I cannot find any specific "failure to disperse" law for Missouri, but I would tend to expect this to simply be disorderly conduct in most states. I would appreciate it if anyone has the specific statute information under which these protesters were arrested.
I didn't read this opinion, but generally, I think the answer is yes. People have a right to congregate, but it's not an unlimited right. There's other countervailing issues, like the free flow of traffic on the streets or access for people entering buildings. The most common challenges to such ordinances are vagueness under the Due Process Clause (people have a right to know what conduct is prohibited ahead of time and officers don't have too much discretion in enforcing it) and overbreadth under the First Amendment (the ordinance is overbroad such that it covers not only unprotected activities but also activities that are protected by the First Amendment). But, yes, a well-crafted ordinance is constitutional.
So despite Torrentfreak and Techdirt having similar positions you'd rather rag on Masnick for not thinking the way you want him to think.
Yes, we all know their positions are similar. I don't care that someone is anti-IP or pro-piracy. I care that they're not honest about it. I enjoy TF because they're honest about their beliefs. They don't mercilessly ridicule and attack everyone they don't like. They present things in a more balanced fashion. TF doesn't berate everyone else's reporting when their own reporting is so terrible. TF doesn't attempt to reach legal conclusions (prior restraint! due process! antitrust!) without having a grasp of the law or the facts. TD could learn a lot from TF.
You're an obsessed lunatic.
You seem pretty obsessed yourself. Thanks, I'm flattered.
I don't hate him or his site. I read TD everyday because I see value here. I usually don't read anything written by his flunkies. I think their posts are terrible and childish. I won't give you money because you don't create value for me. Start a website that I read and ask for money, and I'll help you out. I do enjoy giving Mike a hard time (obviously) because I think he can do better. He's shown that he can be critical and incisive when he wants to be. I just wish he were that way when it comes to IP. I do think he's quite dishonest at times, which is unfortunate. And I don't like how he's so critical of other journalists, demanding that they attain some level of perfection that he and his crew don't even come close to attaining. But that said, I still enjoy reading Mike's posts, even though I often disagree. I also learn new things here, and I enjoy the debates in the comments. I don't like the atmosphere that Mike's created here where dissenting views are "reported" as inappropriate. I think Mike should set a better example, but he doesn't. He himself is hostile to his critics in the comments and in his posts. I think he can do better, and I hope my prodding has some sort of positive effect. I'd just like to see some fair, balanced, and nuanced approaches taken to the subjects that he and I care about. I'd also like to see Mike just admit what he believes about IP openly and honestly. I don't get the secrecy. One thing I love about TorrentFreak is that they're completely honest about where they stand. Mike isn't the same way. It's more important to me that he be honest about his beliefs, whatever they may be.
Antidirt, just why do you pay Techdirt money for insider status? I'll have to assume you just pay for the badge, maybe access to crystal ball articles (since I never see you in the chatbox). What's your reasoning for paying a blog money that you clearly detest and are wholly against (hence your user-name).
Mike did his Beacon fundraiser saying that he needed money. I was happy to help out since I read TD everyday. Mystery solved.
In your feckless attempt to insult Mike at all costs, you've conveniently ignored the fact that these facts were published in newspapers by people who felt they were relevant and newsworthy. These aren't private details because they were published. You know why 'publish' and 'public' sound similar? Because the meaning of 'publish' is: to make known publicly. It's fine to argue about whether or not the original journalist and editor should have published the details in their stories when they did, but once the information is out of the box, it's futile to try to shove it back in. If anything was defamatory, the "victims" can sue. But the articles in question aren't gossip magazine rumors. These are factual stories and the people in them are responsible for anything they said or did that appeared in the story. You're trying to play devil's advocate but you're just attacking a strawman.
Yes, I read the article. I understand these things were published and true. I'm saying that I don't have such a narrow view of privacy that I see no countervailing value in removing published and true statements.
Then why are there so many people who complain about censorship here? Surely if Mike were to be hiding your posts, he'd hide all the trolls saying he's engaged in censorship, right?
Mike admit, well, anything? You're kidding, right?
Once again, though, we're left wondering how this setup makes any sense at all. If the information was accurate at the time, then why should it be removed?
It's amazing to me how much you purport to be a defender of privacy, yet you don't seem to understand how something that is true can also be private. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised: As you made clear recently, you think you're protecting the privacy of your anonymous posters so long as you don't reveal their actual names. Anything else is fair game, right? Lots of accurate information is private, Mike. Care to post all of the accurate information about yourself? I thought not. This isn't hard. Privacy and accuracy are not the same thing. Journalism! Yay!
