Even though the courts have pointed out that is not how the Fourth Amendment works,
Which courts, in which cases, have said that law enforcement needs any reason to personally observe the public movements of an individual? Because that's what's being discussed here.
even though we have laws against practices of this sort
Sure, I understand the difference. But there isn't a legal difference. The Fourth Amendment applies to "searches" (and seizures, but those aren't relevant here), and watching what happens in public (whether inadvertently or deliberately) isn't a search. There's no constitutional requirement for probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or even so much as a hunch for an officer to personally follow all your public movements for years. Should there be? Maybe, but that's a different question.
...and it's an incorrect (or at least incomplete) statement of the law. Don't think it should be that way? Fair enough, and I might agree, but the Fourth Amendment has been rendered nearly dead letter by the War on (some) Drugs.
What you do in public is, well, public. Anyone can observe it, anyone can record it, and you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. And "in public" is the key--so far as has been shown so far, everything in this program deals with observing subjects' public behavior.
So far as I know, there's no precedent holding that surveillance of a subject's public activities implicates the Fourth Amendment in any way--but I'd be interested to see any.
This is the second time you've said this without any explanation of why you believe it's so. Care to explain, or is this just an example of "anything I don't like must be unconstitutional"?
No, the Fourth Amendment isn't implicated, so long as everything that's being observed is in public (which, from both articles, appears to be the case). Unless there's some indication that people were targeted for speech or religion (and you've shown none), the First Amendment isn't an issue. You could say that putting the Air Marshals on planes at all violates the Third and/or Fifth Amendments, but that would apply equally to the entire Air Marshal program. So where's the constitutional violation?
Note, I'm not defending the program. It sounds thoroughly stupid and pointless, like just about everything else TSA does. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
...but Adobe is perfectly capable of redacting completely, if you do it right. "Highlighting" in black, of course, doesn't do it (and it sounds like that's what they did here), but there's a redaction feature there that works very well.
Yes, I'm commenting without reading the whole thing (yet). But there's something you repeat about CDA ยง 230 that I don't think is right. You say section 230 "encourages" platforms to moderate. No, it doesn't--nothing in section 230 encourages, motivates, or in any way leads platforms to moderate. The most it does is to remove a disincentive to moderate, that being the position of some courts that moderation made a platform liable for whatever appeared there. Removing a disincentive does not provide affirmative encouragement.
...well, that's what I get for relying on my memory. Though I don't doubt there are still books in print, Paladin Press (the publisher I was most familiar with) closed up earlier this year after 47 years in operation.
So I'll amend my statement to "there were books in print on these subjects for many years, and probably still are, though I don't know who's publishing them currently."
There is no inherent right to build your own weapon.
Anyone who respects the Second Amendment would disagree with you. But regardless of whether there's an "inherent right" to, there's no prohibition against it either. It's perfectly legal for anyone who isn't prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, to make one themselves, without any licensing or (in most states) registration.
Publishing of plans on making these items may result in prosecution.
Only if the prosecutor is a clueless imbecile. You know that there are lots of books in print on exactly these subjects, right? There are lots of books in print on subjects that are explicitly and universally criminal. And I'm sure you've heard of the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Describing how to do something that's illegal, is still protected by the First Amendment.
Even if this were true (which it isn't), "promoting illegal stuff" isn't an exception to the First Amendment. "Telling people how to do illegal stuff" definitely isn't an exception to the First Amendment.
The Pentagon Papers case should be all the answer that's needed here--in that case, it was actual classified information, which has an actual connection to national security. And even in that case, prior restraint was held unconstitutional.
Yeah, I'm kind of familiar with the Fourth Amendment. How do you see it applying here? Because arguing that watching what you do in public violates it is novel, to say the least.
Grant that the program is a colossal waste of money (everything else TSA does is, so this isn't hard to believe), but in what way is it, even possibly, unconstitutional?
