That's because at the exact moment someone turns 18 *magic* happens.
No, not magic. The legal line needs to be drawn *somewhere*. We have chosen 18.
Other societies have set the age of majority at different ages.
For example, in the Jewish religion you become a man at 13 (age 12 for women). In the eyes of the Jewish religion, you are considered a man (or woman) at that point and no longer a child.
The Roman Empire handled it a bit differently, you became of age when your father or tutors judged you "ready to wear a man's garb and start trimming your mustache".
The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age.
I'm not sure that is plausible or even possible. What I am talking about is the Age of Majority or the point where a child legally becomes an adult. Would you require a physiological evaluation for every 18 year old who wants to vote in the next election or purchase a car or get married?
Well, actually, no, we don't. As a society we've just chosen to do so for the last several decades (at least).
No, societies have been defining the Age of Majority for quite awhile now. It was part of English common law and our current laws are based upon that. For most countries it is 18.
To treat someone who is 18, but still in high school, as an adult is probably the most ridiculous "catch all" in the fiasco.
I disagree. We have to define the legal line between child and adult somewhere. We, as a society, have chosen 18 for that line (for most things). At 18 you can vote, own property, marry, make your own medical choices, serve in the military, etc. Why would you not also be responsible for your own actions at 18 too? Whether you have graduated high school or not is irrelevant here.
If you are going to argue that 18 is too young to be held responsible for ones' own actions, fine, but you must also argue that it's too young for ALL of the other responsibilities and consequences that come with legally becoming an adult.
What does that even mean? Maybe things have changed since I was in college, but I've always assumed that every college professor taught their classes from the point of view of their own personal perspective.
When I was in college during the Cold War years I had a Political Theory professor who was a card-carrying Communist. He even showed us his official "Red File" that he FOIA'd from the FBI. The contrast between my middle class upbringing and his radical views made it one of the most interesting classes I've ever attended.
This may not be the "real" Whatever. Whatever claims that he doesn't usually comment when not logged in. The last time Whatever claimed this, the possible impersonator also used a phrase similar too "(you can click report now... I don't care!)."
Besides, all those other sites you mentioned deal primarily with public or semi-public posts, not one-to-one or a small group like Snapchat primarily does.
It's basically the same license you grant Google when you use Gmail. By using Gmail you grant Google the right to use anything in your email and any attachments in the exact same way:
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services... Google Terms of Service
US sovereignty ends at it's borders. The law of the US isn't the law of the rest of the world.
That's true, but in this case we are talking about a US citizen having dealings with the US government (FBI). I don't recall any restriction in the Bill of Rights pertaining to physical locations.
In my opinion (but obviously not the opinion of our courts) the Bill of Rights limits what the US government can or cannot do and extends to anyone who has dealings with the US government, regardless of citizenship or physical location. The wording of the Bill of Rights is "persons", not "citizens".
Copyright is what makes it possible to keep that bigger organisation.
That isn't, nor has ever, been a reason for the existence of copyright.
Also, there is absolutely no requirement, legally, ethically or otherwise to provide customer support for someone who hasn't legally purchased your product.
If you have 1 million customers who paid for your product and 10 million who pirated it, you still only have the 1 million paid customers to worry about providing customer support for. Your whole argument seems to be based on a false premise that you would have to provide customer support for non-customers. That's a silly argument.
Please enlighten us as to what "user base" would cause customer service problems when copyright was first enacted in the US. Dead-tree book purchasers? Dead-tree map purchasers?
Idiots with cameras trying to "gotcha!" everything the police does are to blame. If you're going to fault the police for fearing for their lives, fault your fellow criminals for glorifying their own irresponsible behavior in masking their illegalities.
Go one step further back in your blame game. Why are people trying to get those "gotcha" moments of police? Because the police have been abusing their authority without any repercussions for quite awhile now.
Do you seriously think things like charging a suspect with assaulting a police officer for bruising the cop's knuckles with their face isn't abuse of authority and shouldn't be curtailed? How else is the general public supposed to fight against such injustices in a system rigged against them from the get go, except with undeniable proof like a video recording?
