Yeah, I read it; did you read it? Or read my post at all? Or are you just being reactionary and *having* to disagree? Ohh, or maybe you're smokin' somethin'! I mean, either you didn't read carefully, or your comprehension is, well, shall we say... a bit on the weak side.
Perhaps it's partly your misunderstanding about Facebook likes, do you actually use Facebook? "As some claimed to do" is just you scraping to make a point, but, sorry, Facebook likes are not anonymous, and there was no disagreement in the case about whether 'Like' was pressed: the judgement specifically says "the only evidence regarding Carter's activity on Adams' Facebook page is that he 'Liked' Adams' page." So, duh.
And the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant, and shows that even RE: my post, you had very poor comprehension... which is lame, seeing as how my post, compared to a legal ruling, was about as hard to understand as "See Jane Run". I simply referred to the judge ruling that clicking "Like" was not protected speech, not the ultimate ruling, not the bumper sticker, not the getting fired, etc.
And, besides, you're either wrong or being intentionally misleading about that, as well. You try to make it that the judge ruled that it didn't rise to the level of supporting the claim of being fired because of it.
But that's not true, the judge never ruled on that because he said "It is the Court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection." and therefore he never even had to take it that far. Duh duh.
You ACs are really falling down on the job.
A very poor effort.
Grade: D minus
P.S. I understand that you probably just wanted to look all smart and feel like you really shot someone down so you can feel better about yourself hunny, but seriously, you oughtta stick to arguing about whether bringing back Pandas was just a lame ripoff, or a legitimate use of previous content Y'know, things where there's no actual right or wrong answer.
Imagined press conference (with imagined actual journalist):
Reporter: "But, wasn't the informant, whom you are primarily relying upon for your information, actually paid over $6,000 by the FBI and later jailed for passing bad checks even though you were aware that, of his convictions on robbery and at least three other time on passing bad checks?"
Reporter: "And didn't this paid informant (contractor?) basically entice these folks into planning acts they had never thought of on their own and would likely have never done so had it not been for your informant plans created by the FBI?"
Reporter: And weren't you just reprimanded by a judge in September about a similar case, saying the 'essence' of the operation was that you 'created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of [those involved]', that you 'made them terrorists,' and that she was 'not proud of [her] government for' those actions?
FBI Spokesperson: "Any more questions? No? Okay, well, I want to thank all of you for coming today to help us get the word out about how we're keeping America safe."
Well, I don't think the record from the embedded ruling is complete enough to know all the facts for sure, and I haven't read anything else about the case, but, quoting from the ruling:
"It is clear, based on the Sheriff's own admissions, that at some point he became aware of [two of the plantiffs'] presence on [the other candidate's] Facebook page."
So, the Sheriff at least knew they were on the page, and I think it seems reasonable to believe (but is not a certainty) that he would have, therefore, also known they liked the page.
...and...
"The Sheriff also declined to retain the remaining four deputy Plaintiffs and five other deputies for unsatisfactory performance or for his belief that their actions 'hindered the harmony and efficiency of the Office.'"
And so, while, again, this doesn't give 100% certainty as to the Sheriff's particular reasoning about any individual, saying the dismissed employees actions hindered the "harmony" of the office seems to suggest that, more than likely, he was basically saying that supporting that other guy was causing disharmony. (It's not clear from that paragraph whether "their actions" referred to liking/being on the opponent's Facebook page.)
So, I suppose it's possible that they were just slackers or troublemakers, and that's why; but it seems at least reasonably likely from the ruling that there was good evidence for supposing that the actions were indeed related to the dismissed employees liking the other guy's Facebook page.
But, definitely: reading the ruling shows that there was far more in evidence than simply saying "10 employees were laid off and 8 of them liked someone on Facebook [etc.]".
So, let me get this straight, according to this court:
Indicating your support of a candidate by clicking "like" on the candidate's Facebook page: not protected speech--you can be legally fired from a public position by the candidate's opponent for doing it.
Indicating your support of a candidate by posting "I like this guy." on the candidate's Facebook page: protected speech--you can *not* be legally fired from a public position by the candidate's opponent for doing it.
Wow, where do I get whatever this judge is smokin'?
Quick thoughts here, ok I know that's not likely but I'll see what I can do...
To me the problem comes down to the fact that once a company "hits the big time" and goes public, it's like all concerns other than money go out the window.
Utility is an interesting thing because it's impossible to measure directly. Money is an indirect measure, but obviously it has its limitations. Inter-personal utility is simply a concept that can't be judged directly, thus the spectacular failures of economic systems which didn't take this fact into account; i.e. they assumed that they could have a few smart people at the top that could figure it all out and that didn't work because there was no way to determine what needed to be produced at any given time...
But, to me (and I've seen it happen at a few small companies I worked for) I think it's sad that money has become the measure-of-all-things. I think it's partially alluded to in the time-preference thing; what's better, a company sustained indefinitely making a small amount of money or one that strikes it rich and eventually ends in a flash? But more than that; to me, a good company enriches everyone it touches: good environment for the employees, good products and customer service, fun work, fun lives for everyone involved.
But as soon as the owners decide "hey, I wanna sell" all that goes out the window. "How can we cut costs?" becomes the mantra. And at that point, even if the 'profitability' goes up, everyone except the very few lose. It's happened so many times; and unfortunately anyone that went against the grain (well, at least especially when we're talking about a public company) and tried to continue to maximize all-around benefit (which unfortunately, as mentioned, can't be directly measured) they would be accused of violating their fiduciary duty to their stockholders.
Although I 'get it' I will never understand why the owners of a company are willing to sell out customers, employees, and themselves, just to eke that last dime out of a sale, and if that's just the natural outcome of hitting it big, then I don't really see much hope.
Well, who knows? Time and ingenuity and demand (or the copyright and patent trials) will take care of it just as time took care of MS putting in standard sockets.
I just don't get it: supposedly a big part of the argument *for* intellectual property restrictions is a utilitarian one: it's supposed to make everyone better off to have them in the first place. Yet, how can the respective companies spending outrageous sums of money on the Oracle vs. Google trial be more beneficial use of resources than, say, the new research and development that would be required to stay ahead of the competition in the absence of these laws?
