Information harvested for supposed national security reasons is now >being used to track non-security threats and everyone they've come in >contact with
When you have a pandemic considered serious enough to shut down the World economy, contagious carriers are indeed "national security threats."
The difference between free and unfree societies is not to be found in emergency responses, but rather in whether the emergency responses will be dismantled after the emergency is over.
In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration accused the Soviets of poisoning Laotian hill tribes (who sometimes fought for the US) with "Yellow Rain." I was skeptical at the time and remain skeptical today (though after 1991 we would learn that the Soviets had a huge biological warfare program, dwarfing the imagination of even the most fervid Cold-Warriors).
Soon after the "Yellow Rain" accusations, the KGB started spreading claims in Latin America and Africa that AIDS was a US germ-warfare program.
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 19 Feb 2020 @ 10:07pm
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
When Mr. Butler saw the law enforcement vehicles pull up, he was surprised
and confused, but knew what to do. He instantly stopped, put his hands up,
dropped the cell phone that was in his hand, and dropped to his knees.
At first reading I wondered why Mr. Butler acted so much like a guilty man. In that situation, I would not gratuitously damage my cell-phone by dropping it. Then I realized-- trigger-happy cops, notoriously, get away with killing people holding cell phones, claiming the cell phone looked like a handgun.
But-- can someone explain-- why did Mr. Butler drop to his knees?
The cops have a reasonable explanation that will become clear when their bodycam footage is shown to the jury. No bodycam footage? The jury may infer that the cops are lying...
Said character is mentioned briefly in the plot summary, which curiously stops at the end of Volume I (after which it would be difficult to avoid mentioning said character repeatedly).
There is, however, a brief article (stub) about said character, which prudently omits any ("in popular culture") mention of current controversies.
Snickering aside, however, we should resist any temptation to edit such articles. The more internationally-interested Turks who would maintain and read them have enough problems keeping access to the World, without foreign provocateurs adding to them.
"Old age is a shipwreck," said De Gaulle of his former mentor Philippe Petain, living too long after heroic achievements in WW 1. Similarly, the 96-year-old Yeager is currently known for bogus lawsuits (not just this one), and estranged from his (adult) children.
Hugo S Cunningham (profile), 14 Jan 2020 @ 10:20am
SCotUS has ruled (1995) for freelance writers getting paid
[repost of comment I made to earlier article on this subject]
United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)
The 1995 case has a similarity to California's impending regulation: Freelance writers being treated as acceptable collateral damage in political struggles that did not concern them. In 1995, SCotUS ruled that freelance authors (and presumably artists) enjoy special protections under the First Amendment. Proposed laws that infringe their livelihood are subject to extra scrutiny, to ensure they are tailored to the minimum required to meet a valid government purpose.
In 1989, there was a political panic about Congressional book deals-- influential Congressmen making bulk sales of mediocre books to lobbyists, as a way to get around income limitations. Congress responded with typical overkill-- a ban on book payments not just to Congressmen and other senior policy-makers, but also to 1,700,000 rank-and-file Federal employees. If your letter-carrier wanted, in his spare time, to supplement his income with paid lectures on local history, he would be out of luck.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion throwing out this ban, far too broad for any reasonable anti-corruption purpose. (He suggested Congress could try again with a bill restricted to senior policy-makers.)
Justice Stevens specifically rejected an argument likely to be made by California officials-- that free speech can be exercised under the First Amendment even if the speaker cannot be paid. In the real World, a payment ban means less speech. Speakers have to make a living like everyone else.
"Publishers compensate authors because compensation provides a
significant incentive toward more expression.
Footnote 14:
"This proposition is self-evident even to those who do not fully >accept Samuel Johnson's cynical comment: " 'No man but a >blockhead ever wrote, except for money.' " J. Boswell, Life of >Samuel Johnson LL.D. 302 (R. Hutchins ed. 1952)."
California legislators believe the "gig economy" (freelancing) is abusive to broad categories of workers. Under the First Amendment, however, they either have to exempt freelance authors, or tailor special regulations to maximize opportunities for free expression.
The Federal government has particularly strong Constitutional authority to regulate labor relations in interstate transportation. In 2021, a Democratic President, especially if backed by a Democratic Congress, might push the trucking industry in a pro-union direction.
