Go read the post that this one is following up (link in post above). JPJ cited the exact same case law (Arcara v Cloud Books). And he has the same "nope, I'm right you're wrong... because I say so :p" argument style. This iteration of JPJ is more restrained in his name-calling, I will give him that. Maybe it's JPJ 2.0, now with language filter.
he actually pops up under different names for different threads. He was JPJ (to rushed to look back at the actual name) and apparently Joe at one time. Because he sticks to his points, I hesitate to call him a Troll, but I (highly) question his logic and arguing skills.
"And of course copyright laws must be written in deference to the First Amendment. I never said otherwise. In fact, I stated that such laws must pass certain levels of Court scrutiny to be valid. I also said that once a right is granted by copyright, it is a right that can be enforced just like any other right. And your right to free speech does not trump my rights under copyright. In that sense, they are equal."
But if they are equal, where's the fairness or constitutionality of blocking and entire site worth of speech just to stop the part that infringes on your (copy)right? If my Right to Free Speech does not trump your Copy Right, your Copy Right does not trump my Right to Free Speech (except where my speech DIRECTLY infringes your CR).
Forgive me for dipping back into a bit of FUD (interesting acronym... hadn't read it before today)... but what's to stop the age-old political practice of greasing the palm?
If we allow legislation that can be exploited thusly, how have we really helped anyone except those who can pay their way to a benefit?
"Unfortunately airlines are not currently allowed to perform there own security - hence you cannot find a competitor."
I used to think this too, but then I started seeing articles like this one: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/149748
Do a Google search for "airports not required to use TSA" or something similar. You'd be surprised how many results there are!
It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this. First step in smacking the TSA back down? Maybe!
You're losing me with the In Rem... I understand (I think) what that means, but I'm not sure how you're applying it here.
The AG may have legal power to go after websites, but there are still the 1st Amendment protections on the content that is legal expression. What the COICA would do is allow someone OTHER than the AG to determine that something is NOT legal expression and then take down the entire website to stop that (now questionably-labeled) illegal expression.
Is it doom & gloom to say that there’s going to be a smoke-filled, dimly lit back room where power-brokers are discussing which sites to take down next because they’re saying things that go against their shadowy agenda? Absolutely. But have we not seen in the recent past where the RIAA and MPAA have taken actions that are morally- (and, some would argue, legally-) questionable in the name of preserving their business model?
"And I don't really follow your logic. What do those other technologies have to do with websites that are in fact dedicated to infringement? Sounds like a red herring to me."
It's not a red herring.
The mention of those technologies is to illustrate a documented history of action taken by the industries that would utilize this law. In the past they have used the language of "dedicated to infringing activities" to condemn things they don't like. Can a VCR have a legitimate non-piracy use? How about watching home movies of your kid's graduation? So you see how they applied that label to a device INCORRECTLY just because they didn’t like it?
If we give these industries a law that says "you tell us what is 'dedicated to infringing activities with no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose'" and they'll again stretch the imagination to make sure everything they don't like is included in that definition.
"If a small percentage of the IP "shared" on thepiratebay.org is legit, does that negate the large percentage of IP that isn't? I don't think so."
But that's the whole point... we're not talking about the small good negating a larger bad. We're talking about the unconstitutionality of blocking ANY of those good just to stop the bad.
It's against the applied-interpretation of the Constitution, as demonstrated by case law (read post), for the government to block an entire publication (website) just to stop the illegal portion of that publication.
And I'm with you on that part too... the government should never impose into private business like that... like they should never have imposed a law to require businesses to make themselves non-smoking establishments.
I was harking back to an older 'rights to travel' argument that brewed a while back concerning whether or not the right to freely travel was implicitly granted by the constitution. And I wanted to keep the unlawful-search part of this in the foreground too.
"This is a RIGHTS issue, you dolt. The TSA is a govt. entity restricting the ability of innocent citizens to travel as they please. Govt. ain't supposed to do that...."
