The first is about judge made law. The USSC recently told cops it was OK to shoot people, because their rights had not been 'clearly established'. The second is if they can impose their laws on us, how about imposing our laws on them? Hmm, which laws should we impose first?
I know that we have too many laws, overlapping laws, more unneeded laws coming, and a legislative system that has never heard of a problem they couldn't, or wouldn't write a law for, whether it makes sense or not, whether it is actually needed or not. I have a feeling that this symptom is the same in many countries.
Now we have countries that want their laws to become our laws, whether they pass through our broken legislative process or not. We have too many laws now and they want to pile their laws on top of ours, racking up exponentially the number of laws we have now.
What happens when one of their laws actually conflicts with an existing law of ours? Who is supposed to win? Do we accept laws from all other countries? What if that foreign born law is actually an infringement on our Constitutional rights? I know that government is working on abrogating those rights as fast as they can, but do they really need the help of other countries?
That the NY Times is changing their minds about hearing from their readers seems like a move in the correct direction. Now let's see how they go about handling those comments.
For sure, any interaction will be better than the Presidents views about his government Twitter account, or the Governor of Kentucky's view about his government Facebook account where both could be charged with illegal censorship, if we could get any agency to care enough.
The NY Times won't be doing anything illegal if they censor comments, but will certainly raise the hackles of any dissonant's that have their comments cut. Look what happens here, and those comments are still view-able.
None. Not that I can think of right now anyway. For that matter, I am having trouble thinking of any state, county, or municipal agency that I trust. Wait, maybe there is an animal control unit, someplace, that we might put some faith in. Then maybe not.
Whether one votes or not, whether one performs military service or not, whether one does or doesn't do something else that some pinhead thinks should be required, just being a citizen allows for all the freedoms the Constitution provides, including being able to speak their minds.
There is a big question, that will take years to resolve, as to whether FOSTA/SESTA is Constitutional or not. It will take some cases to develop that actually, legally, use this law to perform some enforcement action that then get appealed in more than one Circuit. If those answers agree, and the law is declared un-Constitutional, then it will be over. If those answers don't agree, then it will take some more time to get to the USSC, and given their behavior I have my doubts about whether we get a cogent answer from them.
But, as Scott Greenfield points out the passing of un-Constitutional laws is not actually necessary for some types of censorship to take place. Backpage shut down their adult ads back in January in order to prevent the kind of nonsense being displayed by the DoJ now. They didn't need to, and in doing so made certain tactics law enforcement could use to get at actual traffickers impossible, but even considering the potential loss of revenue they did what they thought would ameliorate critics. The mere threat of the FOSTA/SESTA legislation creates an environment where censorship begins.
We don't know yet what kind of evidence the DoJ has against Backpage, or for that matter what the actual charges are due to the sealed indictment, but it certainly appears that the Government is working at practicing censorship both with and without laws that demand censorship. This does not bode well for a free society.
Are you seriously suggesting that the USofA start using Russian definitions of words? Well, given the current state of affairs, maybe we should consider....
I have read all of the Arkady Renko novels several times, even last month, but don't give into that definition of Militia...not until Putin is elected President of the United States...in fact.
"...Kisela still could not be sued because any rights that he might have violated were not clearly established..."
Which right was not clearly established? The right to live? The cop tried, and failed, to kill her.
Is the Constitution not clear enough for (at least 7) the Justices? The Constitution is a prohibition of things the Government cannot do. Does the right to life and liberty really need to be re-established each and every time?
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Seems pretty clear to me, but then I am not a lawyer. Judge, jury and attempted executioner all rolled into the cop's job description, or is it that cop's just have greater rights than everybody else?
Which leaves the question, is it enacted when passed by both houses of Congress, or when the President signs it, or if vetoed by the President when both houses of Congress overcome the veto, which then leaves us with a bill passed by Congress but not signed by the President.
So, what is the date of enactment?
Further, since it was not mentioned, did the President sign this bill?
Anyway, thanks for the information, it was more than I knew.
The police are in fact also citizens. I see no reasonable (problematic word there) reason why they should get deferential treatment. They do a job. The job has rules. They should follow not only those rules, but the law. That their job entails the enforcement of law, they should also know the law.
All this remonstrating (from their unions, the prosecutors, and the courts) about how they should be protected from doing their jobs...properly...sure seems like they are being set up to be enforcers, rather than law enforcers.
Enforcers have some tendency to enforce what they feel like enforcing, rather than what the rest of us expect them to enforce, that is, when we hired them.
..."(which apparently still has no effective date)..."
Doesn't a law have to me effective to be enforced? Why is the DOJ trying to enforce a law that has yet to be effected? I understand that it 'may' become effective, at some point. But until then, it HAS NO FORCE. Predicting the effectiveness of the about to become law seems like the DOJ trying to avoid some 'inconvenience' by following existing law, rather than expected law.