Amazon might want to pay particular attention. . . . Having DRM present a potential antitrust concern could make for some interesting situations for companies today who rely on DRM.
No comment on the merits of these claims? Of course not. Just some FUD about how those that use DRM "might way to pay particular attention" and a vague suggestion of "a particular antitrust concern" that "could make for some interesting situations." Journalism! That's some awesome analysis, Mike.
About the only thing I get from all this is that FBI Director James Comey is bad at analogies. Yes, you shouldn't click on attachments from unknown people, and you should even be careful about attachments from known folks. But that makes the internet the "most dangerous parking lot imaginable"? Perhaps the other thing I've learned is that James Comey doesn't have a very strong imagination.
Nor do you if your best criticism is that he's bad at analogies. Journalism!
There's no details in the above article, just a bunch of "due process" FUD.
Yep. Claim that you invented email, and he'll go to the ends of the earth to prove you wrong. Claim that 5,000 domain names were seized without due process, and that's repeated as gospel truth with neither knowledge of the facts nor the law. Journalism! Go Mike!
How is that linked-to comment an example of me doing the same thing? At least that person acknowledged that it's the "ordinary observer" test--something Mike didn't even do. Mike didn't give us any legal analysis before reaching his legal conclusion. He just posted a picture of toothpicks that had three grooves with the implication that they're substantially similar to ones that have two painted-on stripes. My point is that the IP reporting on Techdirt is often laughable--such as that post. It's not just Mike. His flunkies are guilty of shoddy IP reporting even more so than he is. It's just funny that he criticizes others so much when his own house isn't in order.
Still, a small request for the Washington Post Editorial Board: before weighing in on a subject like this, where it's fairly clear that none of you have the slightest clue, perhaps try asking a security expert first?
Oh oops, say it's not so. An entirely argumentative post against design patents that is totally wrong?
That NEVER happens on Techdirt.
Well, he may have reached the right result (the design patent is invalid), but he didn't actually demonstrate as much. His purported prior art has grooves, when the design patent is for a toothpick with two colored stripes. I suppose one could argue that the two are substantially similar under the ordinary observer test, but my quick perusal of the case law leads me to believe they're not. Of course, he's not cited any case law to back up his argument. Multiple people pointed this out in the comments, and (of course) he's not here backing up his claim or admitting that he got it wrong. And just wait... the next time he needs a quick example of how dumb the USPTO is, he'll link back to this post like he got it right all along. Such willful blindness allows the Techdirt house of cards to remain unrattled.
I don't know what this Masnick person's credentials are, but he must have a graduate degree in generating controversy for no reason.
Sadly, he has an MBA from an Ivy League school, yet he pumps out mindless crap such as this post with alarming regularity.
A quick read of the file history at the USPTO website on the Public PAIR system shows that color drawings (along with a petition to accept) were submitted because color is an integral part of the design patent.
Mike doesn't do his homework, and this post wasn't about getting to the truth. The point here was to mock the USPTO and claim how dumb they are.
The author is an idiot wanting page views.
You've summed up Techdirt perfectly and succinctly.
On the post: Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
It's this statute: http://law.justia.com/codes/missouri/2011/titlexxxviii/chapter574/section574060
On the post: Court Says '5 Second Rule' Used By Police In Ferguson To Arrest Protestors Is Unconstitutional
Re:
I didn't read this opinion, but generally, I think the answer is yes. People have a right to congregate, but it's not an unlimited right. There's other countervailing issues, like the free flow of traffic on the streets or access for people entering buildings. The most common challenges to such ordinances are vagueness under the Due Process Clause (people have a right to know what conduct is prohibited ahead of time and officers don't have too much discretion in enforcing it) and overbreadth under the First Amendment (the ordinance is overbroad such that it covers not only unprotected activities but also activities that are protected by the First Amendment). But, yes, a well-crafted ordinance is constitutional.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we all know their positions are similar. I don't care that someone is anti-IP or pro-piracy. I care that they're not honest about it. I enjoy TF because they're honest about their beliefs. They don't mercilessly ridicule and attack everyone they don't like. They present things in a more balanced fashion. TF doesn't berate everyone else's reporting when their own reporting is so terrible. TF doesn't attempt to reach legal conclusions (prior restraint! due process! antitrust!) without having a grasp of the law or the facts. TD could learn a lot from TF.
You're an obsessed lunatic.
You seem pretty obsessed yourself. Thanks, I'm flattered.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re:
Mike did his Beacon fundraiser saying that he needed money. I was happy to help out since I read TD everyday. Mystery solved.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re:
Yes, I read the article. I understand these things were published and true. I'm saying that I don't have such a narrow view of privacy that I see no countervailing value in removing published and true statements.
