Basically a bunch of random tweets..., some of which have nothing at all to do with Prenda. ... DragonCon ... ACLU ... NSA ... Ed Snowden ... Diablo III ... Manning...
Which only proves (to the PrendaMind, at least) that those who oppose them are a bunch of terrorist-loving anti-social dangerous fans of violent video games.
In the film, a fake cable industry representative (Nick Smith) promises poor service, underwhelming broadband speeds, and a "plethora of hidden fees," before educating viewers on the finer points of what being an oligopoly really means.
I thought truth was an absolute defense to defamation.
Yes, the school district tried to put forward this policy (which is bad), but the students fought back, recruited legal help, and won. So, I'll put this in the "good news" column (and we could use some good news).
Here's a quote from one of the KRCA stories linked above, from student Jacob Williams:
I will not give up my rights for any reason. I may be a minor, but I will not waive rights as an American citizen.
It is true that there are differences between many of those old school journalists and the new school who are breaking all of this news.
I don't know that it's so much "old school vs new school", as it is "middle school vs new school". Plenty of old-school journalists believed in the importance of "speaking truth to power"; sadly, their kind of journalism died out in the past few decades as news media became increasingly more indebted to the Washington and Wall Street elite. In their place we got the "middle school" journalists who are more about developing powerful connections than challenging power. (Bill Moyers had an excellent interview and essay last week that dealt with this. billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-the-end-game-for-democracy/ ) Now, we have the new school come to challenge them, so naturally they're feeling threatened.
...
And of course there's always the "hey-you-punk-kids-get-off-my-lawn" factor, which seems to happen with every generation.
Such treaties are a result of the moral justification, not the origin of it. The rights are moral rights, but laws can provide a remedy -- a framework and a system for redress -- for those whose rights have been violated.
Now, you could say again: "Well, where did this right come from?" You can keep moving the goalposts with each response, coming back to the question of why do we have human rights?
Which is a long philosophical discussion, but for me it comes back to an understanding by human beings of what is just. It's not static by any means (See "evolving standards of decency".), but is rooted in the right to physical integrity -- a belief in the inherent dignity of human beings.
Where does that come from? That's a VERY long discussion, and I don't think we know the answer yet, but most creatures (human and otherwise) have some sense of fair and unfair, and know when they've been wronged.
The UDHR was "proclaimed" and doesn't have the legal standing of a treaty (although it has pretty good moral standing), but as it happens the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which has been signed and ratified by a majority of the countries of the world) borrowed Article 12 of the UDHR for its Article 17.
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
If another country wanted to replicate the NSA's program, why would they be wrong?
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. - Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No, it's not enough to say "NSA spying is wrong". You have to have an explanation of why it's wrong.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Torture, if you know the person doing it against you will never deal you lasting damage, is not really torture as such.
Wrong.
"Torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind...
- UN Convention Against Torture (ratified by the United States in 1994)
Despite all contorted pseudo-legal arguments about "waterboarding/stress positions/whatever-we-feel-like-doing-because-'terrorism', it's torture, it's illegal, and it's wrong.
Re: If my 76 year-old Grandfather can use email...
My 100-year-old grandfather can use email (although he needs help now because he can't see very well).
My 75-year-old father emails me cat videos.
I think most of the Supreme Court justices fall somewhere between the two, age-wise. They should be able to manage. (Although if they realized the scope of the NSA spying, they might not want to.)
I belive one question everyone should be asking is what kinds of scandalous information does the NSA have on those elected officials that are standing up to protect these programs?
They don't need scandalous information. The elected officials already know that not protecting these programs would jeopardize their future careers as consultants/lobbyists/CEOs for defense contractors.
On the post: Eli Lilly Officially Sues Canada For 'Lost Profits' Because Canada Rejected Eli Lilly's Patents
Remember 1812!
On the post: Prenda's Mark Lutz Doesn't Show Up In Two Key Cases, Has A Reason But Won't Share Because People Might Discuss It
It's all connected
Which only proves (to the PrendaMind, at least) that those who oppose them are a bunch of terrorist-loving anti-social dangerous fans of violent video games.