There is also the question of :
"Microsoft's objection hinges on unresolved contempt charges stemming from the case it successfully appealed twice. According to Microsoft, its compliance with the old warrant might trigger retroactive charges, which would be problematic for it. The DOJ points out no sanctions were ever threatened by the district court, which only entered contempt charges to allow the decision to be appealed.
"
There was, nor is, nothing to stop the DOJ from charging Microsoft for any 'creative' violation of 'some law' and the DOJ's contention that it never threatened anything is without believe-ability given their past behaviors and tactics. What would stop them?
Then there is the idea that the Constitution allows for laws that let the Government have control over assets controlled by corporations that do not exist in this country. Our Constitution does not make any mention of such an ability, so where does the Constitutionality of such a law as the Cloud Act come from?
Elsevier is going to be ever so joyful that they have an actual contract that allows, nay demands, that they scour open scientific data and papers and etc. for easy pickings. What can we lock up now?
Just what the hell is this commission thinking? They are supposed to be for opening the flow of information and they give a contract to a major player in the staunching of information flow, or rather profiting off the flow of information in such a way that it really isn't all that open.
It certainly leaves open the consideration as to what consideration was offered for the assignment of that contract choice.
The why not is if every company is doing it do you really think all commerce will just stop? Gonna stop eating? The grocery stores are as bad as the rest.
If every companies collects and sells your data, you don't think boycotts will work, do you?
Legislating privacy, though trusting Congress to get that right is really hard to consider, is probably the right way to go about it. A good piece of legislation would require that any data held by any public or private company would have to be purged, and new information only held long enough for say billing purposes. And that data would need to be very very closely held. Government held information would need to be treated differently, but also purged after some amount of time, say a few years.
You bring up an interesting question. If AI takes some pictures, then I, the owner of that device, reviews the pictures and purge from memory those pictures I do not want (a.k.a. delete) (for whatever endeavor I was intent upon at that time) I would then be destroying the intellectual property of someone else?
The AI creator did not have control of the camera at the times those pictures were taken. It was not their property in which the images were stored. How would the AI creator even know that such a picture ever existed? They can't.
I think he should just replace each instance with another picture. Maybe even one he takes himself, to ensure no tender toes get stepped upon. May I recommend a picture of a dildo?
Ask the IOC about the TOS printed on the back of their tickets. Alternatively make sure you view, record, commit to memory and follow the 'Rights' warnings likely run prior to any 'legitimate' video of events. To them, if it happens at, near, around, during, or about the Olympics, it's theirs, even if it was you who won the event.
If an author self publishes their book, because the were turned down by some distribution channel, they are NOT allowed to distribute that book world wide?
On the post: Canadian Government Leaning Towards A Right To Be Forgotten It Can Enforce Anywhere In The World
Re: Yet another law and counting
The first is about judge made law. The USSC recently told cops it was OK to shoot people, because their rights had not been 'clearly established'. The second is if they can impose their laws on us, how about imposing our laws on them? Hmm, which laws should we impose first?
On the post: Canadian Government Leaning Towards A Right To Be Forgotten It Can Enforce Anywhere In The World
Yet another law and counting
Now we have countries that want their laws to become our laws, whether they pass through our broken legislative process or not. We have too many laws now and they want to pile their laws on top of ours, racking up exponentially the number of laws we have now.
What happens when one of their laws actually conflicts with an existing law of ours? Who is supposed to win? Do we accept laws from all other countries? What if that foreign born law is actually an infringement on our Constitutional rights? I know that government is working on abrogating those rights as fast as they can, but do they really need the help of other countries?
On the post: The New York Times Tries Something Novel: Listening To And Interacting With Readers
How long will it last?
For sure, any interaction will be better than the Presidents views about his government Twitter account, or the Governor of Kentucky's view about his government Facebook account where both could be charged with illegal censorship, if we could get any agency to care enough.
The NY Times won't be doing anything illegal if they censor comments, but will certainly raise the hackles of any dissonant's that have their comments cut. Look what happens here, and those comments are still view-able.
On the post: FBI Is Using Classified Tools For Regular Investigations And That's Going To End Up Hurting Everyone
Re: rights
On the post: Politicians Who Said SESTA Was Needed To Takedown Backpage Claim Victory Over Backpage Takedown... Without SESTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even you snowflake.
On the post: Politicians Who Said SESTA Was Needed To Takedown Backpage Claim Victory Over Backpage Takedown... Without SESTA
Whether Legal or Not
There is a big question, that will take years to resolve, as to whether FOSTA/SESTA is Constitutional or not. It will take some cases to develop that actually, legally, use this law to perform some enforcement action that then get appealed in more than one Circuit. If those answers agree, and the law is declared un-Constitutional, then it will be over. If those answers don't agree, then it will take some more time to get to the USSC, and given their behavior I have my doubts about whether we get a cogent answer from them.
