And your exact example shows what you may be missing. The nuance here is not as stark as you describe. Observations that "end at people's noses" in public may be one thing (and still arguable), but observations of behavior around which people have an expectation of privacy are entirely different.
You do not have unrestricted free speech rights on my physical private property, for example. In fact, I can engage in prior restraint should I so choose.
That is the nuance being discussed here, where digital boundaries are exchanged for physical ones.
Ummmm... you may not understand what the boundaries or intent of the first amendment is. The crux of this issue is that the research or experiments are performed on and involved others without their express consent.
No researcher can claim protection under the first amendment for experiments that have an impact on others. Your first amendment rights end when they impinge on others' natural or constitutional rights to health and welfare.
At the extreme, a "Dr. Mengele" cannot claim that the horrific experiments he/she performed on others without (or with) their consent are protected by the first amendment.
I think it is important to be clear about what you mean by "When reporters like Zengerle take the cheap way out, they actually make things even worse."
What's worse:
When those associated with widely disseminated sources of information don't follow rigorous critical thinking themselves (disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence), they support the view that any perspective is legitimate. This is how we get governments that can define words, how presidents can dissemble over "is" and how sports organizations can allow women to accept responsibility for their own beatings.
The other point, which is more debatable, is whether or not you believe that journalists are making it easier for people to engage in torture. This is the age-old ethical dilemma--is using negative and evaluative language an opinion or is it reporting the issue?
I agree with Mike, the first point, at least in this case, eliminates consideration of the second. What constitutes torture is not up for debate and therefore cannot be considered opinion or subjective inflammatory language.
No, not the legal system. It is far more fundamental than that.
It has more to do, I believe, with the way people develop (and are educated) their critical thinking skills. One dictionary defines it as, "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
For some reason, our society does not reinforce this behavior, "particularly the informed by evidence part." I think we could make a career out of explaining why.
But it is really frustrating, no? When people (public servants, entertainers, corporations, etc.) make claims, especially important ones, no one demands any evidence nor holds that evidence to any standards of quality or provenance.
As a result, we've established that argumentation by emotion or reputation is simply enough.
Really struggling with this one... "a space on the Internet?"
How would that even work. If it is a defined space, wouldn't it follow that it would be walled and therefore have a barrier to entry?
Also, will it include existing app and website content infrastructures or require new ones? Meaning, would Facebook exist in this new space, but be subject to certain rules/expectations or would an entirely new app infrastructure be required?
For the laws not to address collection, but to address *access*. If the companies cannot use the collections freely and the collections can only be accessed via warrant, they may not have such an incentive to create them in the manner they wish.
Cowardice can be described as taking the easy road
"It is a poor tinker that blames his tools."
I think it is completely reasonable to define cowardice in this way. Fighting terrorists and catching criminals is undeniably HARD.
So are many things: being a doctor, maintaining healthy marriages, parenting kids, teaching, yada, yada, yada. These are all hard because they contain some core values, principles, ethics, etc. that are believed to be fundamentally important to our society.
"Do No Harm" is not a platitude and neither is "Defend the Constitution." It isn't "Defend the Constitution except when it gets challenging to do so."
So in my opinion, in all of these efforts choose the easy thing over the RIGHT thing, it is an act of cowardice because it is almost certainly a rationalization to justify a personal lack of fortitude to fight for the social ideal.
Senator Feinstein should take Hayden to the woodshed for such blatantly misogynistic remarks. That is a common, out-dated method for dismissing the positions or opinions of women. That along makes him sound like a dinosaur.
On the post: Roca Labs Story Gets More Bizarre: Senator Threatens Bogus Defamation Lawsuit, While Nevada Quickly Rejects Bogus Bribery Charge
Re:
Can anyone else add to this lineage of laughable incompetence?
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Disregard illegal laws
You do not have unrestricted free speech rights on my physical private property, for example. In fact, I can engage in prior restraint should I so choose.
That is the nuance being discussed here, where digital boundaries are exchanged for physical ones.
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: Re: First we kill...
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: Re: Re: Disregard illegal laws
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
Re: Disregard illegal laws
No researcher can claim protection under the first amendment for experiments that have an impact on others. Your first amendment rights end when they impinge on others' natural or constitutional rights to health and welfare.
At the extreme, a "Dr. Mengele" cannot claim that the horrific experiments he/she performed on others without (or with) their consent are protected by the first amendment.
On the post: Law Professor Claims Any Internet Company 'Research' On Users Without Review Board Approval Is Illegal
First we kill...
