At some point of time they will have to explain Lincoln
It is not much of a stretch from ``good people on both sides'' in Charlottesville back to Abe Lincoln, who during the debates said he would not allow negroes to vote, or marry whites, or integrate socially, or serve on juries.
[cop is] trying to see what's going on at a dead run in weird lighting. [cop has] zero chance to pause and think about anything
Not quite a fair assessment of the situation. Try, instead: Cop yells at kid to stop, drop it, put hands up. Kid does so. Trigger-happy cop blasts away, expecting that there will be no prosecution and that the union will protect his job.
As follow up, city officials urge public to relax, and not get upset about another police homicide. Public will please wait until the matter is forgotten, at which time the cop's paid desk duty may end in favor of releasing him back on the streets to shoot another kid.
And, of course, the police union is fully behind the shooter. Not behind the victim, they do not care about the dead or their families; the police union is backing the killer.
This article beautify embossed the fact of "that which is done in secret, WILL come to light.
Yes, but remember that it came to light years later. In the mean time, many people languished in durance vile, made unemployable by felony convictions, or killed by drug-enforcement-crazed cops.
At least Job got his stuff back. Those imprisioned by the lies of New York's Finest will have neither their missed earnings nor their lost time. There is no way the city can restore the years of their children growing, their parents's funerals, or their opportunities to make something of themselves.
To send the message to police that they need to be honest in court, the city of New York should clawback the salary this detective "earned" while he was lying to win convictions.
The problem is that police unions generally resist this. They even resist modest discipline for things that would get non-members of their union substantial time in prison. The normal method of avoiding accountability is the ``arbitration'' provision in the contract. If the officer dislikes the planned discipline, the union takes it to arbitration. As ``frequent flyers'' with the arbitrators, police unions normally achieve the desired results: eliminated or greatly reduced discipline.
Two years ago, a cop here in the City beat up a citizen. It was recorded on video. The chief looked at the video and sacked the cop, but the arbitrator said that, while the cop should have been sacked, the chief did it wrong so the cop gets his tax-funded job back.
Also, evidently, you cannot sack a cop for being the kind of person who would do such a thing.
So, remember, when you see ``serve and protect'', remember that it refers to the police union, and that they are serving and protecting against those pesky citizens. And, whenever you see an arbitration clause, remember that it is intended to select a decision-maker who is beholden to whoever put in that arbitration clause.
I'm a little surprised that she hasn't gone the "you can't disbar me, I'm inactive" path:
Just so you know, that does not work in all states. Not sure if it actually works in any, for that matter. You can generally give up the license and agree to never reapply, but anything short of that leaves you within the clutches of many states' integrated bars.
we're not so much feeding the trolls as giving them a good beatdown.
Maybe it would be better to give them a beatdown by flagging (so the messages are quickly hidden) and then ignoring. The impression I get of these goofs is that any response constitutes feeding of a sort.
Do you ride your horse to work or do you take the wagon?
I walk. My office is in the City, and I live close enough that this generally works.
I am not sure that the founding fathers included anything in the U.S. Constitution about how I should get to work, however. They did, however, include provisions for allowing the franchise to white male property owners. This was indirect: A1S2 let the states set qualifications, which were generally so limited.
Right, that is where you probably learn about the Erie [Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64] doctrine. You remember, how Federal courts choose the different states' laws that are to apply in a case.
Once that one was decided, there was no longer any remaining case or controversy. If the use was a fair use, then the court need not understand or decide whether an API is a proper subject of copyright.
When a case settles or otherwise becomes moot, there is no remaining case or controversy because a decision will no longer affect the parties. From that it follows that they are less motivated to spend money and effort to fully advocate their side.
While courts sometimes go on to decide things likely to recur yet evading review, in re: Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1 (US 1st Cir. 2002), that is not a requirement of the job.
The key to the protections is moderation. If you enforce banishment only some of the time it’s not moderation.
This appears to be rubbish. If I own a property, real or virtual, I am almost certain to exclude some people and admit others. Particularly, I expect to exclude those whom I do not like, while admitting those whom I do.
My property, my tastes. Unless you are claiming some sort of public accommodation being denied on the basis of some protected characteristic, the law generally backs me up.