Now multiply that by the multitude of other suits and wasted time gathering 'defensive' patents, or the costs to 'the good of the whole' of the injunctions taking functionality that people want off the market? The only possible reason I see (I'm especially focused on software in this particular post) is that one might believe that there is a moral right to these restrictions and therefore the immense costs to 'the greater good' are worth it.
And this is why most software developers can see that, at the very least, the system is broken, and given that copyright as it stands (in the U.S.) actually causes far more damage than it does good, the whole 'moral right' argument holds little water unless we're talking a severe correct to the current intellectual property restriction laws that actually protects whatever 'moral right' there is as best as can be protected without costing us what otherwise would have been multiple tens or hundreds of thousands or more man-years of progress every year.
We understand that the amount of effort in coming up with these supposedly patentable ideas involve basically a week or two sitting down and brainstorming with a team, and we understand the impossibility of building new things without building upon what came before.
And it happens in a flash because it's software, and we can do a plan->design->build cycle in a day or a week or a month at a very small marginal cost. It's not like the processes that took many years and tons of money and effort just to bring them to fruition. It's stuff we do day in and day out, and why should we clamp down on what would be an even more mind-bogglingly fast pace just to reward people for stuff they did in the past--when the supposed point of such laws is to advance the good of the whole not to line the pockets of the few at the expense of the whole?
Take this for what it is: one very common take on how things work by software developers; I realize I do not speak for everyone and that there's much room for debate, but I just want to get across how being actually in the thick of the software development process can bring about a certain viewpoint.
Wait, but, assembly language is different on different processors right? How could I have been so wrong? Clearly this was a failure: assembly should have been patented standardized and every manufacturer forced to use the *same instruction set and registers*! Imagine how much better off we'd have been if someone had stepped in and made everyone pay to build upon the very *idea* of a processor!
Ok, well I don't have time for this and I'm stopping feeding now; I mean, I know most of us already could see it, but, wow, this post must have killed any last scintilla of credibility you had with anyone who has the ability to follow basic reasoning.
"Prove me wrong. Prove this is fraud."
Well the "prove me wrong" stuff is just BS, since reasonable people can disagree. You see things as very black and white, except when you want them to be grey.
But Mike and I and others in the thread have stated the very simple line of reasoning that just shows the definition of copyfraud and how it's possible that an absolute denial of fair-use could fit the definition as it exists. Yes, that's right, reasonable people, which I think includes almost everyone here, can see how simple the reasoning is, and that while it's certainly arguable that it does not rise to copyfraud, it's also arguable that it does.
"Prove me wrong." Seriously, are you in third grade? Who says this? You have some serious growing up to do, regardless of how old or young you may be.
But so, I'm not bothering to go through everything again; fortunately at this point there's enough interspersed in the thread that even those who might have been taken in by your posturing, personal attacks, and obviously huge ego can go read tons of actual reasoning both for and against whether fair use could indeed rise to the level of copyfraud, and further discussion on whether it *should*. There's definitions and premises and logic and everything.
Mike even very succinctly covered it above but just in case someone might need more, it's definitely all there, and your non-arguments are laid bare because this isn't a verbal discussion where each argument slips away into a stream of consciousness, it's a written record of everything that has been said and it's easy enough for anyone to see how what little reasoned argument you did make doesn't stand up to the smallest bit of reason.
See, convincing people with these methods, especially here, is going to be much harder than you apparently think: we're not a community of non-thinking credulous zombie sheep that you clearly think we are. Despite the fairly wide range of viewpoints that do disagree with Mike here, it's fairly easy for those of us with an open mind and a clear sense of reason (i.e. almost everyone) to see *your* tactics for what they are. And, you even admit to them, so there ya go.
We disagree and argue and make progress to the point that we find out the fundamental principles that we disagree on, or to the point that we come to some sort of semi-consensus.
You, make assertion after assertion, we build conclusions upon premises and reasoning. You make ad hominem attacks, we point them out. You consistently ignore points that are made so clearly that those you (assumedly) are trying to convince must certainly be wondering "wait, why this again when it was answered?" You don't attack premises, you deny conclusions. Fallacy upon fallacy may work in cases where there's no ongoing, recorded discussion, or in cases where people already agree with you and need nothing more than their own confirmation bias to do so. You state the same arguments many times without change even after they have been shown to have flawed reasoning and/or questionable premises, we actually answer to those things when they are pointed out to us about our arguments.
But, see, I think this is just because you are clearly delusional. And I don't say that as an ad hominem attack, I say it because you clearly think that your *wishing* something to be true, and saying it enough times, will make it so, and damn any evidence to the contrary: if you want it, it's reality. And you are *so* delusional about it that you continue to insist upon your own *wished* reality, even against what any reasonable person would believe, that you have already totally exposed your delusion to all that wish to see, and likely to many (i.e.. those that are basically in agreement with you) who would have preferred that you at least make a pretense of wanting to actually argue the issues.
And, you've taken it so far, I see little difference between your disconnect with reality and this fellow's:
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do. --unnamed WH aide for G. W. Bush (possibly later identified but not to my satisfaction so you can look it up for yourself if you want to know)
I wouldn't be surprised if you actually think that's a very valid viewpoint since I find it clear that you think you are somehow not bound by logic and that we should all be bound by what you believe and what you say. And as evidence I offer the fact that you become more vitriolic and more angry the more often and more clearly your non-reasoning is shot down.
Since you're so willing to tell us what's in Mike's head, I figure you won't mind me saying what I think is in yours, eh?
See, some people, they get angry when their reasoning is refuted because they just aren't really quite sharp enough to follow everything and respond appropriately. They're not dumb, just average, just unable to keep up, logically. Since they are unable to actually come up with a response that makes sense, and they are smart enough to see that they can't, it's upsetting because they see themselves as now being a 'loser' in a battle of something. (Bad way to look at debate but I'll leave that for now.)
And, you.... No, you totally don't fit that profile. I think you could easily have tempered your premises and argument for the time being and at least responded in a way that would let you 'save face'. But see, I don't think you work that way. Because everything indicates to me that you aren't pissed off because you can't save face, you are pissed off simply because anyone would even deigned to question something you said. What is there to save face about when none of us has any right to question whatever it is you said in the first place?
So, amirite?