Thus it's natural that they would be in control for the whole lifetime of the product, and can for example decide when to pull the plug on old product, and move to the next.
You are looking for rights that copyright has never provided. For example, you could stop publishing and selling your dead-tree book anytime you desire, but that will not stop secondhand bookstores from reselling your book or stop libraries from lending out your book and it most certainly wouldn't stop people from reading the copies that already exist.
Most of the legal scholars I've seen who have looked at the problem say exactly the opposite: the only way to fix the campaign finance problems caused by the Citizens United decision (in a way that could not be trivially overturned by the courts under the precedent set by the Citizens United decision, at least) is a constitutional amendment doing away with the concept of corporate personhood.
When I said "campaign finance reform" I probably should have used a stronger term like "campaign finance overhaul". In my opinion, the only way to fix the FUBAR system we have now is to completely change how elections are financed. Something along the lines of every candate gets x amount of dollars to win a primary and more as they progress along in the races. I don't hold any illusions that any such thing would happen in my lifetime though.
I never said they should be denied "all rights". Corporations should be denied human rights, such as a legal recognition of personhood and the right to free speech, because a corporation is not a human being. This in no way interferes with the concept of ownership of property held in trust for the human owners of the corporation (the shareholders).
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I am seriously curious as the reason why you argue so stridently against this.
Are corporations the only group of like minded people you think shouldn't have First Amendment rights as a group? You aren't arguing that an entity like the NAACP shouldn't get First Amendment rights when they put out a statement from the organization as a whole, are you?
On the post: 'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed
Re:
It's age 18 in most states. That is why I included it as part of my examples.
On the post: 'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed
Re: Re: Re:
No, not magic. The legal line needs to be drawn *somewhere*. We have chosen 18.
Other societies have set the age of majority at different ages.
For example, in the Jewish religion you become a man at 13 (age 12 for women). In the eyes of the Jewish religion, you are considered a man (or woman) at that point and no longer a child.
The Roman Empire handled it a bit differently, you became of age when your father or tutors judged you "ready to wear a man's garb and start trimming your mustache".
On the post: 'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure that is plausible or even possible. What I am talking about is the Age of Majority or the point where a child legally becomes an adult. Would you require a physiological evaluation for every 18 year old who wants to vote in the next election or purchase a car or get married?
On the post: 'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed
Re: Re: Re:
No, societies have been defining the Age of Majority for quite awhile now. It was part of English common law and our current laws are based upon that. For most countries it is 18.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
On the post: 'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed
Re:
I disagree. We have to define the legal line between child and adult somewhere. We, as a society, have chosen 18 for that line (for most things). At 18 you can vote, own property, marry, make your own medical choices, serve in the military, etc. Why would you not also be responsible for your own actions at 18 too? Whether you have graduated high school or not is irrelevant here.
If you are going to argue that 18 is too young to be held responsible for ones' own actions, fine, but you must also argue that it's too young for ALL of the other responsibilities and consequences that come with legally becoming an adult.
On the post: Think Tank Who Proposed SOPA Now Argues That US Should Encourage Countries To Censor The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re:
Ummm...yes it is. It may not be legal, but it is most definitely sharing by most every definition of the word.
On the post: How The Redskins' Delightfully Vulgar Court Filing Won Me Over
Re:
Wouldn't cup size also be a factor?
On the post: Is The 'Stomp On Jesus' Case Really A Good Example Of 'Extreme Political Bias' On College Campuses?
What does that even mean? Maybe things have changed since I was in college, but I've always assumed that every college professor taught their classes from the point of view of their own personal perspective.
When I was in college during the Cold War years I had a Political Theory professor who was a card-carrying Communist. He even showed us his official "Red File" that he FOIA'd from the FBI. The contrast between my middle class upbringing and his radical views made it one of the most interesting classes I've ever attended.
On the post: Law Professor Pens Ridiculous, Nearly Fact-Free, Misleading Attack On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re:
Gotta love the irony in that comment.
If Section 230 didn't protect Techidrt from liability you wouldn't be able to express that sentiment here because this comment section wouldn't exist.