Flanagan suggested that the elite media who ran with the fake Vietnam vet's version failed at
a concept that once went by the quaint term “journalistic
ethics.” Among other things, journalistic ethics held that
if you didn’t have the reporting to support a story, and if
that story had the potential to hurt its subjects, and if
those subjects were private citizens, and if they were
moreover minors, you didn’t run the story. You kept
reporting it; you let yourself get scooped; and you
accepted that speed is not the highest value. Otherwise,
you were the trash press.
Admittedly, however, sleazy ethics does not prove a libel lawsuit.
The term "punchable face" is an incitement to violence, aka "incitement to imminent lawless action", but that is not the same as libel. Also, the lawless action did not take place.
Record everything, but allow encipherment [Was: Re:
It's time to pass laws to force camera footage to be mandatory, complete with fines and corrective action for failing to record all activity while on a call.
Recording should be automatic and mandatory from beginning of shift until end. If an officer considers himself on break, let him put the camera in "encipher mode." Enciphered footage could only be deciphered and viewed with a court order.
Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
And don't spread them on line without the consent of the subject. (Consent can be waived if the subject cannot be identified (eg face not visible, face altered, etc.)) Without consent, personally identifiable sexual photos and videos should be given the same Constitutional status as child pornography.
If her friends should appeal this case to Judge Lynch, it would not bother me in the least.
"There are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge"-- Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton"
SCotUS has ruled (1995) for freelance writers getting paid
United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)
The 1995 case has a similarity to California's impending regulation: Freelance writers being treated as acceptable collateral damage in political struggles that did not concern them. In 1995, SCotUS ruled that freelance authors (and presumably artists) enjoy special protections under the First Amendment. Proposed laws that infringe their livelihood are subject to extra scrutiny, to ensure they are tailored to the minimum required to meet a valid government purpose.
In 1989, there was a political panic about Congressional book deals-- influential Congressmen making bulk sales of mediocre books to lobbyists, as a way to get around income limitations. Congress responded with typical overkill-- a ban on book payments not just to Congressmen and other senior policy-makers, but also to 1,700,000 rank-and-file Federal employees. If your letter-carrier wanted, in his spare time, to supplement his income with paid lectures on local history, he would be out of luck.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion throwing out this ban, far too broad for any reasonable anti-corruption purpose. (He suggested Congress could try again with a bill restricted to senior policy-makers.)
Justice Stevens specifically rejected an argument likely to be made by California officials-- that free speech can be exercised under the First Amendment even if the speaker cannot be paid. In the real World, a payment ban means less speech. Speakers have to make a living like everyone else.
"Publishers compensate authors because compensation provides a >significant incentive toward more expression.
Footnote 14:
"This proposition is self-evident even to those who do not fully >accept Samuel Johnson's cynical comment: " 'No man but a >blockhead ever wrote, except for money.' " J. Boswell, Life of >Samuel Johnson LL.D. 302 (R. Hutchins ed. 1952)."
California legislators believe the "gig economy" (freelancing) is abusive to broad categories of workers. Under the First Amendment, however, they either have to exempt freelance authors, or tailor special regulations to maximize opportunities for free expression.
On the post: Governments Around The World Are Tracking Their Citizens' Movements To Prevent The Spread Of COVID-19
When you have a pandemic considered serious enough to shut down the World economy, contagious carriers are indeed "national security threats."
The difference between free and unfree societies is not to be found in emergency responses, but rather in whether the emergency responses will be dismantled after the emergency is over.
On the post: Governments Around The World Are Tracking Their Citizens' Movements To Prevent The Spread Of COVID-19
Re:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
On the post: Insane: China Expels American Journalists In Ridiculous, Unhelpful Spat About Covid-19
Cold War tit-for-tat, redux?
In the 1980s, the Reagan Administration accused the Soviets of poisoning Laotian hill tribes (who sometimes fought for the US) with "Yellow Rain." I was skeptical at the time and remain skeptical today (though after 1991 we would learn that the Soviets had a huge biological warfare program, dwarfing the imagination of even the most fervid Cold-Warriors).
Soon after the "Yellow Rain" accusations, the KGB started spreading claims in Latin America and Africa that AIDS was a US germ-warfare program.
On the post: Coronavirus Telecommuting To Further Highlight Shoddy US Telecom Market
Good URL for comparison of US telecom service with foreigners?
