Copying myself from the clinton speech. Bares repeating.
Just to point out Mike she's hedging way way bad with this.
American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.
I actually laughed out loud at this. Sorry it wasn't "against" anything Mike. Principles according to whom?
It certainly makes you wonder about the impact of the overall internet, when various countries can just seek to shut down various domains without any trial determination.
... Let alone "just cause" and yes the pun came intended.
I wonder where the haters are.. maybe there bedtime. But its quite funny when Mike makes a perfectly good point there oddly silent about his piracy-enabling activities.
Just to follow this up. Data mining is still legal and (for the most part) is what an altruistic hacker still does. In the past 20 years we call them hackers and 80 years beyond we called these people investigative journalist.
My favorite to date because people seem to ignore it ad-nauseam is climate gate but people are still stuck on green because there is no red.
I'm usually not one to point out things like an editor but I found myself counting how many "of course" rather than the message of the article... now I gata go back and re-read it.
I'm usually not one to point out things like an editor but I found myself counting how many "of course" rather than the message of the article... now I gata go back and re-read it.
" And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
Judges may opine that juries don't have that right; but unless that right is removed by law, they're not doing anything unlawful.
A few have brought this up in more colorful ways but I wanted to bring to the question that has been bugging all of us and the de facto point of the article. It's been bugging me ever since I was a kid looking at lady justice and wondering why the blindfold.
Psuedo-warning this may be a intellectual exercise in thought. We, as a society, have given ourselves over to the perception that we have the facts to interpret the intent rounded around common sense. Given that do we have the basics to hear every fact that influence our decisions?
Secondary to this isn't even self-awareness but a collaboration to justify punishment on another human being. Ya really want to go blind folded? Or ask others to?
It's a bit unfair to ask this of a presenter of one side of case (Joe or any lawyer/debater) but I ask as a logical being with Truth as his #1 virtue. It may be a No-No to come right out and say put yourselves in there shoes but we still understand and conclude the rational to getting altered all the way to justifiable homicide. So Lastly(mostly to the judge & Joe) if you answered yes to either of the above how the hell is debatable at all to squelch any information that influences our decisions?
P.S. I get a smile on my face every time that this may be the not so secret way of getting out of jury duty as the judicial system stands, in most courts, now.
Heh, ironic since nullification was exactly helped the civil rights movement.
However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge." The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)
So I respect your view on disfavor but not the premise for it.
:Supposed to: is a moral, not to mention subjective argument.
Informing people of their rights "could" (again moral) be. If blank could blank.
Inevitable? try again. The article I posted above was from 2009 and he was handing pamplets out 18 months prior and threatended. I impact on murder cases or hearing about nullification of a manslaughter law?
Yeah, these arguments are becoming inflated with the heinous crime vs moral outrage with a splash of forgetting history.
Most of the arguments can be nicely summed into explaining why your rights are fairy tails the others are boiled to libertarians' favorite friend... appealing to authority trumps staw mans.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hillary Clinton Talks The Talk On Internet Freedom; Will The Administration Walk The Walk?
Blast from the past
Just to point out Mike she's hedging way way bad with this.
American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.
I actually laughed out loud at this. Sorry it wasn't "against" anything Mike. Principles according to whom?
On the post: UK Law Enforcement Also Looking To Be Able To Seize Domains
My first thought...
... Let alone "just cause" and yes the pun came intended.
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Re: Re: Funny...
As for the enabling part it is one of there biggest gripes when trolling. They seem absent in articles that make a point.
On the post: Cable And Hollywood Fight Having Their Gatekeeper Status Taken Away
Funny...
On the post: When Musicians Get Excited About Remixes, Cool Things Happen: Jay-Z, Nick Drake And Jason Parker Do Jazz
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True
Re: Distracted twice
On the post: Investigators Still Can't Find Any Evidence To Link Assange & Manning; DoD Insists It Must Be True
Distracted twice
So either they try some other, exceptionally weak claim. Or... the give up
On the post: HBGary Federal Spied On Families And Children Of US Chamber Of Commerce Opponents
Re: right or wrong
My favorite to date because people seem to ignore it ad-nauseam is climate gate but people are still stuck on green because there is no red.
On the post: Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy
Mike.. wow really?
On the post: Screaming Justin Bieber Fans Using Camera Phones To Capture Snippets Of Movie Premiere Berated For Piracy
Mike.. wow really?
On the post: Wikileaks Wasn't The Only Operation HBGary Federal, Palantir And Berico Planned To Defraud
Re: Re: Re: Er...
On the post: Wikileaks Wasn't The Only Operation HBGary Federal, Palantir And Berico Planned To Defraud
Re: Re: Re: Er...
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Insider look.
On the post: Leaked HBGary Documents Show Plan To Spread Wikileaks Propaganda For BofA... And 'Attack' Glenn Greenwald
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent."
Was JFK a fatalist? /sardonic
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
My insight failed so why not some humor
Overruled I don't want to hear it
The jury will disregard!
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Gem on the pebbles on the road
A few have brought this up in more colorful ways but I wanted to bring to the question that has been bugging all of us and the de facto point of the article. It's been bugging me ever since I was a kid looking at lady justice and wondering why the blindfold.
Psuedo-warning this may be a intellectual exercise in thought. We, as a society, have given ourselves over to the perception that we have the facts to interpret the intent rounded around common sense. Given that do we have the basics to hear every fact that influence our decisions?
Secondary to this isn't even self-awareness but a collaboration to justify punishment on another human being. Ya really want to go blind folded? Or ask others to?
It's a bit unfair to ask this of a presenter of one side of case (Joe or any lawyer/debater) but I ask as a logical being with Truth as his #1 virtue. It may be a No-No to come right out and say put yourselves in there shoes but we still understand and conclude the rational to getting altered all the way to justifiable homicide. So Lastly(mostly to the judge & Joe) if you answered yes to either of the above how the hell is debatable at all to squelch any information that influences our decisions?
P.S. I get a smile on my face every time that this may be the not so secret way of getting out of jury duty as the judicial system stands, in most courts, now.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Jury Novation
However, jury veto power is still recognized. In 1972 the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial jury has an "...unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge." The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law (473F 2dl 113)
So I respect your view on disfavor but not the premise for it.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re:
Informing people of their rights "could" (again moral) be. If blank could blank.
Inevitable? try again. The article I posted above was from 2009 and he was handing pamplets out 18 months prior and threatended. I impact on murder cases or hearing about nullification of a manslaughter law?
Yeah, these arguments are becoming inflated with the heinous crime vs moral outrage with a splash of forgetting history.
Most of the arguments can be nicely summed into explaining why your rights are fairy tails the others are boiled to libertarians' favorite friend... appealing to authority trumps staw mans.
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Stick to your subject
:S had to point it out.
Next >>