On the post: Court Tosses Bogus Wiretapping Charge Against Man Who Recorded Cops Who Raided His House
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151024/13071032616/comey-sells-ferguson-effect-blames-sp ikes-violent-crime-citizens-with-cameras.shtml#c892
You all might have been trolled on this thread.
On the post: Stop Freaking Out About Snapchat's Terms Of Service; You Read It Wrong
Re: This is standard
It's basically the same license you grant Google when you use Gmail. By using Gmail you grant Google the right to use anything in your email and any attachments in the exact same way:
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
Re:
Quick question - who should be responsible for your possibly defamatory statement? You? Techdirt? Google? Some other large company with deep pockets?
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Now Lives In Australia: Court Says Google Is The 'Publisher' Of Material It Links To
The vitriol tossed at Janice Duffy if that happens will be million times more that anything she's endured so far.
On the post: Court: Your Fourth And Fifth Amendment Rights No Longer Exist If You Leave The Country
Re:
That's true, but in this case we are talking about a US citizen having dealings with the US government (FBI). I don't recall any restriction in the Bill of Rights pertaining to physical locations.
In my opinion (but obviously not the opinion of our courts) the Bill of Rights limits what the US government can or cannot do and extends to anyone who has dealings with the US government, regardless of citizenship or physical location. The wording of the Bill of Rights is "persons", not "citizens".
On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
That isn't, nor has ever, been a reason for the existence of copyright.
Also, there is absolutely no requirement, legally, ethically or otherwise to provide customer support for someone who hasn't legally purchased your product.
If you have 1 million customers who paid for your product and 10 million who pirated it, you still only have the 1 million paid customers to worry about providing customer support for. Your whole argument seems to be based on a false premise that you would have to provide customer support for non-customers. That's a silly argument.
On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
Ummm....WTF are you talking about here?
Please enlighten us as to what "user base" would cause customer service problems when copyright was first enacted in the US. Dead-tree book purchasers? Dead-tree map purchasers?
On the post: Comey Sells The 'Ferguson Effect,' Blames Spikes In Violent Crime On Citizens With Cameras
Re: Re: Cool story, bro!
I don't know about anyone else, but my response was based on the comment itself, not the username.
On the post: Comey Sells The 'Ferguson Effect,' Blames Spikes In Violent Crime On Citizens With Cameras
Re: Cool story, bro!
Go one step further back in your blame game. Why are people trying to get those "gotcha" moments of police? Because the police have been abusing their authority without any repercussions for quite awhile now.
Do you seriously think things like charging a suspect with assaulting a police officer for bruising the cop's knuckles with their face isn't abuse of authority and shouldn't be curtailed? How else is the general public supposed to fight against such injustices in a system rigged against them from the get go, except with undeniable proof like a video recording?
On the post: Nina Paley Argues Why Copyright Is Brain Damage
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda sad video...
You are looking for rights that copyright has never provided. For example, you could stop publishing and selling your dead-tree book anytime you desire, but that will not stop secondhand bookstores from reselling your book or stop libraries from lending out your book and it most certainly wouldn't stop people from reading the copies that already exist.
On the post: CBS Radio Says That It Doesn't Play Pre-1972 Music, Because All Its Old Songs Are Remastered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I said "campaign finance reform" I probably should have used a stronger term like "campaign finance overhaul". In my opinion, the only way to fix the FUBAR system we have now is to completely change how elections are financed. Something along the lines of every candate gets x amount of dollars to win a primary and more as they progress along in the races. I don't hold any illusions that any such thing would happen in my lifetime though.
I never said they should be denied "all rights". Corporations should be denied human rights, such as a legal recognition of personhood and the right to free speech, because a corporation is not a human being. This in no way interferes with the concept of ownership of property held in trust for the human owners of the corporation (the shareholders).
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I am seriously curious as the reason why you argue so stridently against this.
Are corporations the only group of like minded people you think shouldn't have First Amendment rights as a group? You aren't arguing that an entity like the NAACP shouldn't get First Amendment rights when they put out a statement from the organization as a whole, are you?
Next >>