She has several defenses against defamation which could hold:
1) Good faith: She obviously believed that she was raped regardless of the technical definition of rape.
2) Opinion: Unless the agent denies the particular facts, the qualification of the act as "rape" in common parlance is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
3) Fair comment on a matter of public interest: The TSA search procedures and the acts of a particular TSA agent in the performance of their duty is definitely a matter of public interest. Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did.
My understanding though is that the TSA agent was acting within her authority no matter how despicable those actions would be. So the victim might open herself to accusations of filing frivolous charges. IANAL so I would love to hear from someone who might know if my theory has any merit.
"I do think it was at least 'wrong', if not illegal, to name the security agent publicly. File charges and name them that way, but publicly by screaming "You raped me!" and then following up with talking about it online using names just strikes me as a bit more than Ms. Alkon likely should have done."
I disagree. If the courts are going to stand by and allow federal agents to sexually assault people, there is no reason the rest of us have to remain silent. If this story is true the likes of Thedala Magee should be publicly named, shamed and we should all use all the legal tools at our disposal to make her feel unwelcome wherever she goes. There is no reason boycotts should only be applied against companies that misbehave. With today's technology it would not be that difficult to hook-up a webcam to a facial recognition database and refuse to interact with anyone who is known to have acted in ways that are grossly improper though legal.
Actually, he said that intellectual property, free speech and the right to privacy are all fundamental rights which are deserving of equal consideration.
I have to say your friends are not the best friends there are. I would personally not bring the cops over to my friend's house. It's just a general rule I have: Don't bring rabid animals to my friends' houses.
"Also, the prosecutor and law enforcement personnel involved should be held criminally liable for harassment and serve time in jail for violating this man's constitutional rights."
They should also be barred from ever holding public office or working for the government.
Also, if I recall correctly, (and I may be wrong about this) while saying you "just followed orders" was by no means helpful, saying "I was fearing I might get shot if I didn't cooperate" was definitely something that helped attenuate responsibility at Nuremberg.
Hm... That's interesting. I did not realize those guys stayed out of the program. Yet, it is easy post-hoc to say there were no consequences for Verizon, etc... However, I would not have put it past the government to issue veiled threats to get what they wanted. (Perhaps a simple mention that "tax season is coming and it would be a shame if tax inspectors swarmed your offices...") Good for Verizon, Qwest and Sprint who resisted. I still find it hard to fully blame someone who caves before the guys with guns who are demonstrating a desire to break the law.
I do understand that. However, I'm ready to cut some slack to private citizens for not doing the right thing when the feds come knocking at their door. We do have legal precedent that when coerced, you are not responsible for your own actions. Was there coercion? Definitely some amount of coercion was involved. The real question is how much?
“Congress made a considered decision that it would be unfair if [the telcos] were subject to potential suits and ruinous liability,”
I think that is fair. The government is a bunch of guys with guns. If the telcos had not cooperated with such an illegal spying program it is quite likely that the feds would have retaliated. Ultimately, the ones responsible for this are the officials who ordered and implemented the spying program. Those people should be arrested, fined, subject to civil liability and then thrown in jail.
Somehow I don't think this is going to work. I mean, the people in Somalia have been on a hunger strike for years and I'm pretty sure we haven't given in to their demands for food.
"and they're so clueless they can't figure out how to just block a URL."
Come on Mike. That's BS. You keep talking about how PROTECT IP is ineffective because it's really easy to get a new domain name. URLs can be changed in the blink of an eye. It would be technically clueless to block a URL. Not to mention that a quasy-infinite number of URLs can point at the same content.
I would imagine if the treaty was not ratified, it is not binding in the US. What ratification means is that the treaty is incorporated into domestic law. That is the way a treaty can become binding. If ACTA was signed as an executive agreement, it is not binding in the US by definition. It might be binding in Europe is they ratify it.
I know... All of these people calling me a freetard and the RIAA saying they'll come after me is kind of scary. Maybe we should just throw all these people in jail just to be safe.
It is important to remember that courts do make a distinction between public places and public forums for First Amendment purposes. So for instance, you can protest on the sidewalk or in a park without having to ask for permission, but you can't protest in a post office. I don't like it, but it may be that stadiums are not public forums. In fact, that sounds pretty likely. Now if only we stopped spending my money on sports, that would be nice.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical definition
1) Good faith: She obviously believed that she was raped regardless of the technical definition of rape.
2) Opinion: Unless the agent denies the particular facts, the qualification of the act as "rape" in common parlance is nothing more than a matter of opinion.
3) Fair comment on a matter of public interest: The TSA search procedures and the acts of a particular TSA agent in the performance of their duty is definitely a matter of public interest. Saying that the agent in question committed rape is a fair comment given what the agent did.
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody see the bottom...
On the post: TSA Agent Threatens Woman With Defamation, Demands $500k For Calling Intrusive Search 'Rape'
Re: Anybody see the bottom...
I disagree. If the courts are going to stand by and allow federal agents to sexually assault people, there is no reason the rest of us have to remain silent. If this story is true the likes of Thedala Magee should be publicly named, shamed and we should all use all the legal tools at our disposal to make her feel unwelcome wherever she goes. There is no reason boycotts should only be applied against companies that misbehave. With today's technology it would not be that difficult to hook-up a webcam to a facial recognition database and refuse to interact with anyone who is known to have acted in ways that are grossly improper though legal.
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Re: Re:
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Re:
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re:
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re: Re:
On the post: Man Facing 75 Years In Jail For Recording The Police; Illinois Assistant AG Says No Right To Record Police
Re: Re: Re:
They should also be barred from ever holding public office or working for the government.
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Insist That As Long As They Break The Law In A 'Classified' Way, They Can Never Be Sued
I think that is fair. The government is a bunch of guys with guns. If the telcos had not cooperated with such an illegal spying program it is quite likely that the feds would have retaliated. Ultimately, the ones responsible for this are the officials who ordered and implemented the spying program. Those people should be arrested, fined, subject to civil liability and then thrown in jail.
On the post: More People Waking Up To The Troubling Implications Of The Gov't Taking $500 Million From Google
On the post: Nigeria 'Celebrates' Its Recording Artists With 'No Music Day'
PS: I'm a bad person.
On the post: Pure Awesomeness: Two Chat Bots Talking To Each Other
On the post: Pakistan Officially Bans All Encryption Online
Come on Mike. That's BS. You keep talking about how PROTECT IP is ineffective because it's really easy to get a new domain name. URLs can be changed in the blink of an eye. It would be technically clueless to block a URL. Not to mention that a quasy-infinite number of URLs can point at the same content.
On the post: If ACTA Is Approved In The US, It May Open The Door For The President To Regularly Ignore Congress On International Agreements
On the post: Is It Stalking To Bombard Someone On Twitter With Offensive Messages?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Re: Re:
Next >>