By the same token, you may bar me from tromping through your living room in my muddy boots, heading to lessen the inventory in your beer fridge, simply because you do not like my views. You may bar me from your alt-right dial-up BBS for the same reason. You may even choose between Pravda and the NY Post, simply because you prefer one's views of property rights over the other.
When you ban one group for violations and ignore the violations of others, you should loose your protections.
That appears to be rubbish. If I cannot selectively ban those whom I dislike from my property, then I have lost a valuable stick in the bundle of rights. It does not matter if my property is dirt or electrons, I maintain the right to bar people whom I dislike.
There is no reason to expect me to be fair. It is my property, after all.
So as far as your mall is concerned, what do you do with shoplifters?
Under Prune Yard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (Jun 1980), you may have to look to state law to see if there are greater protections given to the shoplifter's speech than are provided under the First Amendment. Because, while the First Amendment does not require the shopping center to host petition gatherers, the states may impose such requirements without them necessarily being a compensable taking. Id at 81.
Chances are pretty good that the state will let you put them out, as their activity is incompatible with the purpose of the shopping center. But you should talk to a lawyer licensed in your state if you have a problem. There may even be state laws specifically aimed at shoplifters.
since I'm in the 9th circuit ... I do not have the broad authority that the owner of a corporate office building would have.
Uh oh. Looks like someone has misread Pruneyard and the subsequent rulings
Actually, Prune Yard [v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74] is more widely applicable than the US 9th Circuit. It should apply across the nation, so that any state could impose access requirements that, depending on their nature, may not be deemed a compensable taking. In other words, other states are free to enact, either through constitution or statute, id at 79, requirements similar to those found in Article 1 Sections 2..3, California Constitution, id at 81.
Nobody codes so that people can see the "creativeness" of their code
Nobody writes novels so that people can see the ``creativeness'' of their writing, either. Likewise for newspaper columns.
Yet, truly, I have seen some code which was a thing of beauty, and even written a few lovely bits. And I have written newspaper columns which I like to think both educate and entertain (and occasionally win Fla Press Assn awards).
Surely, despite the fact that I did not write to show off ``creativeness'', I or my assignee should be entitled to copyright in these original works.
I agree, by the way, as to no copyright in the API: that is a required setting of values into registers before making the calls, and the anticipated return values in registers and carry flags. Your creative efforts to use my underlying code require that you conform to my calling sequence, so that is more of a fact than creative material. Indeed, if my code is widely adopted in thousands of devices, it may become something of a scenes a faire situation where everyone considers it a standard, like the disapproving father in Nichols v. Universal Pictures, 45 F.2d 119 (US 2d Cir. 1930).
I never understood the philosophy that courts often take that presents their role as solely to decide individual cases
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and under the U.S. Constitution, exist only to decide ``case and controversies''. They are not supposed to offer advisory opinions or decide things not before them. Indeed, if a case settles, they lose jurisdiction. In criminal matters, if the defendant dies, there is no more case or controversy.
I thought the purpose of trademark was to give lawyers and other Parasites on the Body Economic a way to survive
No. Unlike copyright and patent, trademark is actually intended as a consumer protection measure. It is intended that entity B should not pass its goods or services off as being from A.
For instance, restaurants should not sell "Moke" as though it were "Coke", because people have certain expectations of the latter and its vendor has a certain reputation. Likewise, you should not sell your "Madi-Lac" autos as though they were "Cadillac" vehicles, even though yours are less expensive and a better bargain due to the money saved by leaving out floorboards, seat padding, and other unnecessary luxuries.
You may, however, sell your "Morning Star" newspaper in the same towns as the "Daily Star", because even a moron in a hurry will not be mislead.
On the post: Sens. Cruz, Hawley & Lee Show How To Take A Good Bill Idea And Make It Blatantly Unconstitutional
Re: Re:
It is not much of a stretch from ``good people on both sides'' in Charlottesville back to Abe Lincoln, who during the debates said he would not allow negroes to vote, or marry whites, or integrate socially, or serve on juries.
On the post: Court Says Two Cops Who Deployed Deadly Force Can Use Florida's Victims' Rights Law To Hide Their Names From The Public
Assumes facts not in evidence. The log-rolled amendment which provided ``Marcy's Law'' was a disgrace funded by out-of-state interests.