So, hopefully this has helped tie things up for people. I'm done with the feedings as I think there's more than enough in this thread to demonstrate or at least render highly likely what I've said here, and anyone that cares to do so has it at their fingertips.
I have already spent far too long on this issue and have put in writing everything I care to say about it and the tangential subjects that came up around it. So, have as many last words as you like.
> This is the key problem here. It's what Mike believes, not what the law specifically states.
Well, but you see, this isn't a "problem", it's the disagreement.
i.e., in a case of 'undeniable', let's say, fair use (e.g. where any reasonable person versed in fair-use would agree that the case was fair use), were a copyright holder to assert that the author of the 'undeniably' fair-use document was categorically *not allowed* to use that item without permission, then I think it is very arguable that the person making the false claim would be guilty of copyfraud.
And, if one is to admit that it could be considered copyfraud in cases of 'undeniable' fair-use, then one must also admit that whether or not any instance of such a case in 'less-than-undeniable' fair-use would rise to the level of copyfraud is simply a matter of degree. I personally even find it quite defensible (although it is not something I would likely bother to defend, as I think the term is best reserved for the clear cases) to say if the copyright holder maintained the categorical denial of rights even in 'potential' fair-use cases (as it is false to say that they would be "categorically not allowed" without the disclaimer "unless it is determined to be fair-use") or perhaps (although weaker) even a somewhat lesser denial of rights, even perhaps simply an omission ("we won't allow your use of this material" without a mention of the possibility of fair-use), or even the least-defensible case of an omission against something that's simply 'potentially' fair-use.
Now, you have several objections to calling this copyfraud; great, glad to see someone coming in to actually make a rational argument. And I actually do see your side of things, I think the difference in our opinion is simply is a difference in our perception of Mike's trustworthiness. I believe Mike when he says it's clear--for one thing he's got enough BS out there to report without having to make shit up, and for another I have seen a large amount of Mike's journalism against the grain (which, frankly beats the hell out of the MSM) and have not once seen any convincing evidence against the integrity of his work. And to reiterate, it's not like I think this is a convincin argument to anyone who does *not* find Mike to be trustworthy.
But back to your statement RE:"the key problem".
No, the key problem is not anything to do with Mike or what he believes in this circumstance, it's that (in general) people who are in disagreement with him refuse to stick to logic and facts and reasoning, and feel the need to constantly try to impugn and discredit him *without regard to the particular facts of the particular article or particular topic under discussion*. I don't care about people; I know of some very good arguments by some very repugnant people and I don't dismiss their arguments because of that.
That would be silly: I want to be right, even at the expense of having been wrong, and I certainly am not going to let my reasoned beliefs be tainted beyond what is supported by logic. So, believing Mike in this case as to the certainty of the fair-use case: legitimate, since, as a factual matter, what I have to go on is Mike's word (which I have a reasoned trust in). Trying to convince you in the same manner would not work: still, legitimate, since, as a factual matter, you only have Mike's word to go on (which you have a reasoned distrust in.)
But whether or not XYZ case of rights assertion rises to the level of Copyfraud: simply depends on the definition of Copyfraud and whether it is met. And whether or not this can be used as evidence of Mike's trustworthiness (e.g. the "Mike is a liar" routine): NOT! Since there is room in the definition (and I'm talking descriptive, not normative, here: you can argue all you want that copyfraud *should* or *shouldn't* mean XYZ is a case) for calling even very weak claims against fair-use 'copyfraud', it is not valid even through inductive reasoning to use this as even a small bit of evidence for or against Mike's trustworthiness.
That won't stop anyone, but that just drives home my point: the people bringing out the ad hominem attacks have *already* made up their minds, and while there's always the human psychological tendency towards confirmation bias, that does not make it valid reasoning.
And y'know what? Take out the stuff relating to people rather than reason, and I agree with 90% of what you say in this post; the one point I see to me made is that *legally*, to be considered non-profit educational use does not require that the university not be profitable. So, although you do make a good point, the point made is that that the common-sense meaning of non-profit doesn't necessarily align with the legal one; not that 'non-profit' in the sense Mike intended (or in the senses you refer to) would be incorrect.
Otherwise, you seem to me much on the same page as I; the lines are vague; Fair-use is a hard case regardless of how well you meet the tests; 'fraud' even when limited by the term 'Copyfraud' does seem to connote something very serious and it should be used carefully...
Copyfraud, to me, (now we're on to the normative) *should* indeed be reserved for, at the very least, "clear" cases of such, and cases where the harsh connotations of the word 'fraud' are undeniably appropriate to the actions. And despite me thinking that (from a non-normative viewpoint) calling certain denials of fair-use rights, given the definition of copyfraud, is reasonable and defensible, I also believe that it would be better to avoid the word altogether when paired with fair-use rationale; precisely to avoid having discussions like this one. Basically, any time it is used this way, it is just asking for the focus of the debate to be revolve around this huge tangential discussion of whether or not XYZ rises to the level. And to me, that is sooo counter-productive.
Personally, I think Mike nailed it with his last sentence and I think it would have been much more productive to talk about chilling effects and what can be inferred from what happened, rather than a huge name-calling session/troll feeding paralleling a non-decidable debate about the 'proper' definition of something.
Besides, I think it's much more to the point:
"And that's the classic tale of a chilling effect of copyright law. Scaring people into not speaking up or not presenting their story."
The chilling effect of copyright. Full stop. Isn't that the much stronger point? Copyright, itself has chilling effects.
So, there ya go: let's assume for a second that we accept a definition of copyfraud that *completely precludes* denying fair-use as a possible meaning. Given that assumption, then this would clearly *not be* a case of copyfraud. Doesn't that make the position even stronger?
I gotta run, so I'm going to leave this for now, but this is the real point: in cases like this, especially given the state of fair-use in the U.S.(e.g. the lack of that so-called 'bright line' and therefore the likelihood that a small-time rights-holder would be crushed in defending against a lawsuit regardless of the 'theoretical' outcome, the imbalance arising from the lack of consequences to those who place false take-downs etc. etc.) it's simply the copyright laws themselves that cause unintended effects, e.g. the "chilling" effects spoken of here.