You're correct that I don't know Shiva. I have reviewed quite a bit of the relevant, evidence, though, which I'd suggest you do if you're going to post on the subject. Mike's articles have actually provided links to much of it--yes, they give his opinion, but they also link to the primary source materials, and to many of Shiva's public statements.
Meanwhile, you're doing exactly what you accuse me of, in that you're passing judgment on someone you don't even know. Perhaps you could consider that, rather than accepting mob rule, I've reached a conclusion after reviewing the evidence.
You have a curious idea of what is American. As you see it, a private website is obligated to give space to someone who's suing them, for him to explain himself. And the fact that they posted his complaint, and his reply, isn't enough. Nor is the fact that they've linked to many, many publications where he's given "his side" of the story. And, of course, he's free to come here and comment like anyone else. And yes, if he does so, people are going to respond, probably unfavorably.
Shiva has been given more than a fair shake in this forum. His claim to have invented email is false. This is not up for serious discussion--all the relevant standards and features had been published long before he wrote his program. His persistence in claiming otherwise in the face of all the contrary evidence means that he's either a liar or dangerously mentally ill (I lean toward "liar", observing how he repeatedly shifts his own unique and bizarre definition of "email", which shows he knows he's wrong). His use of that lie as part of his personal brand means he's a fraud.
To add to this: "X is a liar" is necessarily (legally) a statement of opinion--nobody can know what X thinks or knows, so nobody can say with complete certainty that X knows what he's saying is false (this, incidentally, is what makes it very hard for a public figure plaintiff to win a defamation case). The statement itself is either true or false, but nobody making the statement can know which it is, and anyone hearing the speaker would know that, so it's (legally) an opinion.
"X is a fraud" is also a statement of opinion, as it consists of two statements of opinion joined together: (1) that X is a liar (see above), and (2) that X is lying to further his own (typically financial) interests. The second, once again, goes to X's thought process, so it's necessarily a statement of opinion. Neither of these is actionable as defamation.
So:
"Shiva did not invent email." This is a claim of fact (and I think the trial court erred in finding this to be a matter of opinion), and is sufficiently well-established as to be beyond reasonable dispute.
"Shiva is lying when he says he invented email." This is an opinion. It's almost certainly true, as only some grave mental illness could lead Shiva to believe this is true despite all the evidence, but since I don't and can't know what's going on in that twisted mind of his, it's an opinion.
On the post: Getting Worse: The Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Jumps Into The Aloha Poke Situation As Chicago Chain Stonewalls
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
Re:
Which courts, in which cases, have said that law enforcement needs any reason to personally observe the public movements of an individual? Because that's what's being discussed here.
What laws, in which jurisdictions?
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure, I understand the difference. But there isn't a legal difference. The Fourth Amendment applies to "searches" (and seizures, but those aren't relevant here), and watching what happens in public (whether inadvertently or deliberately) isn't a search. There's no constitutional requirement for probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or even so much as a hunch for an officer to personally follow all your public movements for years. Should there be? Maybe, but that's a different question.
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
Re: Re:
...and it's an incorrect (or at least incomplete) statement of the law. Don't think it should be that way? Fair enough, and I might agree, but the Fourth Amendment has been rendered nearly dead letter by the War on (some) Drugs.
What you do in public is, well, public. Anyone can observe it, anyone can record it, and you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy in it. And "in public" is the key--so far as has been shown so far, everything in this program deals with observing subjects' public behavior.
So far as I know, there's no precedent holding that surveillance of a subject's public activities implicates the Fourth Amendment in any way--but I'd be interested to see any.
On the post: TSA Admits 'Quiet Skies' Surveillance Program Is Useless, Promises To Continue Engaging In Useless Surveillance
This is the second time you've said this without any explanation of why you believe it's so. Care to explain, or is this just an example of "anything I don't like must be unconstitutional"?
No, the Fourth Amendment isn't implicated, so long as everything that's being observed is in public (which, from both articles, appears to be the case). Unless there's some indication that people were targeted for speech or religion (and you've shown none), the First Amendment isn't an issue. You could say that putting the Air Marshals on planes at all violates the Third and/or Fifth Amendments, but that would apply equally to the entire Air Marshal program. So where's the constitutional violation?