On the post: Released Body Cam Footage Shows Chicago Cop Shoot And Kill An Unarmed 13-Year-Old
Re: So here's the thing...
Not quite a fair assessment of the situation. Try, instead: Cop yells at kid to stop, drop it, put hands up. Kid does so. Trigger-happy cop blasts away, expecting that there will be no prosecution and that the union will protect his job.
As follow up, city officials urge public to relax, and not get upset about another police homicide. Public will please wait until the matter is forgotten, at which time the cop's paid desk duty may end in favor of releasing him back on the streets to shoot another kid.
And, of course, the police union is fully behind the shooter. Not behind the victim, they do not care about the dead or their families; the police union is backing the killer.
On the post: Lying NYPD Narcotics Detective Just Cost Prosecutors Nearly 100 Convictions
Re: Ahh,... Life Imitating Art/Literature?
Yes, but remember that it came to light years later. In the mean time, many people languished in durance vile, made unemployable by felony convictions, or killed by drug-enforcement-crazed cops.
At least Job got his stuff back. Those imprisioned by the lies of New York's Finest will have neither their missed earnings nor their lost time. There is no way the city can restore the years of their children growing, their parents's funerals, or their opportunities to make something of themselves.
On the post: Lying NYPD Narcotics Detective Just Cost Prosecutors Nearly 100 Convictions
Re: clawback...
The problem is that police unions generally resist this. They even resist modest discipline for things that would get non-members of their union substantial time in prison. The normal method of avoiding accountability is the ``arbitration'' provision in the contract. If the officer dislikes the planned discipline, the union takes it to arbitration. As ``frequent flyers'' with the arbitrators, police unions normally achieve the desired results: eliminated or greatly reduced discipline.
Two years ago, a cop here in the City beat up a citizen. It was recorded on video. The chief looked at the video and sacked the cop, but the arbitrator said that, while the cop should have been sacked, the chief did it wrong so the cop gets his tax-funded job back.
Also, evidently, you cannot sack a cop for being the kind of person who would do such a thing.
So, remember, when you see ``serve and protect'', remember that it refers to the police union, and that they are serving and protecting against those pesky citizens. And, whenever you see an arbitration clause, remember that it is intended to select a decision-maker who is beholden to whoever put in that arbitration clause.
On the post: Michigan AG Using Former Trump Lawyer Sidney Powell's 'No Reasonable Person Would Believe Me' Statements To Seek Sanctions Against Her
Re: Re: Re: disciplinary resignation
Just so you know, that does not work in all states. Not sure if it actually works in any, for that matter. You can generally give up the license and agree to never reapply, but anything short of that leaves you within the clutches of many states' integrated bars.
On the post: Game Publishers: If Your DRM, Anti-Cheat Software Does Creepy Installs, Warn Your Customers First
Re: Re: [feeding trolls]
Maybe it would be better to give them a beatdown by flagging (so the messages are quickly hidden) and then ignoring. The impression I get of these goofs is that any response constitutes feeding of a sort.
On the post: Dominion Sues Rudy Giuliani For $1.3 Billion Over False Statements About Its Voting Systems
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I walk. My office is in the City, and I live close enough that this generally works.
I am not sure that the founding fathers included anything in the U.S. Constitution about how I should get to work, however. They did, however, include provisions for allowing the franchise to white male property owners. This was indirect: A1S2 let the states set qualifications, which were generally so limited.
On the post: EA College Sports Is Back, But Some Schools Are Opting Out Until Name, Image, Likeness Rules Are Created To Compensate Athletes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not sure EA is the problem...
Right, that is where you probably learn about the Erie [Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64] doctrine. You remember, how Federal courts choose the different states' laws that are to apply in a case.
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
Once that one was decided, there was no longer any remaining case or controversy. If the use was a fair use, then the court need not understand or decide whether an API is a proper subject of copyright.
When a case settles or otherwise becomes moot, there is no remaining case or controversy because a decision will no longer affect the parties. From that it follows that they are less motivated to spend money and effort to fully advocate their side.
While courts sometimes go on to decide things likely to recur yet evading review, in re: Providence Journal, 293 F.3d 1 (US 1st Cir. 2002), that is not a requirement of the job.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This appears to be rubbish. If I own a property, real or virtual, I am almost certain to exclude some people and admit others. Particularly, I expect to exclude those whom I do not like, while admitting those whom I do.