And this is just a small confirmation of such, I don't see why it's such a big deal; there have been plenty of other stories here on Techdirt dealing with the same things; I know "no link, didn't happen", but I have to run, so I'll trust that another Techdirtian (I remind everyone that *that's mine*!!! pronounced like "Andalusian" or "Martian"... :P And don't worry I granted everyone a perpetual worldwide etc. license a while back you can search my posts. :D CC-BY. just kiddin'!!!)
I would have written a shorter post but I did not have the time.. --with apologies to Blaise Pascal. (Probably)
Eh and no time to proofread either, so I'm sure this is riddled with typos or other errors; I'm more confident in the logic than the presentation. :P :) ;) :D <3
Well, that's arguably a pretty poor definition of censorship.
But I won't even bother arguing that point. You're coming here, claiming to know what's in Mike's head when he posts, claiming that something isn't even arguably copyfraud when a quick Wikipedia search shows that using the definition of copyfraud and giving a charitable reading to Mike's usage of it clearly precludes calling him a liar for saying that it is. (In case you, or anyone who's thinking you might have a point, missed it: see my post on this below.)
But the point you miss, the point that matters not at all to you because you *want* to whine and attack and bitch and moan, is this: people aren't blocking your post because they don't like your message.
They're blocking it because they think you're being a twat.
Wow, you know the word "arguably". Very nice. And clearly by the definition of Copyfraud, this is "arguably" an example of copy fraud. See my post below.
BTW, if, instead of bitching about Mike and spewing ad hominem attacks on him and the people here, and put that effort into just arguing your position about the issue, you'd probably actually just have people respectfully agree or disagree with you instead of flagging you and flipping you the bird. (Well, I know at least one person flipping you the bird.)
Oh, wait, unless you are aiming for flags so that you can bitch more.
Yeah, I mean, let's take this further: where would we be if the programming languages and libraries themselves, like for C and C++, weren't protected by patents and actively protected from fragmentation by Microsoft or someone like them coming along and adding their own functions that weren't compatible. I mean, c'mon, imagine how quickly the compilers wouldn't have worked or interoperated without protection from that.
Wait, what? You mean they weren't protected by patents and actively protected? Microsoft did try their own things like their own methods for TCP and such? Wait, and that failed and MS eventually ended up putting the standard functionality in because customers demanded compilers that actually worked with the open specifications? And where that wasn't possible people simply used compiler pragmas to work around the problems? And the market itself protected those standards without patents to drive it?
LOL, so, first off, let's see even one example. No link, didn't happen. (One nice thing about the site is it's got archives so if you really have some examples, please link and explain how a concept Mike argues against is a strawman. Hell, cite an example like "You know that article where Mike argued against [X] but [X] wasn't really a real thing...".)
Second, you only accuse Mike of something that you apparently think sucks (without bothering to mention even one of these supposedly plentiful instances) while at the same time admitting that it is *your* modus operandi. Even if it were true that Mike constantly attacks strawmen (which, as far as I can tell would be completely unnecessary being as it's surreal how far the powers that be have gone, and continue to go, in their efforts) you somehow think that it would justify your knowingly using fallacious reasoning in an attempt to trick people into believing your points?
You, Mr. or Ms. Coward, are... well, let's face it. A total douche really. (Not really a fastergemspiderbugdingleg baststarglobtwinkle but I really just wanted to practice my Canadian swearing, eh?)
I know, pink elephants, emperor's clothes, yada yada... ;)
I tried to pronounce that and didn't find it as relevant as the american equivalent. ;)
But, I used the ss64.com Pronunciation Guide for Unix and I did find "fastergemspiderbugdingleg baststarglobtwinkles" to be quite satisfying.
Just rolls off the tongue, here it is in a sentence: "Now if we can just get those fastergemspiderbugdingleg asswipes at the double-A's out of our hair..." (Wait, what's Canadian for 'asswipe'?)
Okay, now that you've done your research I point you to the second type of action mentioned as copyfraud: "Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows."
Now, I can see it as being arguable whether this instance meets the definition of copyfraud. (Here's a link to the definition of arguable in case you need that, too.) Like so: "Did the publisher impose restrictions on fair use, or did it simply not mention something in refusal of a grant of license? If it just didn't mention it, does that actually rise to the level of what should be called copyfraud? I think that it doesn't, because <insert reasoning here>." See, that would be an argument that supports your position.
In fact, if I were in a discussion about this, I would probably argue that it's best, ceteris paribus, to leave copyfraud to more egregious and obvious cases, otherwise we risk diluting the word to an extent that could make people take allegations of copyfraud less seriously. Well, y'know, once it actually becomes used and taken seriously by more people than the well-read bunch that participates in discussion here. ;)
But lying? I call BS on that. Mike clearly believes this is an extra imposition of rights beyond those allowed by law And, let's just recall that as he mentioned, the details were intentionally left vague, so there could be even more information that was omitted that justifies the position. And, regardless, it is most certainly [here's that word again] arguable, even without further details, that this does indeeed constitutes copyfraud.
So, if you've got a beef with this being copyfraud, by all means... argue your position. But try to do it with premises and logic leading to a conclusion rather than ad hominem fallacies, a lack of (philosophical) charity, or anything resembling proper research on the topic which you are so quick to (anonymously) go on the attack over.
"Perhaps his father will realize that these issues aren't always so black and white, and even if your children are brought up in a house where they're taught repeatedly just how totally awesome copyright law is, it doesn't mean they won't, someday, discover how copyright law limits them, and get accused of copyright infringement."
Sure! This is great, it'll be just like when all those politicians whose kids got caught smokin' weed or doin' drugs suddenly realized that drug laws aren't so black and white, and they pushed for full decriminalization for simple users and it was sunshine and rainbows all arou....
"without opinion": what you need to be prior to investigating something if you want to come as close as you can to the truth based on the evidence alone
"neutral": the proper attitude to take when finding and examining the evidence allowing you to go from "without opinion" to "with opinion" with as little bias as possible (and even after forming an opinion, by remaining open to contradictory evidence)
For instance, judges are ethically bound to remain neutral in non-jury cases they preside over; yet they are not considered to be non-neutral simply for deciding the case based on the facts in evidence.
Would it be better if judges weren't allowed to do anything but just say, "yep, they both presented evidence. Phew... No real way to know who's right here... "?
So what makes it the right thing to expect from a journalist?