On the post: Reuters Tries To Explain Away Its Refusal To Call Torture 'Torture'
Thanks for pushing this Mike...
What's worse:
When those associated with widely disseminated sources of information don't follow rigorous critical thinking themselves (disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence), they support the view that any perspective is legitimate. This is how we get governments that can define words, how presidents can dissemble over "is" and how sports organizations can allow women to accept responsibility for their own beatings.
The other point, which is more debatable, is whether or not you believe that journalists are making it easier for people to engage in torture. This is the age-old ethical dilemma--is using negative and evaluative language an opinion or is it reporting the issue?
I agree with Mike, the first point, at least in this case, eliminates consideration of the second. What constitutes torture is not up for debate and therefore cannot be considered opinion or subjective inflammatory language.
On the post: Fact Checking Is Dead: Mainstream Media Goes Nuts Repeating Debunked Claims By The Fake 'Inventor Of Email'
Re: Re: This will go on forever
It has more to do, I believe, with the way people develop (and are educated) their critical thinking skills. One dictionary defines it as, "disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence"
For some reason, our society does not reinforce this behavior, "particularly the informed by evidence part." I think we could make a career out of explaining why.
But it is really frustrating, no? When people (public servants, entertainers, corporations, etc.) make claims, especially important ones, no one demands any evidence nor holds that evidence to any standards of quality or provenance.
As a result, we've established that argumentation by emotion or reputation is simply enough.
It makes me sad.
On the post: Former Senator Scott Brown's Staff Sends Larry Lessig A Letter Demanding He Stop Referring To Brown As A 'Lobbyist'
Re: Re: Re: I hope that isn't the actual ad because...
On the post: Former Senator Scott Brown's Staff Sends Larry Lessig A Letter Demanding He Stop Referring To Brown As A 'Lobbyist'
I hope that isn't the actual ad because...
"Former MA Senator who sold his influence a DC lobbying firm"
On the post: Can We Create A Public Internet Space Where The First Amendment, Not Private Terms Of Service, Rules?
Really struggling with this one... "a space on the Internet?"
Also, will it include existing app and website content infrastructures or require new ones? Meaning, would Facebook exist in this new space, but be subject to certain rules/expectations or would an entirely new app infrastructure be required?
Maybe I'm not understanding the suggestion.
On the post: License Plate Reader Company Sues Another State For 'Violating' Its First Amendment Right To Build A 1.8-Billion-Image Database
Seems to me the solution is...
On the post: General Keith Alexander Is An Opportunistic Coward
Re: Re: Re: Cowardice can be described as taking the easy road
It is a shallow rationalization and shows a commitment to ass-protecting rather than a commitment to the ideals in the oaths he has given.
On the post: General Keith Alexander Is An Opportunistic Coward
Re: Re: Cowardice can be described as taking the easy road
On the post: General Keith Alexander Is An Opportunistic Coward
Cowardice can be described as taking the easy road
I think it is completely reasonable to define cowardice in this way. Fighting terrorists and catching criminals is undeniably HARD.
So are many things: being a doctor, maintaining healthy marriages, parenting kids, teaching, yada, yada, yada. These are all hard because they contain some core values, principles, ethics, etc. that are believed to be fundamentally important to our society.
"Do No Harm" is not a platitude and neither is "Defend the Constitution." It isn't "Defend the Constitution except when it gets challenging to do so."
So in my opinion, in all of these efforts choose the easy thing over the RIGHT thing, it is an act of cowardice because it is almost certainly a rationalization to justify a personal lack of fortitude to fight for the social ideal.
On the post: Ex-Wife Allegedly Using Copyright To Take Down Husband's Suicide Note
Re: Re:
On the post: Former CIA, NSA Boss Says Senator Feinstein Is Too Emotional To Judge CIA Torture Fairly
Sexist!
On the post: Team Prenda Slammed Again, Found In Contempt; Judge Blasts Their Attempts To Plead Poverty
Re: How the mighty have fallen...
On the post: Kid Bullied For My Little Pony Backpack Told Not To Bring It To School Anymore
Wait.
Isn't that the typical answer from abusers? I wouldn't [insert abuse here] if you didn't make me. Or, if you didn't do [insert thing here].
Nice. Let's tell kids that the solution to abuse is to lay down.
On the post: HuffPo Columnist: I Infringe, So All Broadband Users Must Pay A New Piracy Tax
Re: p.s.
Next >>