My property, my tastes. Unless you are claiming some sort of public accommodation being denied on the basis of some protected characteristic, the law generally backs me up.
By the same token, you may bar me from tromping through your living room in my muddy boots, heading to lessen the inventory in your beer fridge, simply because you do not like my views. You may bar me from your alt-right dial-up BBS for the same reason. You may even choose between Pravda and the NY Post, simply because you prefer one's views of property rights over the other.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re:
That appears to be rubbish. If I cannot selectively ban those whom I dislike from my property, then I have lost a valuable stick in the bundle of rights. It does not matter if my property is dirt or electrons, I maintain the right to bar people whom I dislike.
There is no reason to expect me to be fair. It is my property, after all.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Under Prune Yard v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (Jun 1980), you may have to look to state law to see if there are greater protections given to the shoplifter's speech than are provided under the First Amendment. Because, while the First Amendment does not require the shopping center to host petition gatherers, the states may impose such requirements without them necessarily being a compensable taking. Id at 81.
Chances are pretty good that the state will let you put them out, as their activity is incompatible with the purpose of the shopping center. But you should talk to a lawyer licensed in your state if you have a problem. There may even be state laws specifically aimed at shoplifters.
On the post: North Carolina State Senators Read Section 230 Completely Backwards, Introduces Laughably Confused Bill In Response
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Other Foot
Actually, Prune Yard [v. Robbins, 447 U.S. 74] is more widely applicable than the US 9th Circuit. It should apply across the nation, so that any state could impose access requirements that, depending on their nature, may not be deemed a compensable taking. In other words, other states are free to enact, either through constitution or statute, id at 79, requirements similar to those found in Article 1 Sections 2..3, California Constitution, id at 81.
On the post: Documents Show Hundreds Of Cops Have Run Clearview Searches, Often Without Their Employers' Knowledge Or Permission
Optimist is Expecting Things to be Better than Real Life
Such a harsh punishment is unlikely to be administered to police officers running Clearview searches.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: NASA Footage Taken Down By YouTube Moderation (2012)
Re:
Right. Government speech to be treated as privileged. What could possibly go wrong?
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re:
Nobody writes novels so that people can see the ``creativeness'' of their writing, either. Likewise for newspaper columns.
Yet, truly, I have seen some code which was a thing of beauty, and even written a few lovely bits. And I have written newspaper columns which I like to think both educate and entertain (and occasionally win Fla Press Assn awards).
Surely, despite the fact that I did not write to show off ``creativeness'', I or my assignee should be entitled to copyright in these original works.
I agree, by the way, as to no copyright in the API: that is a required setting of values into registers before making the calls, and the anticipated return values in registers and carry flags. Your creative efforts to use my underlying code require that you conform to my calling sequence, so that is more of a fact than creative material. Indeed, if my code is widely adopted in thousands of devices, it may become something of a scenes a faire situation where everyone considers it a standard, like the disapproving father in Nichols v. Universal Pictures, 45 F.2d 119 (US 2d Cir. 1930).
On the post: Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API Copyright; Google's Copying Of Java API Is Fair Use
Re:
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and under the U.S. Constitution, exist only to decide ``case and controversies''. They are not supposed to offer advisory opinions or decide things not before them. Indeed, if a case settles, they lose jurisdiction. In criminal matters, if the defendant dies, there is no more case or controversy.
On the post: Apple Lawyers Try The Ever Popular Morons In A Hurry Test
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. Unlike copyright and patent, trademark is actually intended as a consumer protection measure. It is intended that entity B should not pass its goods or services off as being from A.
For instance, restaurants should not sell "Moke" as though it were "Coke", because people have certain expectations of the latter and its vendor has a certain reputation. Likewise, you should not sell your "Madi-Lac" autos as though they were "Cadillac" vehicles, even though yours are less expensive and a better bargain due to the money saved by leaving out floorboards, seat padding, and other unnecessary luxuries.
You may, however, sell your "Morning Star" newspaper in the same towns as the "Daily Star", because even a moron in a hurry will not be mislead.
On the post: Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An imminent threat is required. Merely ``calling for or planning violence'', which is what you said, is most assuredly protected.
Next >>