On the post: Are Facebook 'Likes' Protected By The First Amendment?
Double Duh
Yeah, I read it; did you read it? Or read my post at all? Or are you just being reactionary and *having* to disagree? Ohh, or maybe you're smokin' somethin'! I mean, either you didn't read carefully, or your comprehension is, well, shall we say... a bit on the weak side.
Perhaps it's partly your misunderstanding about Facebook likes, do you actually use Facebook? "As some claimed to do" is just you scraping to make a point, but, sorry, Facebook likes are not anonymous, and there was no disagreement in the case about whether 'Like' was pressed: the judgement specifically says "the only evidence regarding Carter's activity on Adams' Facebook page is that he 'Liked' Adams' page." So, duh.
And the rest of your post is mostly irrelevant, and shows that even RE: my post, you had very poor comprehension... which is lame, seeing as how my post, compared to a legal ruling, was about as hard to understand as "See Jane Run". I simply referred to the judge ruling that clicking "Like" was not protected speech, not the ultimate ruling, not the bumper sticker, not the getting fired, etc.
And, besides, you're either wrong or being intentionally misleading about that, as well. You try to make it that the judge ruled that it didn't rise to the level of supporting the claim of being fired because of it.
But that's not true, the judge never ruled on that because he said "It is the Court's conclusion that merely 'liking' a Facebook page is insufficient speech to merit constitutional protection." and therefore he never even had to take it that far. Duh duh.
You ACs are really falling down on the job.
A very poor effort.
Grade: D minus
P.S. I understand that you probably just wanted to look all smart and feel like you really shot someone down so you can feel better about yourself hunny, but seriously, you oughtta stick to arguing about whether bringing back Pandas was just a lame ripoff, or a legitimate use of previous content Y'know, things where there's no actual right or wrong answer.
On the post: FBI Stops Yet Another (Yes Another) Of Its Own Terrorist Plots; This Time: Anarchists!
Reporter: "But, wasn't the informant, whom you are primarily relying upon for your information, actually paid over $6,000 by the FBI and later jailed for passing bad checks even though you were aware that, of his convictions on robbery and at least three other time on passing bad checks?"
FBI Spokesperson: "Umm... But, terrorism! Mohawk!"
Reporter: "And didn't this paid informant (contractor?) basically entice these folks into planning acts they had never thought of on their own and would likely have never done so had it not been for your informant plans created by the FBI?"
FBI Spokesperson: "But... but... Topple! Bridge! 'Occupy!'..."
Reporter: And weren't you just reprimanded by a judge in September about a similar case, saying the 'essence' of the operation was that you 'created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of [those involved]', that you 'made them terrorists,' and that she was 'not proud of [her] government for' those actions?
FBI Spokesperson: "Well... Um... Anarchist's Cookbook!!... ANARCHISTS!!!"
Reporter: "And ... mrrffle pfrrt ..."
FBI Spokesperson: "Any more questions? No? Okay, well, I want to thank all of you for coming today to help us get the word out about how we're keeping America safe."
FIN
On the post: Are Facebook 'Likes' Protected By The First Amendment?
Actually...
"It is clear, based on the Sheriff's own admissions, that at some point he became aware of [two of the plantiffs'] presence on [the other candidate's] Facebook page."
So, the Sheriff at least knew they were on the page, and I think it seems reasonable to believe (but is not a certainty) that he would have, therefore, also known they liked the page.
...and...
"The Sheriff also declined to retain the remaining four deputy Plaintiffs and five other deputies for unsatisfactory performance or for his belief that their actions 'hindered the harmony and efficiency of the Office.'"
And so, while, again, this doesn't give 100% certainty as to the Sheriff's particular reasoning about any individual, saying the dismissed employees actions hindered the "harmony" of the office seems to suggest that, more than likely, he was basically saying that supporting that other guy was causing disharmony. (It's not clear from that paragraph whether "their actions" referred to liking/being on the opponent's Facebook page.)
So, I suppose it's possible that they were just slackers or troublemakers, and that's why; but it seems at least reasonably likely from the ruling that there was good evidence for supposing that the actions were indeed related to the dismissed employees liking the other guy's Facebook page.
But, definitely: reading the ruling shows that there was far more in evidence than simply saying "10 employees were laid off and 8 of them liked someone on Facebook [etc.]".
On the post: Are Facebook 'Likes' Protected By The First Amendment?
Duh
Indicating your support of a candidate by clicking "like" on the candidate's Facebook page: not protected speech--you can be legally fired from a public position by the candidate's opponent for doing it.
Indicating your support of a candidate by posting "I like this guy." on the candidate's Facebook page: protected speech--you can *not* be legally fired from a public position by the candidate's opponent for doing it.
Wow, where do I get whatever this judge is smokin'?
On the post: Hacking Society: It's Time To Measure The Unmeasurable
Utility vs. Money
To me the problem comes down to the fact that once a company "hits the big time" and goes public, it's like all concerns other than money go out the window.
Utility is an interesting thing because it's impossible to measure directly. Money is an indirect measure, but obviously it has its limitations. Inter-personal utility is simply a concept that can't be judged directly, thus the spectacular failures of economic systems which didn't take this fact into account; i.e. they assumed that they could have a few smart people at the top that could figure it all out and that didn't work because there was no way to determine what needed to be produced at any given time...
But, to me (and I've seen it happen at a few small companies I worked for) I think it's sad that money has become the measure-of-all-things. I think it's partially alluded to in the time-preference thing; what's better, a company sustained indefinitely making a small amount of money or one that strikes it rich and eventually ends in a flash? But more than that; to me, a good company enriches everyone it touches: good environment for the employees, good products and customer service, fun work, fun lives for everyone involved.
But as soon as the owners decide "hey, I wanna sell" all that goes out the window. "How can we cut costs?" becomes the mantra. And at that point, even if the 'profitability' goes up, everyone except the very few lose. It's happened so many times; and unfortunately anyone that went against the grain (well, at least especially when we're talking about a public company) and tried to continue to maximize all-around benefit (which unfortunately, as mentioned, can't be directly measured) they would be accused of violating their fiduciary duty to their stockholders.
Although I 'get it' I will never understand why the owners of a company are willing to sell out customers, employees, and themselves, just to eke that last dime out of a sale, and if that's just the natural outcome of hitting it big, then I don't really see much hope.
