through checkpoints that were set up for no reason? I doubt it.
On the post: Has The Fourth Amendment Been Dismantled By Technology And The Courts?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I contradicted myself at all. Random checkpoints/roadblocks for "no reason" are not allowed.
Next >>