On the post: Brazilian President Possibly Canceling US Visit, $4 Billion Fighter Jet Order Over NSA's Snooping
Re:
On the post: Fake Cable Ad Apparently Hits Too Close To Home; Bogus Defamation Claim Censors Video In Canada
I thought truth was an absolute defense to defamation.
On the post: CA High School Students Kill A First Amendment-Violating 'Social Media Contract'
This is actually encouraging
Here's a quote from one of the KRCA stories linked above, from student Jacob Williams:
On the post: Reporter Toobin Lashes Out At Reporters Who Use 'Stolen' Documents; Leaves Out His Own History Of Doing The Same
Old school?
I don't know that it's so much "old school vs new school", as it is "middle school vs new school". Plenty of old-school journalists believed in the importance of "speaking truth to power"; sadly, their kind of journalism died out in the past few decades as news media became increasingly more indebted to the Washington and Wall Street elite. In their place we got the "middle school" journalists who are more about developing powerful connections than challenging power. (Bill Moyers had an excellent interview and essay last week that dealt with this. billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-the-end-game-for-democracy/ ) Now, we have the new school come to challenge them, so naturally they're feeling threatened.
...
And of course there's always the "hey-you-punk-kids-get-off-my-lawn" factor, which seems to happen with every generation.
On the post: Government's Redaction Fail Causes Exceptionally Grave Damage To Nation's Security
On the post: More On IP Arrow: Takedown Company's Boss Owes MPAA $15 Million And Clients Apparently Fine With Filing Bogus DMCA Notices
A question
On the post: Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable
Re:
Now, you could say again: "Well, where did this right come from?" You can keep moving the goalposts with each response, coming back to the question of why do we have human rights?
Which is a long philosophical discussion, but for me it comes back to an understanding by human beings of what is just. It's not static by any means (See "evolving standards of decency".), but is rooted in the right to physical integrity -- a belief in the inherent dignity of human beings.
Where does that come from? That's a VERY long discussion, and I don't think we know the answer yet, but most creatures (human and otherwise) have some sense of fair and unfair, and know when they've been wronged.
On the post: Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable
Re: Re:
Works for me.
In other words:
On the post: Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable
Re:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. - Article 12, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
On the post: Vocal NSA Critic Has Dinner With NSA Boss, Explains To Him That Abuses Are Inevitable
Re:
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On the post: People Who Got Shorter Sentences Than Bradley Manning: Spies Selling Secrets To Russians & Active Terrorists
Wrong.
Despite all contorted pseudo-legal arguments about "waterboarding/stress positions/whatever-we-feel-like-doing-because-'terrorism', it's torture, it's illegal, and it's wrong.
On the post: Supreme Court Justices Can't Figure Out Email, Completely Mystified By Social Media
Re: If my 76 year-old Grandfather can use email...
My 75-year-old father emails me cat videos.
I think most of the Supreme Court justices fall somewhere between the two, age-wise. They should be able to manage. (Although if they realized the scope of the NSA spying, they might not want to.)
On the post: NSA Program Found Unconstitutional Went On For 3 Years; Started Right After Telcos Got Immunity
As far as the NSA is concerned, with each new revelation it's become more like "If it's downright evil, it's probably true."
I've never been part of the tin foil hat brigade before. I'd rather that not change, but seriously...
On the post: NSA Defenders Insist Their Lawbreaking Should Be Ignored Because They 'Didn't Mean It'
Abuses
The program itself -- its very existence -- is an abuse.
On the post: NSA Defenders Insist Their Lawbreaking Should Be Ignored Because They 'Didn't Mean It'
Re: Your Honour,
And besides, considering the hundreds of thousands of times you DIDN'T bump into your ex-wife's car, this one instance is totally insignificant.
On the post: NSA Defender Claims Thousands Of Abuses By NSA Shows 'The System Is Working Well'
So the argument is...
On the post: Simple Question: How Could President Obama Not Know That Ed Snowden Had The IG Report That Showed Widespread NSA Abuse?
Re:
They don't need scandalous information. The elected officials already know that not protecting these programs would jeopardize their future careers as consultants/lobbyists/CEOs for defense contractors.
Scandals are ephemeral. Money is eternal.
Next >>