Yes, it is, because it makes it appear that the government has something to hide.
Newsflash for the 'gobmint wouldn't harm us' people out there: if the government goes to these means to take something out of public circulation, they probably do have something to hide and there might be some truth in the thing somewhere.
My Lai was called a 'conspiracy theory' until hard evidence came out that it actually happened, so don't be too willing to say that these people are nuts.
Simple, to answer the last question: We just ignore the laws.
That is all we do and if anyone tries coming after us, we hit back HARD and get the law thrown out then. It shouldn't come to that, but too often considering how freaking lazy our politicians in the world today are, it does.
True. The actions of an insane person do not prove that "The laws aren't working!" It just shows that the laws cannot prevent an insane person from killing a bunch of people if they get up and decide "Today is a good day to kill a lot of people!"
It's just impossible to stop that in the real world with more laws. With better psychological counseling and less of a 'reluctance' (albeit one rooted in history) to institutionalize someone.... that can stop these things or prevent SOME of them.
Well, part of regional blocking is that companies cannot know whether X or Y is legal in the country where they wish to sell it until going through a broad process where they ask the elected officials and legal experts whether those things are legal.
That is part of the problem today. Most things should be LEGAL unless made ILLEGAL and made illegal for a damned good reason.
People are just going to have realize, unfortunately, that underage and even overage sex slavery aren't going anywhere until society becomes much more sexually free than it is today.
Though, a lot of 'sex slavery' is women and men willingly getting involved in prostitution and the cops trying to say that they are being 'forced into it'.
Sigh.... until people stop buying the "It's for the children!" argument I don't see these kind of overbroad laws disappearing from consideration.
What we really need is to realize that we don't need more laws heaped on top of older laws, those older laws usually cover what we need to make illegal quite well.
Simply put, FanFiction fits into the same area as parody and is protected by human rights.
It's time to start bitchslapping the publishers and authors, telling them "Once you release something, other people have the right to use your characters as long as: 1. They aren't getting paid for it (or only server costs) and 2. They make it very clear that they are not the creators of the characters."
The problem with these 'incitement' laws is that they miss that many legal scholars and founders of countries over the years have said that if someone has a problem with X thing, they do have the right to protest against it even violently.
Many courts seem to forget that today (on purpose, I think).
Question I have is: How are they going to prove that it was this man who posted this? With easily spoofable internet connections and easily hacked password, basically anyone could have posted this.
Good point, however with the border searches they are on 'firm ground' because federal law says that you can be searched (even strip-searched) after crossing the border for any reason and even without a reason.
Which is insane and something the Supreme Court should take up, but they have been exceptionally reticent to do that.
They don't get a paid vacation for murder. They get a 'paid vacation' for when they have been accused of using their firearm in the line of duty and that (to a normal person) appears to be murder until the investigation is done.
Many times, when something is ruled murder by the overseers in the police, the officer is charged with murder... however, many times, the officer will be let off solely because they are an officer 'of the law'.
I'd prefer to take out terrorists by putting them in front of a court of law.
This whole 'summary killing' makes my gut roil because it is the same shit that the police got in trouble for back in the 1960's with black men accused of crimes.
Hit the nail on the head with the 'discretion causes problems'.
Personally, I feel that journalists should publish ALL papers they get with NO redaction on them. Redaction just allows people who were involved in various criminal or 'damaging to the image of our country' actions to get off scott-free.
Problem is that those Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by a later Supreme Court, something that many people forget and dismiss because it has been done so few times in the past.
On the post: The Economist Shreds BSA Cloud Credentials Piracy Numbers
On the post: Homeland Security Issuing Its Own DMCA Takedowns On YouTube To Stifle Speech
Re:
Newsflash for the 'gobmint wouldn't harm us' people out there: if the government goes to these means to take something out of public circulation, they probably do have something to hide and there might be some truth in the thing somewhere.
My Lai was called a 'conspiracy theory' until hard evidence came out that it actually happened, so don't be too willing to say that these people are nuts.
On the post: UK Politicians Don't Seem To Mind That Every Web Page You Load Is Copyright Infringement Under Current Law
That is all we do and if anyone tries coming after us, we hit back HARD and get the law thrown out then. It shouldn't come to that, but too often considering how freaking lazy our politicians in the world today are, it does.
On the post: UK Court Comes To Its Senses: Realizes Tweeting A Joke About Blowing Up An Airport Is Not A Threat
Re: Re: Robin Hood airport
It's just impossible to stop that in the real world with more laws. With better psychological counseling and less of a 'reluctance' (albeit one rooted in history) to institutionalize someone.... that can stop these things or prevent SOME of them.
On the post: UK Court Comes To Its Senses: Realizes Tweeting A Joke About Blowing Up An Airport Is Not A Threat
Re: Imaginary Threats
On the post: Alex Day Sells Half A Million Songs By Breaking All The 'Rules'
Re:
That is part of the problem today. Most things should be LEGAL unless made ILLEGAL and made illegal for a damned good reason.
On the post: Court Shelves Washington State Law That Would Turn Service Providers Into Criminals Based On Their Users' Behavior
Re: Re:
Though, a lot of 'sex slavery' is women and men willingly getting involved in prostitution and the cops trying to say that they are being 'forced into it'.
On the post: Court Shelves Washington State Law That Would Turn Service Providers Into Criminals Based On Their Users' Behavior
What we really need is to realize that we don't need more laws heaped on top of older laws, those older laws usually cover what we need to make illegal quite well.
On the post: Understanding The Legal Ramifications of Fan Fiction
It's time to start bitchslapping the publishers and authors, telling them "Once you release something, other people have the right to use your characters as long as: 1. They aren't getting paid for it (or only server costs) and 2. They make it very clear that they are not the creators of the characters."
On the post: DOJ Argues That Even If Case Against Megaupload Is Dismissed, It Still Can Hold Its Assets
Re: Once Obama is re-elected ...
On the post: Norwegian Court Rules Blog Posts Are Not 'Made Public'
Many courts seem to forget that today (on purpose, I think).
On the post: Norwegian Court Rules Blog Posts Are Not 'Made Public'
Re: Norwegian law
IP address means nothing in this case.
On the post: RIAA Knows (But Tried To Hide) That Most 'Unpaid' Music Acquisition Comes From Offline Swapping
Re: Re: Re: So what now?
Which is insane and something the Supreme Court should take up, but they have been exceptionally reticent to do that.
On the post: Canadian Cities Looking To Opt-Out Of CETA Rather Than Get Roped Into An ACTA-Like Situation
Re:
On the post: One Day After DC Police Told Not To Interfere With Citizens Recording Them... Police Seize Man's Phone
Re: Re: What was he doing.
Many times, when something is ruled murder by the overseers in the police, the officer is charged with murder... however, many times, the officer will be let off solely because they are an officer 'of the law'.
On the post: One Day After DC Police Told Not To Interfere With Citizens Recording Them... Police Seize Man's Phone
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the memo? Really?
Therefore the cop in question should be charged with theft, just like a mugger who was caught would be.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re:
This whole 'summary killing' makes my gut roil because it is the same shit that the police got in trouble for back in the 1960's with black men accused of crimes.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: It's a very odd situation
I don't understand why that is so hard for people to fathom.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I feel that journalists should publish ALL papers they get with NO redaction on them. Redaction just allows people who were involved in various criminal or 'damaging to the image of our country' actions to get off scott-free.
On the post: Congress Has Lost All Perspective When It Considers Prosecuting Journalists As Spies
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>