On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software
Re: Re: Re: Issue is not money
I just don't get it: supposedly a big part of the argument *for* intellectual property restrictions is a utilitarian one: it's supposed to make everyone better off to have them in the first place. Yet, how can the respective companies spending outrageous sums of money on the Oracle vs. Google trial be more beneficial use of resources than, say, the new research and development that would be required to stay ahead of the competition in the absence of these laws?
Now multiply that by the multitude of other suits and wasted time gathering 'defensive' patents, or the costs to 'the good of the whole' of the injunctions taking functionality that people want off the market? The only possible reason I see (I'm especially focused on software in this particular post) is that one might believe that there is a moral right to these restrictions and therefore the immense costs to 'the greater good' are worth it.
And this is why most software developers can see that, at the very least, the system is broken, and given that copyright as it stands (in the U.S.) actually causes far more damage than it does good, the whole 'moral right' argument holds little water unless we're talking a severe correct to the current intellectual property restriction laws that actually protects whatever 'moral right' there is as best as can be protected without costing us what otherwise would have been multiple tens or hundreds of thousands or more man-years of progress every year.
We understand that the amount of effort in coming up with these supposedly patentable ideas involve basically a week or two sitting down and brainstorming with a team, and we understand the impossibility of building new things without building upon what came before.
And it happens in a flash because it's software, and we can do a plan->design->build cycle in a day or a week or a month at a very small marginal cost. It's not like the processes that took many years and tons of money and effort just to bring them to fruition. It's stuff we do day in and day out, and why should we clamp down on what would be an even more mind-bogglingly fast pace just to reward people for stuff they did in the past--when the supposed point of such laws is to advance the good of the whole not to line the pockets of the few at the expense of the whole?
Take this for what it is: one very common take on how things work by software developers; I realize I do not speak for everyone and that there's much room for debate, but I just want to get across how being actually in the thick of the software development process can bring about a certain viewpoint.
On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software
Re: Re: Re: Re: Issue is not money
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: A few points
"Prove me wrong. Prove this is fraud."
Well the "prove me wrong" stuff is just BS, since reasonable people can disagree. You see things as very black and white, except when you want them to be grey.
But Mike and I and others in the thread have stated the very simple line of reasoning that just shows the definition of copyfraud and how it's possible that an absolute denial of fair-use could fit the definition as it exists. Yes, that's right, reasonable people, which I think includes almost everyone here, can see how simple the reasoning is, and that while it's certainly arguable that it does not rise to copyfraud, it's also arguable that it does.
"Prove me wrong." Seriously, are you in third grade? Who says this? You have some serious growing up to do, regardless of how old or young you may be.
But so, I'm not bothering to go through everything again; fortunately at this point there's enough interspersed in the thread that even those who might have been taken in by your posturing, personal attacks, and obviously huge ego can go read tons of actual reasoning both for and against whether fair use could indeed rise to the level of copyfraud, and further discussion on whether it *should*. There's definitions and premises and logic and everything.
Mike even very succinctly covered it above but just in case someone might need more, it's definitely all there, and your non-arguments are laid bare because this isn't a verbal discussion where each argument slips away into a stream of consciousness, it's a written record of everything that has been said and it's easy enough for anyone to see how what little reasoned argument you did make doesn't stand up to the smallest bit of reason.
See, convincing people with these methods, especially here, is going to be much harder than you apparently think: we're not a community of non-thinking credulous zombie sheep that you clearly think we are. Despite the fairly wide range of viewpoints that do disagree with Mike here, it's fairly easy for those of us with an open mind and a clear sense of reason (i.e. almost everyone) to see *your* tactics for what they are. And, you even admit to them, so there ya go.
We disagree and argue and make progress to the point that we find out the fundamental principles that we disagree on, or to the point that we come to some sort of semi-consensus.
You, make assertion after assertion, we build conclusions upon premises and reasoning. You make ad hominem attacks, we point them out. You consistently ignore points that are made so clearly that those you (assumedly) are trying to convince must certainly be wondering "wait, why this again when it was answered?" You don't attack premises, you deny conclusions. Fallacy upon fallacy may work in cases where there's no ongoing, recorded discussion, or in cases where people already agree with you and need nothing more than their own confirmation bias to do so. You state the same arguments many times without change even after they have been shown to have flawed reasoning and/or questionable premises, we actually answer to those things when they are pointed out to us about our arguments.
But, see, I think this is just because you are clearly delusional. And I don't say that as an ad hominem attack, I say it because you clearly think that your *wishing* something to be true, and saying it enough times, will make it so, and damn any evidence to the contrary: if you want it, it's reality. And you are *so* delusional about it that you continue to insist upon your own *wished* reality, even against what any reasonable person would believe, that you have already totally exposed your delusion to all that wish to see, and likely to many (i.e.. those that are basically in agreement with you) who would have preferred that you at least make a pretense of wanting to actually argue the issues.
And, you've taken it so far, I see little difference between your disconnect with reality and this fellow's:
I wouldn't be surprised if you actually think that's a very valid viewpoint since I find it clear that you think you are somehow not bound by logic and that we should all be bound by what you believe and what you say. And as evidence I offer the fact that you become more vitriolic and more angry the more often and more clearly your non-reasoning is shot down.
Since you're so willing to tell us what's in Mike's head, I figure you won't mind me saying what I think is in yours, eh?
See, some people, they get angry when their reasoning is refuted because they just aren't really quite sharp enough to follow everything and respond appropriately. They're not dumb, just average, just unable to keep up, logically. Since they are unable to actually come up with a response that makes sense, and they are smart enough to see that they can't, it's upsetting because they see themselves as now being a 'loser' in a battle of something. (Bad way to look at debate but I'll leave that for now.)
And, you.... No, you totally don't fit that profile. I think you could easily have tempered your premises and argument for the time being and at least responded in a way that would let you 'save face'. But see, I don't think you work that way. Because everything indicates to me that you aren't pissed off because you can't save face, you are pissed off simply because anyone would even deigned to question something you said. What is there to save face about when none of us has any right to question whatever it is you said in the first place?
So, amirite?
