Police unions can ask complaisant State legislators for another item on their Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights -- an exclusionary rule to delete and or ignore any surveillance footage that ran while the cop was unaware of it.
(I am the AC in the previous Conress header. An overrated bot got away from me.)
We cannot expect private companies like Google to carry the whole burden of defending our free speech and press. At some point, company owners will make the rational business decision that it is cheaper to block American information than to give up foreign markets.
Only Congress has the muscle to make foreign governments back off. Congress could state (1) Any foreign attempt to censor the Internet in America in violation of American law is a hostile act (but we will be reasonably cooperative with "great walls" to block foreigners from American addresses). (2) We hereby give the requisite notice that, all international trade agreements to the contrary, we will immediately retaliate in kind for any economic pressures on American companies to censor American speech. Example: if Canada fines Google $100 million for failing to censor American information, we would strategically choose a Canadian target for a $100 million "fine" to reimburse Google.
The shameless capitalist swine of SDCC exploited the legal confusion of the Cold War to trademark a name used since 1949 by Comecon (aka CMEA), the COuncil for Mutual ECONomic assistance, an economic cooperative of friendly socialist countries. (Comecon is written up in Wikipedia.) SDCC should be forced to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, and pay compensation for years of trademark piracy.
Let's all agree that if Trump should fire Sessions, we'll give Trump a free pass. No feverish comparisons to the Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre," etc. I might even send him a bottle of champagne...
(Trump has repeatedly complained that Sessions let him down by not shutting down the Russia investigations.)
As a foreigner, I thought the most persuasive Brexit argument was that European human rights law made it almost impossible to deport jihadists like Abu Qatada. But it turns out that Britain's Blair government enacted the "Human Rights Act" in 1998 independent of EU requirements. A successor government could presumably rescind or amend it by the same means.
Apart from that, the Brexiteers (May, Johnson, and Farrage) seem clueless. They would probably do best to admit the whole thing was a mistake.
1st Amdt right "to petition the government for redress of grievances"
I found the right of "petition" more persuasive than "freedom of speech". Petitions against police misconduct were routinely ignored before recording was available. Now that recorded evidence is available, however, petitions are given the serious consideration implied by the First Amendment.
Republican House has some good people on IP reform
In 2014, the Republican House sent a worthwhile IP reform to the Senate. Democrat Patrick Leahy was interested, but Harry Reid blocked it. Since 2014, the Republican Senate has been worthless.
If Germany and Spain persuade the EU to require an EU-wide snippet tax, could Google avoid the tax by replacing snippets with computer-generated paraphrases?
Google "patent troll delaware" and you will find an interesting article in "Harvard business review." Delaware is almost as troll friendly as Marshall TX, with the additional advantage of numerous corporate headquarters. Unless I missed something, Sen Coons's bill does not overturn TC Heartland
Trump may admire Erdogan and Putin, but he lacks their brains. By this time he has so thoroughly antagonized the security and judicial establishments that they would thwart any grab he might make for permanent power.
Build a better consumer-trap, and the stock options will beat a path to your door...
Next project for printer oligopolists: a cartridge that works well enough with its first load of ink to avoid class-action lawsuits, but then disintegrates so thoroughly that refurbishment and refilling is impossible.
Re: Re: The right to hire counsel of one's choice in complex cases [Was: Re
My understanding is that he will *not* have access to funds for defense once he enters the USA. I would be receptive to a compromise where he would be extradited, but with access to sufficient funds to hire effective lawyers.
The right to hire counsel of one's choice in complex cases [Was: Re
@AC 5:11pm--
Many of your arguments have merit, until you claim he "only needs to go to court and prove" his innocence. (1) He needs competent counsel to argue the complexities of his case, but the US government has frozen all the funds he could use to hire such counsel. A public defender with 30 other cases to handle at the same time does not cut it.
(2) (a technical quibble) In US legal tradition, it is up to the prosecution to "prove" a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no to the defendant to "prove" his innocence.
On the post: Body Cam Footage Of A Cop Planting Evidence Leads To Dozens Of Dismissed Cases
Next on the LEOBR wish list...
