Next time I'm thinking of putting a hit out on somebody, I'll write up one of these letters ahead of time, just in case I have to abandon the plan.
Seriously, while this was certainly sorta clever, he took a big risk. He intended to put his (ex?) wife in fear for her life. Whether he was lying about his intentions or not, there may be consequences for his threats against her. And the issue is not whether he meant it or really intended to follow through on the threat, but whether it was reasonable for her to believe it.
In any case, it sounds like they're both pretty wacked-out folks.
Sure they can. That's where the immaturity comes in. They convinced themselves they were upholding high ideals against all odds, but they were really just making a mess on the floor.
If it helps, I don't insist on giving them the beneift of the doubt about being well-intentioned.
. . . so, it's just not possible that someone can look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion - i.e., that it was the demonstrators themselves who caused the problem and it's not unreasonable to put controls on group demonstrations at places where other, non-demonstrating members of the public are also trying to enjoy the site?
I'm all for recognizing and lauding those who actually ARE putting themselves in harm's way for just causes, but I do not think the fact I disagree that this was a just cause means I lack moral integrity or intestinal fortitude. It just means I think those people were perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately just immature attention-seekers who have wrung more out of their fifteen minutes than is really warranted.
Yeah, well, I can see how being asked to sign one more piece of paper might be an annoyance, but "insane"? I still don't see how it rates a rant as some sort of incredibly ironic "tail wagging the dog" story that demonstrates how copyright has evolved into some sort of Frankenstein's monster who is now turning on us and destroying our villages of creativity.
Yeah, I guess several minutes of very calmly putting up with the cameras counts for nothing when the decision is ultimately made to direct everyone to leave - whether they have a camera or not.
Boy, you've sure got my number. I sure thought I was getting away with something pretty sly until you caught on to me. My, how observant and intelligent you are. I bow in submission to your obviously superior moral and intellectual prowess.
You should probably not bother to respond to my comments again, because I am clearly incapable of standing against you, and I know your highly-evolved mental and emotional abilities are wasted on the likes of me.
From what I saw, and as I understand the situation, it was pretty clear that there was a group of people there engaged in a coordinated activity intended as a demonstration. Those were the people arrested when the refused to cease the activity. So, it was SELF-selective law enforcement. Only the ones who chose to break the law were singled out for arrest.
I am not sure I heard everything clearly, but I was under the impression it was not "dancing" specifically, but "demonstrating" that was the offense.
They were there to demonstrate, which, arguably, was disruptive to others wishing to visit the memorial. When the cops warned them that their demonstration was not permitted, and directed them to cease, they refused. Some upped the ante. So, they got arrested. The more obnoxious ones got mildly (yes, mildly) thumped.
Not sure what you mean about getting "caught not telling the truth (again)". Wasn't aware I had lied once (let alone caught at it), much less multiple times.
I saw the cops clearing out the entire memorial at the end, but don't recall the exchange with someone who claimed to be with the press. I don't deny it. I just don't remember it. I didn't have the sound on too loud. In any case, I was focusing primarily on the first cop, who had multiple camers trained on him and he was very calm and did not engage with them.
There are all sorts of limitations. You can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Schools can prohibit the wearing of t-shirts with obscenities or other disruptive messages. You can be required to get a permit and limit your speech to certain loctions/times in the case of public property and streets.
Here, the police seem to be saying that the demonstration (which is exactly what it was) was disruptive to others trying to enjoy the memorial. Sure, it was silent, but that's certainly not dispositive. They were doing the equivalent of torturing your little brother by holding your fingers right in front of his face and chanting, "I am not touching you! I am not touching you!" and trying to tell Mom that you couldn't possibly be bothering your little brother if you weren't actually touching him.
I actually think the First Amendment is plenty strong enough to support the high ideals it is meant to support without having to tolerate childishness as a side effect.
Seriously, these protesters totally reminded me of the annoying "college know-it-all hippies" on South Park. More interested in making minor points in a dramatic fashion than in actually making a diference.
We use the term "hero" WAY too much to basically describe someone who shares the same values we do.