So, hopefully this has helped tie things up for people. I'm done with the feedings as I think there's more than enough in this thread to demonstrate or at least render highly likely what I've said here, and anyone that cares to do so has it at their fingertips.
I have already spent far too long on this issue and have put in writing everything I care to say about it and the tangential subjects that came up around it. So, have as many last words as you like.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
Well, but you see, this isn't a "problem", it's the disagreement.
i.e., in a case of 'undeniable', let's say, fair use (e.g. where any reasonable person versed in fair-use would agree that the case was fair use), were a copyright holder to assert that the author of the 'undeniably' fair-use document was categorically *not allowed* to use that item without permission, then I think it is very arguable that the person making the false claim would be guilty of copyfraud.
And, if one is to admit that it could be considered copyfraud in cases of 'undeniable' fair-use, then one must also admit that whether or not any instance of such a case in 'less-than-undeniable' fair-use would rise to the level of copyfraud is simply a matter of degree. I personally even find it quite defensible (although it is not something I would likely bother to defend, as I think the term is best reserved for the clear cases) to say if the copyright holder maintained the categorical denial of rights even in 'potential' fair-use cases (as it is false to say that they would be "categorically not allowed" without the disclaimer "unless it is determined to be fair-use") or perhaps (although weaker) even a somewhat lesser denial of rights, even perhaps simply an omission ("we won't allow your use of this material" without a mention of the possibility of fair-use), or even the least-defensible case of an omission against something that's simply 'potentially' fair-use.
Now, you have several objections to calling this copyfraud; great, glad to see someone coming in to actually make a rational argument. And I actually do see your side of things, I think the difference in our opinion is simply is a difference in our perception of Mike's trustworthiness. I believe Mike when he says it's clear--for one thing he's got enough BS out there to report without having to make shit up, and for another I have seen a large amount of Mike's journalism against the grain (which, frankly beats the hell out of the MSM) and have not once seen any convincing evidence against the integrity of his work. And to reiterate, it's not like I think this is a convincin argument to anyone who does *not* find Mike to be trustworthy.
But back to your statement RE:"the key problem".
No, the key problem is not anything to do with Mike or what he believes in this circumstance, it's that (in general) people who are in disagreement with him refuse to stick to logic and facts and reasoning, and feel the need to constantly try to impugn and discredit him *without regard to the particular facts of the particular article or particular topic under discussion*. I don't care about people; I know of some very good arguments by some very repugnant people and I don't dismiss their arguments because of that.
That would be silly: I want to be right, even at the expense of having been wrong, and I certainly am not going to let my reasoned beliefs be tainted beyond what is supported by logic. So, believing Mike in this case as to the certainty of the fair-use case: legitimate, since, as a factual matter, what I have to go on is Mike's word (which I have a reasoned trust in). Trying to convince you in the same manner would not work: still, legitimate, since, as a factual matter, you only have Mike's word to go on (which you have a reasoned distrust in.)
But whether or not XYZ case of rights assertion rises to the level of Copyfraud: simply depends on the definition of Copyfraud and whether it is met. And whether or not this can be used as evidence of Mike's trustworthiness (e.g. the "Mike is a liar" routine): NOT! Since there is room in the definition (and I'm talking descriptive, not normative, here: you can argue all you want that copyfraud *should* or *shouldn't* mean XYZ is a case) for calling even very weak claims against fair-use 'copyfraud', it is not valid even through inductive reasoning to use this as even a small bit of evidence for or against Mike's trustworthiness.
That won't stop anyone, but that just drives home my point: the people bringing out the ad hominem attacks have *already* made up their minds, and while there's always the human psychological tendency towards confirmation bias, that does not make it valid reasoning.
And y'know what? Take out the stuff relating to people rather than reason, and I agree with 90% of what you say in this post; the one point I see to me made is that *legally*, to be considered non-profit educational use does not require that the university not be profitable. So, although you do make a good point, the point made is that that the common-sense meaning of non-profit doesn't necessarily align with the legal one; not that 'non-profit' in the sense Mike intended (or in the senses you refer to) would be incorrect.
Otherwise, you seem to me much on the same page as I; the lines are vague; Fair-use is a hard case regardless of how well you meet the tests; 'fraud' even when limited by the term 'Copyfraud' does seem to connote something very serious and it should be used carefully...
Copyfraud, to me, (now we're on to the normative) *should* indeed be reserved for, at the very least, "clear" cases of such, and cases where the harsh connotations of the word 'fraud' are undeniably appropriate to the actions. And despite me thinking that (from a non-normative viewpoint) calling certain denials of fair-use rights, given the definition of copyfraud, is reasonable and defensible, I also believe that it would be better to avoid the word altogether when paired with fair-use rationale; precisely to avoid having discussions like this one. Basically, any time it is used this way, it is just asking for the focus of the debate to be revolve around this huge tangential discussion of whether or not XYZ rises to the level. And to me, that is sooo counter-productive.
Personally, I think Mike nailed it with his last sentence and I think it would have been much more productive to talk about chilling effects and what can be inferred from what happened, rather than a huge name-calling session/troll feeding paralleling a non-decidable debate about the 'proper' definition of something.
Besides, I think it's much more to the point:
The chilling effect of copyright. Full stop. Isn't that the much stronger point? Copyright, itself has chilling effects.
So, there ya go: let's assume for a second that we accept a definition of copyfraud that *completely precludes* denying fair-use as a possible meaning. Given that assumption, then this would clearly *not be* a case of copyfraud. Doesn't that make the position even stronger?
I gotta run, so I'm going to leave this for now, but this is the real point: in cases like this, especially given the state of fair-use in the U.S.(e.g. the lack of that so-called 'bright line' and therefore the likelihood that a small-time rights-holder would be crushed in defending against a lawsuit regardless of the 'theoretical' outcome, the imbalance arising from the lack of consequences to those who place false take-downs etc. etc.) it's simply the copyright laws themselves that cause unintended effects, e.g. the "chilling" effects spoken of here.
And this is just a small confirmation of such, I don't see why it's such a big deal; there have been plenty of other stories here on Techdirt dealing with the same things; I know "no link, didn't happen", but I have to run, so I'll trust that another Techdirtian (I remind everyone that *that's mine*!!! pronounced like "Andalusian" or "Martian"... :P And don't worry I granted everyone a perpetual worldwide etc. license a while back you can search my posts. :D CC-BY. just kiddin'!!!)