On the post: Google Asks US Court To Block Terrible Canadian Supreme Court Ruling On Global Censorship
A job for Congress
We cannot expect private companies like Google to carry the whole burden of defending our free speech and press. At some point, company owners will make the rational business decision that it is cheaper to block American information than to give up foreign markets.
Only Congress has the muscle to make foreign governments back off. Congress could state
(1) Any foreign attempt to censor the Internet in America in violation of American law is a hostile act (but we will be reasonably cooperative with "great walls" to block foreigners from American addresses).
(2) We hereby give the requisite notice that, all international trade agreements to the contrary, we will immediately retaliate in kind for any economic pressures on American companies to censor American speech. Example: if Canada fines Google $100 million for failing to censor American information, we would strategically choose a Canadian target for a $100 million "fine" to reimburse Google.
On the post: San Diego Comic Con Gets Gag Order On Salt Lake Comic Con
Comecon has priority, as any good comrade knows
On the post: DOJ Boss Promises The Return Of Everything That Didn't Work During The Last 40 Years Of Drug Warring
Re: Re: If Trump should fire Sessions...
On the post: DOJ Boss Promises The Return Of Everything That Didn't Work During The Last 40 Years Of Drug Warring
If Trump should fire Sessions...
(Trump has repeatedly complained that Sessions let him down by not shutting down the Russia investigations.)
On the post: EU's Brexit Strategy Shows How Aggressive Transparency Can Be Used To Gain The Upper Hand In Negotiations
European human rights court not required
Apart from that, the Brexiteers (May, Johnson, and Farrage) seem clueless. They would probably do best to admit the whole thing was a mistake.
On the post: Third Circuit Appeals Court Establishes First Amendment Right To Record Police
Re: Re:
On the post: Third Circuit Appeals Court Establishes First Amendment Right To Record Police
1st Amdt right "to petition the government for redress of grievances"
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Lower Court (For The Second Time) To Stop Coddling An Abusive Ex-Deputy
Impeachable offense?
On the post: House Appropriation Committee Demolishes Hollywood's Excuses For Moving Copyright Office Out Of Library Of Congress
Republican House has some good people on IP reform
On the post: First And Only Snippet Tax Deal In Spain Is With Big Supporter Of Snippet Tax In Germany
Re: Re: Paraphrases rather than snippets?
On the post: First And Only Snippet Tax Deal In Spain Is With Big Supporter Of Snippet Tax In Germany
Paraphrases rather than snippets?
On the post: Could You Design A Worse Patent Reform Bill Than The STRONGER Patent Act By Senator Coons? Don't Think So
Sen. Coons is from Delaware, a new troll haven
On the post: Could You Design A Worse Patent Reform Bill Than The STRONGER Patent Act By Senator Coons? Don't Think So
Patent *d*eform, not reform
On the post: Reporter Indicted For Covering Trump Inauguration Protests
Re:
On the post: Congress 'Fixes' Child Porn 'Loophole' With 15-Year Prison Sentences For Teen Sexting
Sacrifice to Moloch
On the post: Strike Three: Lexmark Can't Use Patents, Trademarks Or Copyright To Block Third Party Ink Cartridges
Build a better consumer-trap, and the stock options will beat a path to your door...
On the post: Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping
On the post: Kim Dotcom Asks US Supreme Court Not To Allow US Government To Steal All His Stuff Without Due Process
Re: Re: The right to hire counsel of one's choice in complex cases [Was: Re
On the post: Kim Dotcom Asks US Supreme Court Not To Allow US Government To Steal All His Stuff Without Due Process
The right to hire counsel of one's choice in complex cases [Was: Re
Many of your arguments have merit, until you claim he "only needs to go to court and prove" his innocence.
(1) He needs competent counsel to argue the complexities of his case, but the US government has frozen all the funds he could use to hire such counsel. A public defender with 30 other cases to handle at the same time does not cut it.
(2) (a technical quibble) In US legal tradition, it is up to the prosecution to "prove" a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, no to the defendant to "prove" his innocence.
Next >>