Note, I'm not defending the program. It sounds thoroughly stupid and pointless, like just about everything else TSA does. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional.
On the post: School Board Demands Journalists Be Punished For Reporting On The School Board's Redaction Failure
Re:
On the post: Platforms, Speech And Truth: Policy, Policing And Impossible Choices
CDA Section 230...
Yes, I'm commenting without reading the whole thing (yet). But there's something you repeat about CDA ยง 230 that I don't think is right. You say section 230 "encourages" platforms to moderate. No, it doesn't--nothing in section 230 encourages, motivates, or in any way leads platforms to moderate. The most it does is to remove a disincentive to moderate, that being the position of some courts that moderation made a platform liable for whatever appeared there. Removing a disincentive does not provide affirmative encouragement.
Now back to read the rest of the post...
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
Specifically, for the receiver of an AR-style rifle. Still lots of pieces to buy (or machine out of metal) to make that work
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
So I'll amend my statement to "there were books in print on these subjects for many years, and probably still are, though I don't know who's publishing them currently."
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
Anyone who respects the Second Amendment would disagree with you. But regardless of whether there's an "inherent right" to, there's no prohibition against it either. It's perfectly legal for anyone who isn't prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, to make one themselves, without any licensing or (in most states) registration.
Only if the prosecutor is a clueless imbecile. You know that there are lots of books in print on exactly these subjects, right? There are lots of books in print on subjects that are explicitly and universally criminal. And I'm sure you've heard of the Anarchist's Cookbook.
Describing how to do something that's illegal, is still protected by the First Amendment.
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Re: Re: Pentagon Papers
Even if this were true (which it isn't), "promoting illegal stuff" isn't an exception to the First Amendment. "Telling people how to do illegal stuff" definitely isn't an exception to the First Amendment.
On the post: Ignorant Hysteria Over 3D Printed Guns Leads To Courts Ignoring The First Amendment
Pentagon Papers
On the post: TSA Sending Air Marshals All Over The US To Tail Non-Terrorist US Citizens
Re: Re: Illegal? Unconstitutional?
On the post: TSA Sending Air Marshals All Over The US To Tail Non-Terrorist US Citizens
Illegal? Unconstitutional?
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?
Meanwhile, you're doing exactly what you accuse me of, in that you're passing judgment on someone you don't even know. Perhaps you could consider that, rather than accepting mob rule, I've reached a conclusion after reviewing the evidence.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why the Animus?
Shiva has been given more than a fair shake in this forum. His claim to have invented email is false. This is not up for serious discussion--all the relevant standards and features had been published long before he wrote his program. His persistence in claiming otherwise in the face of all the contrary evidence means that he's either a liar or dangerously mentally ill (I lean toward "liar", observing how he repeatedly shifts his own unique and bizarre definition of "email", which shows he knows he's wrong). His use of that lie as part of his personal brand means he's a fraud.
On the post: Appeals Court Rejects Sketchy Plan To Pretend To Sell Patents To Native American Nation To Avoid Scrutiny
Re: Re: Why the Animus?
To add to this: "X is a liar" is necessarily (legally) a statement of opinion--nobody can know what X thinks or knows, so nobody can say with complete certainty that X knows what he's saying is false (this, incidentally, is what makes it very hard for a public figure plaintiff to win a defamation case). The statement itself is either true or false, but nobody making the statement can know which it is, and anyone hearing the speaker would know that, so it's (legally) an opinion.
"X is a fraud" is also a statement of opinion, as it consists of two statements of opinion joined together: (1) that X is a liar (see above), and (2) that X is lying to further his own (typically financial) interests. The second, once again, goes to X's thought process, so it's necessarily a statement of opinion. Neither of these is actionable as defamation.
So:
"Shiva did not invent email." This is a claim of fact (and I think the trial court erred in finding this to be a matter of opinion), and is sufficiently well-established as to be beyond reasonable dispute.
Next >>