But, as Scott Greenfield points out the passing of un-Constitutional laws is not actually necessary for some types of censorship to take place. Backpage shut down their adult ads back in January in order to prevent the kind of nonsense being displayed by the DoJ now. They didn't need to, and in doing so made certain tactics law enforcement could use to get at actual traffickers impossible, but even considering the potential loss of revenue they did what they thought would ameliorate critics. The mere threat of the FOSTA/SESTA legislation creates an environment where censorship begins.
We don't know yet what kind of evidence the DoJ has against Backpage, or for that matter what the actual charges are due to the sealed indictment, but it certainly appears that the Government is working at practicing censorship both with and without laws that demand censorship. This does not bode well for a free society.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Re: Re: Non established rights
Are you seriously suggesting that the USofA start using Russian definitions of words? Well, given the current state of affairs, maybe we should consider....
I have read all of the Arkady Renko novels several times, even last month, but don't give into that definition of Militia...not until Putin is elected President of the United States...in fact.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Re: Re: Non established rights
No, they aren't.
On the post: Supreme Court Says Shooting A Non-Threatening Person Without Warning Is Just Good Police Work
Non established rights
Which right was not clearly established? The right to live? The cop tried, and failed, to kill her.
Is the Constitution not clear enough for (at least 7) the Justices? The Constitution is a prohibition of things the Government cannot do. Does the right to life and liberty really need to be re-established each and every time?
Seems pretty clear to me, but then I am not a lawyer. Judge, jury and attempted executioner all rolled into the cop's job description, or is it that cop's just have greater rights than everybody else?
On the post: DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Dump Microsoft Case, Let It Use New CLOUD Act To Demand Overseas Data
Re: Re: A couple of problems
So, what is the date of enactment?
Further, since it was not mentioned, did the President sign this bill?
Anyway, thanks for the information, it was more than I knew.
On the post: Judge Tosses Charges Against Journalist Who Published Docs Leaked To Her By A Police Officer
Double Good Speak
All this remonstrating (from their unions, the prosecutors, and the courts) about how they should be protected from doing their jobs...properly...sure seems like they are being set up to be enforcers, rather than law enforcers.
Enforcers have some tendency to enforce what they feel like enforcing, rather than what the rest of us expect them to enforce, that is, when we hired them.
On the post: DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Dump Microsoft Case, Let It Use New CLOUD Act To Demand Overseas Data
A couple of problems
Doesn't a law have to me effective to be enforced? Why is the DOJ trying to enforce a law that has yet to be effected? I understand that it 'may' become effective, at some point. But until then, it HAS NO FORCE. Predicting the effectiveness of the about to become law seems like the DOJ trying to avoid some 'inconvenience' by following existing law, rather than expected law.
There is also the question of :
There was, nor is, nothing to stop the DOJ from charging Microsoft for any 'creative' violation of 'some law' and the DOJ's contention that it never threatened anything is without believe-ability given their past behaviors and tactics. What would stop them?
Then there is the idea that the Constitution allows for laws that let the Government have control over assets controlled by corporations that do not exist in this country. Our Constitution does not make any mention of such an ability, so where does the Constitutionality of such a law as the Cloud Act come from?
On the post: Hated Science Publisher Elsevier To Help EU Monitor Open Science - Including Open Access
And the money goes round and round
Just what the hell is this commission thinking? They are supposed to be for opening the flow of information and they give a contract to a major player in the staunching of information flow, or rather profiting off the flow of information in such a way that it really isn't all that open.
It certainly leaves open the consideration as to what consideration was offered for the assignment of that contract choice.
On the post: It's Grindr's Turn In The Barrel As America Finally Decides To Care About Consumer Privacy
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The why not is if every company is doing it do you really think all commerce will just stop? Gonna stop eating? The grocery stores are as bad as the rest.
On the post: It's Grindr's Turn In The Barrel As America Finally Decides To Care About Consumer Privacy
Re: Re:
Legislating privacy, though trusting Congress to get that right is really hard to consider, is probably the right way to go about it. A good piece of legislation would require that any data held by any public or private company would have to be purged, and new information only held long enough for say billing purposes. And that data would need to be very very closely held. Government held information would need to be treated differently, but also purged after some amount of time, say a few years.
On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain
Re: Let's talk AI
The AI creator did not have control of the camera at the times those pictures were taken. It was not their property in which the images were stored. How would the AI creator even know that such a picture ever existed? They can't.
On the post: Lawyer Behind Failing Sham To Protect Sketchy Patents Sends Bogus Copyright Cease & Desist To Blogger
Picture Replacement
On the post: Not Everything Needs Copyright: Lawyers Flip Out That Photos Taken By AI May Be Public Domain
Re: Clipped to shirt pocket
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Legal routes easier
What are you smoking?
If an author self publishes their book, because the were turned down by some distribution channel, they are NOT allowed to distribute that book world wide?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: feldercrump
Next >>