I would have written a shorter post but I did not have the time.. --with apologies to Blaise Pascal. (Probably)
Eh and no time to proofread either, so I'm sure this is riddled with typos or other errors; I'm more confident in the logic than the presentation. :P :) ;) :D <3
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I won't even bother arguing that point. You're coming here, claiming to know what's in Mike's head when he posts, claiming that something isn't even arguably copyfraud when a quick Wikipedia search shows that using the definition of copyfraud and giving a charitable reading to Mike's usage of it clearly precludes calling him a liar for saying that it is. (In case you, or anyone who's thinking you might have a point, missed it: see my post on this below.)
But the point you miss, the point that matters not at all to you because you *want* to whine and attack and bitch and moan, is this: people aren't blocking your post because they don't like your message.
They're blocking it because they think you're being a twat.
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, if, instead of bitching about Mike and spewing ad hominem attacks on him and the people here, and put that effort into just arguing your position about the issue, you'd probably actually just have people respectfully agree or disagree with you instead of flagging you and flipping you the bird. (Well, I know at least one person flipping you the bird.)
Oh, wait, unless you are aiming for flags so that you can bitch more.
I see what you did there. My bad, sorry.
On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software
Re: Issue is not money
Wait, what? You mean they weren't protected by patents and actively protected? Microsoft did try their own things like their own methods for TCP and such? Wait, and that failed and MS eventually ended up putting the standard functionality in because customers demanded compilers that actually worked with the open specifications? And where that wasn't possible people simply used compiler pragmas to work around the problems? And the market itself protected those standards without patents to drive it?
Oh. Well, nevermind.
On the post: Oracle/Google Case Shows Just How Totally Pointless It Is To Have Patents On Software
Duh
Second, you only accuse Mike of something that you apparently think sucks (without bothering to mention even one of these supposedly plentiful instances) while at the same time admitting that it is *your* modus operandi. Even if it were true that Mike constantly attacks strawmen (which, as far as I can tell would be completely unnecessary being as it's surreal how far the powers that be have gone, and continue to go, in their efforts) you somehow think that it would justify your knowingly using fallacious reasoning in an attempt to trick people into believing your points?
You, Mr. or Ms. Coward, are... well, let's face it. A total douche really. (Not really a fastergemspiderbugdingleg baststarglobtwinkle but I really just wanted to practice my Canadian swearing, eh?)
I know, pink elephants, emperor's clothes, yada yada... ;)
On the post: Vancouver Olympics 'Brand Protection Guidelines' Almost Entirely Arbitrary
Re: Canadian Swearing, eh?
But, I used the ss64.com Pronunciation Guide for Unix and I did find "fastergemspiderbugdingleg baststarglobtwinkles" to be quite satisfying.
Just rolls off the tongue, here it is in a sentence: "Now if we can just get those fastergemspiderbugdingleg asswipes at the double-A's out of our hair..." (Wait, what's Canadian for 'asswipe'?)
;)
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
Re: RE: but is it copyfraud
"those allowed by law And" -> "those allowed by law. And"
"indeeed" -> "indeed"
"constitutes copyfraud" -> "constitute copyfraud"
;)
On the post: The Chilling Effects Of Copyfraud: Blocking A Researcher From Fair Use... And Scaring Him Into Staying Quiet About It
RE: but is it copyfraud
Just curious: Wikipedia article on copyfraud.
Okay, now that you've done your research I point you to the second type of action mentioned as copyfraud: "Imposition by a copyright owner of restrictions beyond what the law allows."
Now, I can see it as being arguable whether this instance meets the definition of copyfraud. (Here's a link to the definition of arguable in case you need that, too.) Like so: "Did the publisher impose restrictions on fair use, or did it simply not mention something in refusal of a grant of license? If it just didn't mention it, does that actually rise to the level of what should be called copyfraud? I think that it doesn't, because <insert reasoning here>." See, that would be an argument that supports your position.
In fact, if I were in a discussion about this, I would probably argue that it's best, ceteris paribus, to leave copyfraud to more egregious and obvious cases, otherwise we risk diluting the word to an extent that could make people take allegations of copyfraud less seriously. Well, y'know, once it actually becomes used and taken seriously by more people than the well-read bunch that participates in discussion here. ;)
But lying? I call BS on that. Mike clearly believes this is an extra imposition of rights beyond those allowed by law And, let's just recall that as he mentioned, the details were intentionally left vague, so there could be even more information that was omitted that justifies the position. And, regardless, it is most certainly [here's that word again] arguable, even without further details, that this does indeeed constitutes copyfraud.
So, if you've got a beef with this being copyfraud, by all means... argue your position. But try to do it with premises and logic leading to a conclusion rather than ad hominem fallacies, a lack of (philosophical) charity, or anything resembling proper research on the topic which you are so quick to (anonymously) go on the attack over.
kthxbai
On the post: When The Kids Of Major Label Execs Get Accused Of Infringement...
Sure! This is great, it'll be just like when all those politicians whose kids got caught smokin' weed or doin' drugs suddenly realized that drug laws aren't so black and white, and they pushed for full decriminalization for simple users and it was sunshine and rainbows all arou....
<receives note> Oh. Really?
Nevermind. ;)
On the post: House Committee Approves Global Online Freedom Act
Re: Re:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Carlin#The_Little_David_Years_.281971.E2.80.931977.2 9_.281999.29
Oh, and N.B. strong language, NSFW, all those types of Carlin things... :D ;)
On the post: Musician Jonathan Coulton: I Value The Internet A Lot More Than The Record Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Free For The First Time In Decades, Libyan Media Struggles To Define Itself
"neutral" vs. "without opinion"
"neutral": the proper attitude to take when finding and examining the evidence allowing you to go from "without opinion" to "with opinion" with as little bias as possible (and even after forming an opinion, by remaining open to contradictory evidence)
For instance, judges are ethically bound to remain neutral in non-jury cases they preside over; yet they are not considered to be non-neutral simply for deciding the case based on the facts in evidence.
Would it be better if judges weren't allowed to do anything but just say, "yep, they both presented evidence. Phew... No real way to know who's right here... "?
So what makes it the right thing to expect from a journalist?
Next >>