Did these boneheads evey TRY getting a letter-writing campaign going to demonstrate that there are a LOT of voters who care about this - as opposed to a dozen or so wannabes who just can't bear the fact that they were born too late for a 60s sit-in?
No, I'm not wrong. My belief is what it is. I hear you have a different belief. It's not wrong or right. It's my belief. It just happens to also be right. :-)
Seriously, though, I don't think we have to tolerate KKK rallies in order to preserve the ability of our citizens to have constructve exchanges. Granted, these demonstrators were mostly just annoying spoiled children who obviously didn't get enough (or got way too much) attention from their own parents, and not the KKK. However, it think the principal holds.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's not like they were screaming and setting things on fire, but the Jefferson Memorial was not built to be a dance hall, and I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there.
A bunch of people got together to engage in a demonstration - though they tried to deny it was a demonstration.
The cops actually seemed pretty calm and straightforward. The first cop seemed to try to not escalate anything, but just tell them the way it works and the consequences. And then you had people clearly intentionally taunting the cops and making inane claims like, "you have to give me a warning!"
The only real rough stuff (and I didn't see anything as rough as is being claimed in comments here) was when the cops moved to cuff one man, but another man jumped in and physically grabbed the first man, actively interfering with the cops. The other incident was with a man who refused to move at all, so the cops moved him.
I have way more sympathy for the ones who actually were engaged in more honest civil disobedience. They committed their act, made their point, and were at least minimally cooperative in being arrested. I have no sympathy for those who taunt the police, cause physical escalation, etc.
I happen to agree with the concept that such demonstrations are distracting (whether audible or not) and not in keeping with the intent of the monumnet. Just like I am against the Bible-thumping bigots who protest military funerals and think it's just fine to keep them away from such solemn events, even if they do involve the goverment/military. I do not believe that you have to allow all sorts of stupid speech in order to protect valuable speech.
I would also note that the cops all seemed to do just fine with the videotaping going on.
They're getting ready to publish a book. They do some due diligence, and find something online that matches up with what they've got in the book-to-be. Doesn't seem over-the-top at all that they'd basically want a release from the author of the material on the web - i.e., you. And it doesn't seem over-the-top that a casual email statement was not quite enough for their needs. They wanted something more formal.
Unless I'm missing something here, it seems like much ado about nothing much. I just don't see the rant-worthiness here.
Sounds like it might be a fun read, though perhaps a bit heavy on the copyleft stuff.
Two minor points, though:
1. You really can't logically call something "eerily prescient" prospectively. That's the kind of observation that is really only valid in hindsight. You might believe it will later be found to be eerily prescient, but it's not yet until we see if it actually plays out.
2. You can really see suing a fetus for an act it did not commit and could not contribute to? And, really, suing the subject of a photograph over the acts of the photographer - or the person who hired the photographer - in a situation in which the photographic subject was not a willing, or even knowing, participant? I was willing to go along with the other things in the part you excerpted as very unlikely, but logically possible in an extreme sort of way. Suing fetuses seems a bit beyond that. A minor point, though. Still makes for an interesting story - being born with some number of lawsuits already pending against you, settling most of them for some ultra-low NPV like you pay bridge tolls or something.
Well, I'm generally in favor of clearly stating that police officers are subjec to being recorded/filmed in the public performance of their duties. However, I don't think it's a good idea to dismiss so easily the concept of an officer thinking twice before taking some action. Who wants to be subject to Monday morning quarterbacks in ANY job, much less one in which a large number of citizens are likely to find somethign to criticize just on general principles?
If we don't accept the reasoning of "only someone who has something to hide should be afraid of public scrutiny" when an ordinary citizen is faced with invasion of privacy by the government, why is it different for cops? While we certainly expect a certain level of professionalism, ANYBODY can get the jitters if they know they are (or might be) subject to a bunch of backseat drivers.
Again, not to say I am actually opposing the ability to videotape the cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, but I think we have to treat as real (and take appropriate action, if possible, to mitigate it) the fact that a cop can get stage fright just like anybody else, and being recorded very well might cause a cop to take an extra second to think about it in a situation in which seconds count.