Is there a URL for an easily understood table comparing US telecom prices, access, and service standards with other countries?
On this site, we preach to the choir, but on other sites, a good reference would be immensely persuasive.
On the post: College Student Gets Thrown On The Ground And A Gun Pointed At His Head For Committing The Crime Of 'Taking A Selfie While Black'
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
At first reading I wondered why Mr. Butler acted so much like a guilty man. In that situation, I would not gratuitously damage my cell-phone by dropping it. Then I realized-- trigger-happy cops, notoriously, get away with killing people holding cell phones, claiming the cell phone looked like a handgun.
But-- can someone explain-- why did Mr. Butler drop to his knees?
The cops have a reasonable explanation that will become clear when their bodycam footage is shown to the jury. No bodycam footage? The jury may infer that the cops are lying...
On the post: Turkish Government Finally Lifts Wikipedia Ban
Prudent amnesia
I could not resist looking up "Lord of the Rings" ("Yüzüklerin Efendisi")
in the Turkish-language Wikipedia.
A certain character who should not be named is omitted from an otherwise comprehensive list of characters:
https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yüzüklerin_Efendisi#Karakterler
Said character is mentioned briefly in the plot summary, which curiously stops at the end of Volume I (after which it would be difficult to avoid mentioning said character repeatedly).
There is, however, a brief article (stub) about said character, which prudently omits any ("in popular culture") mention of current controversies.
Snickering aside, however, we should resist any temptation to edit such articles. The more internationally-interested Turks who would maintain and read them have enough problems keeping access to the World, without foreign provocateurs adding to them.
On the post: Airbus Asks Court To Dismiss Chuck Yeager's Lawsuit, Pointing Out It Doesn't Allege Anything Actionable
Re: Yeager is 96 years old...give him a break
He is estranged from his kids (now adults). Such lawsuits are not their idea...
On the post: Airbus Asks Court To Dismiss Chuck Yeager's Lawsuit, Pointing Out It Doesn't Allege Anything Actionable
"La vieillesse est un naufrage."
"Old age is a shipwreck," said De Gaulle of his former mentor Philippe Petain, living too long after heroic achievements in WW 1. Similarly, the 96-year-old Yeager is currently known for bogus lawsuits (not just this one), and estranged from his (adult) children.
On the post: California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Says She Simply Doesn't Believe All Of Those Who Have Been Harmed By Her AB5 Bill
Re: Lorena Gonzalez MUST GO
Are you one of her supporters, playing a deep game? Anti-vaxxing is not a vote-getter here...
On the post: Dear Larry Lessig: Please Don't File SLAPP Suits
Re: Re: A chilling reminder that no one is infallible
Or ask someone about Sonny Bono, a reasonably likeable entertainer in the 1960s.
On the post: California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Says She Simply Doesn't Believe All Of Those Who Have Been Harmed By Her AB5 Bill
SCotUS has ruled (1995) for freelance writers getting paid
[repost of comment I made to earlier article on this subject]
United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)
The 1995 case has a similarity to California's impending regulation: Freelance writers being treated as acceptable collateral damage in political struggles that did not concern them. In 1995, SCotUS ruled that freelance authors (and presumably artists) enjoy special protections under the First Amendment. Proposed laws that infringe their livelihood are subject to extra scrutiny, to ensure they are tailored to the minimum required to meet a valid government purpose.
In 1989, there was a political panic about Congressional book deals-- influential Congressmen making bulk sales of mediocre books to lobbyists, as a way to get around income limitations. Congress responded with typical overkill-- a ban on book payments not just to Congressmen and other senior policy-makers, but also to 1,700,000 rank-and-file Federal employees. If your letter-carrier wanted, in his spare time, to supplement his income with paid lectures on local history, he would be out of luck.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion throwing out this ban, far too broad for any reasonable anti-corruption purpose. (He suggested Congress could try again with a bill restricted to senior policy-makers.)
Justice Stevens specifically rejected an argument likely to be made by California officials-- that free speech can be exercised under the First Amendment even if the speaker cannot be paid. In the real World, a payment ban means less speech. Speakers have to make a living like everyone else.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/513/454#fn2-1
California legislators believe the "gig economy" (freelancing) is abusive to broad categories of workers. Under the First Amendment, however, they either have to exempt freelance authors, or tailor special regulations to maximize opportunities for free expression.