On the post: FBI Director: The Internet Is The Most Dangerous Parking Lot Imagineable
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike admit, well, anything? You're kidding, right?
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
It's amazing to me how much you purport to be a defender of privacy, yet you don't seem to understand how something that is true can also be private. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised: As you made clear recently, you think you're protecting the privacy of your anonymous posters so long as you don't reveal their actual names. Anything else is fair game, right? Lots of accurate information is private, Mike. Care to post all of the accurate information about yourself? I thought not. This isn't hard. Privacy and accuracy are not the same thing. Journalism! Yay!
On the post: FBI Director: The Internet Is The Most Dangerous Parking Lot Imagineable
Re: Re:
Bawk! Careful though, if you challenge Mike too much, he'll go to great lengths to censor you while denying that he's doing so. 'Tis the TD way.
On the post: Apple Facing Trial Over Whether Its Use Of DRM Violated Antitrust Laws
No comment on the merits of these claims? Of course not. Just some FUD about how those that use DRM "might way to pay particular attention" and a vague suggestion of "a particular antitrust concern" that "could make for some interesting situations." Journalism! That's some awesome analysis, Mike.
On the post: FBI Director: The Internet Is The Most Dangerous Parking Lot Imagineable
Nor do you if your best criticism is that he's bad at analogies. Journalism!
On the post: 5,000 Domains Seized Based On Sealed Court Filing; Confused Domain Owners Have No Idea Why
Re: Re: Re: one domain speculator scumbag. . .
Yep. Claim that you invented email, and he'll go to the ends of the earth to prove you wrong. Claim that 5,000 domain names were seized without due process, and that's repeated as gospel truth with neither knowledge of the facts nor the law. Journalism! Go Mike!
On the post: How The Sirius XM Ruling Upsets Decades Of Copyright Law Consensus
Re: Re:
Of course it was censored. One must not challenge Mike on Techdirt.
On the post: Washington Post's Clueless Editorial On Phone Encryption: No Backdoors, But How About A Magical 'Golden Key'?
Re: Re:
How is that linked-to comment an example of me doing the same thing? At least that person acknowledged that it's the "ordinary observer" test--something Mike didn't even do. Mike didn't give us any legal analysis before reaching his legal conclusion. He just posted a picture of toothpicks that had three grooves with the implication that they're substantially similar to ones that have two painted-on stripes. My point is that the IP reporting on Techdirt is often laughable--such as that post. It's not just Mike. His flunkies are guilty of shoddy IP reporting even more so than he is. It's just funny that he criticizes others so much when his own house isn't in order.
On the post: Washington Post's Clueless Editorial On Phone Encryption: No Backdoors, But How About A Magical 'Golden Key'?
I love how you hold others to such a high standard when you yourself don't meet that standard. Recent example: your silly post about how a design patent is invalid even though you demonstrated no such thing: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141003/06500028716/design-patent-granted-toothpick.shtml Do as you say, not as you do, right?
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Re: Re: Those are lines, not grooves...
That NEVER happens on Techdirt.
Well, he may have reached the right result (the design patent is invalid), but he didn't actually demonstrate as much. His purported prior art has grooves, when the design patent is for a toothpick with two colored stripes. I suppose one could argue that the two are substantially similar under the ordinary observer test, but my quick perusal of the case law leads me to believe they're not. Of course, he's not cited any case law to back up his argument. Multiple people pointed this out in the comments, and (of course) he's not here backing up his claim or admitting that he got it wrong. And just wait... the next time he needs a quick example of how dumb the USPTO is, he'll link back to this post like he got it right all along. Such willful blindness allows the Techdirt house of cards to remain unrattled.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Re: Those are lines, not grooves...
Sadly, he has an MBA from an Ivy League school, yet he pumps out mindless crap such as this post with alarming regularity.
A quick read of the file history at the USPTO website on the Public PAIR system shows that color drawings (along with a petition to accept) were submitted because color is an integral part of the design patent.
Mike doesn't do his homework, and this post wasn't about getting to the truth. The point here was to mock the USPTO and claim how dumb they are.
The author is an idiot wanting page views.
You've summed up Techdirt perfectly and succinctly.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: There ain't no GROOVES!!!
Thank you.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: This is OK
None of the toothpicks in the photo have those exact size grooves in that exact position.
It LOOKS different. Which is the criterion for a design patent.
Shh!!! You will be summarily ostracized for actually thinking.
On the post: Design Patent Granted... On A Toothpick
Re: Those are lines, not grooves...
Second, the lines are in color, and given the plurality of designs for toothpicks, the protected feature is two stripes of specific colors.
A voice of reason. Thank you.
Next >>