At LAX right now, in the American Airlines terminal (Terminal 4), the only way to NOT get groped/irradiated is to go through the coach line at security. The lanes for Business/First all have the pornogroper mechanisms in place, while at least some of the lines at the other end of the security area (i.e., coach lines) do not.
To my knowledge, I have never been skipped for any form of searching because of my race or my employer or reason for travel or level of ticket (i.e., Business vs. coach). And, based on how often I have been frisked (and, nowadays, outright groped), I've had at least my fair share of this crap to put up with over the years.
The idea of the trusted traveler is you pay a fee ($100?), and TSA has a background search done. Not sure how deep it goes. Might just be a credit check and FBI search, but might go all the way to checking your employment references, schools, verifying address, employer, etc. Heck, it might be merely that you're willing to submit to it, and then TSA just pockets the money and sends you your super-exclusive membership card.
On the post: Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat
Interesting idea....
Seriously, while this was certainly sorta clever, he took a big risk. He intended to put his (ex?) wife in fear for her life. Whether he was lying about his intentions or not, there may be consequences for his threats against her. And the issue is not whether he meant it or really intended to follow through on the threat, but whether it was reasonable for her to believe it.
In any case, it sounds like they're both pretty wacked-out folks.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: *sigh*
If it helps, I don't insist on giving them the beneift of the doubt about being well-intentioned.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: *sigh*
I'm all for recognizing and lauding those who actually ARE putting themselves in harm's way for just causes, but I do not think the fact I disagree that this was a just cause means I lack moral integrity or intestinal fortitude. It just means I think those people were perhaps well-intentioned, but ultimately just immature attention-seekers who have wrung more out of their fifteen minutes than is really warranted.
HM
On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself
Re: contract
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Boy, you've sure got my number. I sure thought I was getting away with something pretty sly until you caught on to me. My, how observant and intelligent you are. I bow in submission to your obviously superior moral and intellectual prowess.
You should probably not bother to respond to my comments again, because I am clearly incapable of standing against you, and I know your highly-evolved mental and emotional abilities are wasted on the likes of me.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re:
They were there to demonstrate, which, arguably, was disruptive to others wishing to visit the memorial. When the cops warned them that their demonstration was not permitted, and directed them to cease, they refused. Some upped the ante. So, they got arrested. The more obnoxious ones got mildly (yes, mildly) thumped.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Style Guide Update
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
I saw the cops clearing out the entire memorial at the end, but don't recall the exchange with someone who claimed to be with the press. I don't deny it. I just don't remember it. I didn't have the sound on too loud. In any case, I was focusing primarily on the first cop, who had multiple camers trained on him and he was very calm and did not engage with them.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Here, the police seem to be saying that the demonstration (which is exactly what it was) was disruptive to others trying to enjoy the memorial. Sure, it was silent, but that's certainly not dispositive. They were doing the equivalent of torturing your little brother by holding your fingers right in front of his face and chanting, "I am not touching you! I am not touching you!" and trying to tell Mom that you couldn't possibly be bothering your little brother if you weren't actually touching him.
I actually think the First Amendment is plenty strong enough to support the high ideals it is meant to support without having to tolerate childishness as a side effect.
Seriously, these protesters totally reminded me of the annoying "college know-it-all hippies" on South Park. More interested in making minor points in a dramatic fashion than in actually making a diference.
HM
On the post: Group Asks FCC Commissioners To Promise Not To Go Work For AT&T If They Vote To Approve T-Mobile Merger
So . . .
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: Annoying, attention grabing morons.
Did these boneheads evey TRY getting a letter-writing campaign going to demonstrate that there are a LOT of voters who care about this - as opposed to a dozen or so wannabes who just can't bear the fact that they were born too late for a 60s sit-in?
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
Re: Re: I'm not overly sympathetic
Seriously, though, I don't think we have to tolerate KKK rallies in order to preserve the ability of our citizens to have constructve exchanges. Granted, these demonstrators were mostly just annoying spoiled children who obviously didn't get enough (or got way too much) attention from their own parents, and not the KKK. However, it think the principal holds.
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's not like they were screaming and setting things on fire, but the Jefferson Memorial was not built to be a dance hall, and I really do think the context of the location can play a valid role in determining what is appropriate speech there.