On the post: California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Says She Simply Doesn't Believe All Of Those Who Have Been Harmed By Her AB5 Bill
Re: Re:
The Federal government has particularly strong Constitutional authority to regulate labor relations in interstate transportation. In 2021, a Democratic President, especially if backed by a Democratic Congress, might push the trucking industry in a pro-union direction.
On the post: The Rorshach Test Of The Covington Catholic Boy's DC Encounter Now Extends To Bogus Lawsuits And Confidential Settlements
Caitlin Flanagan summed up the Covington story well
writing for <i>The Atlantic</i> on 2019, Jan 23.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/media-must-learn-covington-catholic-story/5810 35/
Flanagan suggested that the elite media who ran with the fake Vietnam vet's version failed at
Admittedly, however, sleazy ethics does not prove a libel lawsuit.
The term "punchable face" is an incitement to violence, aka "incitement to imminent lawless action", but that is not the same as libel. Also, the lawless action did not take place.
On the post: Because Body Cameras Haven't Made Cops Better, Two Law Enforcement Agencies Are Going To Start Random Inspections Of Footage
Record everything, but allow encipherment [Was: Re:
Recording should be automatic and mandatory from beginning of shift until end. If an officer considers himself on break, let him put the camera in "encipher mode." Enciphered footage could only be deciphered and viewed with a court order.
On the post: George Gershwin's Rhapsody In Blue Is In The Public Domain And Gerswhin's Nephew Is Worried Someone Might Turn It Into Hip Hop
First to air rap version may file bogus lawsuits against others?
To most TD readers, it is an obvious idea, but there are gullible judges and gullible juries out there...
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Sexual photos and videos: don't put them online
And don't spread them on line without the consent of the subject. (Consent can be waived if the subject cannot be identified (eg face not visible, face altered, etc.)) Without consent, personally identifiable sexual photos and videos should be given the same Constitutional status as child pornography.
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re: Put Him in Prison Anyway
If her friends should appeal this case to Judge Lynch, it would not bother me in the least.
"There are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge"-- Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton"
On the post: Minnesota Appeals Court Nukes State's Broadly-Written Revenge Porn Law
Re: Re:
[Rights are restored to prisoners on release...]
--- in many cases, but there are exceptions, eg
(1) parole, which may or may not be restrictive, or
(2) a sex-offender registry.
On the post: Author Of California's Bill That Effectively Ends Freelancing Finally Open To Making Changes After Freelancers Lose Jobs & Lawsuit Filed
SCotUS has ruled (1995) for freelance writers getting paid
United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)
The 1995 case has a similarity to California's impending regulation: Freelance writers being treated as acceptable collateral damage in political struggles that did not concern them. In 1995, SCotUS ruled that freelance authors (and presumably artists) enjoy special protections under the First Amendment. Proposed laws that infringe their livelihood are subject to extra scrutiny, to ensure they are tailored to the minimum required to meet a valid government purpose.
In 1989, there was a political panic about Congressional book deals-- influential Congressmen making bulk sales of mediocre books to lobbyists, as a way to get around income limitations. Congress responded with typical overkill-- a ban on book payments not just to Congressmen and other senior policy-makers, but also to 1,700,000 rank-and-file Federal employees. If your letter-carrier wanted, in his spare time, to supplement his income with paid lectures on local history, he would be out of luck.
Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion throwing out this ban, far too broad for any reasonable anti-corruption purpose. (He suggested Congress could try again with a bill restricted to senior policy-makers.)
Justice Stevens specifically rejected an argument likely to be made by California officials-- that free speech can be exercised under the First Amendment even if the speaker cannot be paid. In the real World, a payment ban means less speech. Speakers have to make a living like everyone else.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/513/454#fn2-1
California legislators believe the "gig economy" (freelancing) is abusive to broad categories of workers. Under the First Amendment, however, they either have to exempt freelance authors, or tailor special regulations to maximize opportunities for free expression.
On the post: Accountability Is Nowhere To Be Found For Foxconn's Wisconsin Head Fake
Walker lost his job-- what is new Democratic Gov's view?
Is the State still trapped in this deal by the gerrymandered Republican legislature? Or is something else going on?
Next >>