HM
On the post: Do A Little Dance, Make A Little Love...Get Bodyslammed Tonight (At The Jefferson Memorial)
I'm not overly sympathetic
The cops actually seemed pretty calm and straightforward. The first cop seemed to try to not escalate anything, but just tell them the way it works and the consequences. And then you had people clearly intentionally taunting the cops and making inane claims like, "you have to give me a warning!"
The only real rough stuff (and I didn't see anything as rough as is being claimed in comments here) was when the cops moved to cuff one man, but another man jumped in and physically grabbed the first man, actively interfering with the cops. The other incident was with a man who refused to move at all, so the cops moved him.
I have way more sympathy for the ones who actually were engaged in more honest civil disobedience. They committed their act, made their point, and were at least minimally cooperative in being arrested. I have no sympathy for those who taunt the police, cause physical escalation, etc.
I happen to agree with the concept that such demonstrations are distracting (whether audible or not) and not in keeping with the intent of the monumnet. Just like I am against the Bible-thumping bigots who protest military funerals and think it's just fine to keep them away from such solemn events, even if they do involve the goverment/military. I do not believe that you have to allow all sorts of stupid speech in order to protect valuable speech.
I would also note that the cops all seemed to do just fine with the videotaping going on.
HM
On the post: How I Had To Give Permission To Quote And Paraphrase Myself
Geez, why the hissy fit?
Unless I'm missing something here, it seems like much ado about nothing much. I just don't see the rant-worthiness here.
HM
On the post: The Maximalist Future: Be Sure To Pay Off Your Lawsuits Before Heading For The School Bus
Looking forward to reading the story....
Two minor points, though:
1. You really can't logically call something "eerily prescient" prospectively. That's the kind of observation that is really only valid in hindsight. You might believe it will later be found to be eerily prescient, but it's not yet until we see if it actually plays out.
2. You can really see suing a fetus for an act it did not commit and could not contribute to? And, really, suing the subject of a photograph over the acts of the photographer - or the person who hired the photographer - in a situation in which the photographic subject was not a willing, or even knowing, participant? I was willing to go along with the other things in the part you excerpted as very unlikely, but logically possible in an extreme sort of way. Suing fetuses seems a bit beyond that. A minor point, though. Still makes for an interesting story - being born with some number of lawsuits already pending against you, settling most of them for some ultra-low NPV like you pay bridge tolls or something.
HM
On the post: Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'
Chilling effect on officers
If we don't accept the reasoning of "only someone who has something to hide should be afraid of public scrutiny" when an ordinary citizen is faced with invasion of privacy by the government, why is it different for cops? While we certainly expect a certain level of professionalism, ANYBODY can get the jitters if they know they are (or might be) subject to a bunch of backseat drivers.
Again, not to say I am actually opposing the ability to videotape the cop who is giving you a speeding ticket, but I think we have to treat as real (and take appropriate action, if possible, to mitigate it) the fact that a cop can get stage fright just like anybody else, and being recorded very well might cause a cop to take an extra second to think about it in a situation in which seconds count.
HM
On the post: TSA May Let 'Trusted Travelers' Avoid Being Groped
Re: Re:
To my knowledge, I have never been skipped for any form of searching because of my race or my employer or reason for travel or level of ticket (i.e., Business vs. coach). And, based on how often I have been frisked (and, nowadays, outright groped), I've had at least my fair share of this crap to put up with over the years.
The idea of the trusted traveler is you pay a fee ($100?), and TSA has a background search done. Not sure how deep it goes. Might just be a credit check and FBI search, but might go all the way to checking your employment references, schools, verifying address, employer, etc. Heck, it might be merely that you're willing to submit to it, and then TSA just pockets the money and sends you your super-exclusive membership card.
HM
On the post: No Punishment For Bogus DMCA Notices If Service Provider Doesn't Take Down The Content
Can Second Life characters eat the virtual meat?
HM
On the post: Big Patent Holders & Big Patent Law Firms Bring Judges To Belgium For Boondoggle...
Re: Re: Turnabout is fair play
HM
Next >>