I'm with DH on 99.99% of his posts around here... but I do want to point out one thing with this statement: we're not... or, I guess, 'I'm not'... arguing about the freedom of travel. I still hold that we have no protected right to fly if no one wants to fly us. If airports are putting in security measures to protect themselves and their customers, and you receiving their services is dependent upon complying, that's their business decision. Don’t like it? Find a competitor who treats their customers better.
What I'M arguing is the unlawful & unconstitutional searching being done by agents of the federal government.
DH, I’m with you on the fact that this is wrong… but I didn’t agree with the ‘right to travel as we please’ part. :)
I never mentioned citizens reporting suspicious activity to anyone. Interesting and illustrative that this is the first place your mind went.
It is the duty of individual citizens to take personal responsibility in their own safety. And I feel it is a noble trait for an individual to take personal responsibility for the safety of others. But note that I said for an individual to do this. Because we have, as a society, failed to do this and to constantly cry to the government to do it for us, we have this situation where the TSA is being forced on us whether we want it or not.
If everyone would take this responsibility, we wouldn't need the TSA except for the more broad-scope things like making sure a shipping container isn't packed with a nuke.
So, for example, if some jackass pulls a gun in a line at the security check, every parent should react to shield their children, and everyone who's not doing that should tackle and subdue the guy. Could someone be shot? Yes. Would I rather be shot while taking action to protect myself and others instead of cowering in the corner? You bet your ass.
So, where in all of that did you hear me say "point and blow the whistle and tell big brother what Jonny is doing over there"?
"Of course it is focused on airports, that IS the whole point, and as I mentioned in the other comment you didn't read, the interwebs are alight news on what homeland is doing on all those fronts. I don't think they are ignoring any doors. We are talking about the TSA's groping and scanning. You keep trying to change the subject."
Agreed, Homeland Security is applying their wonderful wares [sic] on other avenues. My point was that all this increased security at the cost of our privacy is unnecessary because terrorists are less likely to try the same path again. I'm not changing the subject, I'm illustrating my point.
"Yes you did prove my point, nice of you to agree, try Mucinex. Your fallacy is trying to avoid failure."
No thanks, I don't need Mucinex. And I did not prove your point... why do you keep thinking that saying "Uh HUH!" is going to make you right? All other factors in this equation cannot be ignored in determining which single one is effective. You CAN NOT say the TSA is effective or ineffective just by removing it unless it is the ONLY FACTOR INVOLVED. Why is that so hard to understand?
My fallacy is trying to avoid failure? Are we switching to an Ad Hominem now?
"Is the TSA using this technology? Yes they are. Your quibbling with semantics doesn't help your case."
And your twisting my points doesn't help your case. My comment was on the effectiveness of the technology the TSA is employing. I didn't say ANYTHING on how that reflects on the TSA's effectiveness. If you read that into my point, that's your inference, not mine.
Amen brother... Personally, I feel that if I have the ability to defend myself, I should be allowed to. If some asshat decides to endanger me and mine, why should I have to protect HIS rights in defending myself?
I'm a responsible gun owner and licensed for concealed carry. Yet I'M restricted in defense while criminals who don't give a shite are free to be ready to cause greater harm than I ever would. But I guess locking them up AFTERWARDS is such a wonderful way to handle it. /sarcasm
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: (even ignorant folk)
Well, they'll be able to buy knowledgeable congressmen too... those are just a bit more expensive.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If we allow legislation that can be exploited thusly, how have we really helped anyone except those who can pay their way to a benefit?
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
I used to think this too, but then I started seeing articles like this one: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/149748
Do a Google search for "airports not required to use TSA" or something similar. You'd be surprised how many results there are!
It's going to be interesting to see the outcome of this. First step in smacking the TSA back down? Maybe!
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
The AG may have legal power to go after websites, but there are still the 1st Amendment protections on the content that is legal expression. What the COICA would do is allow someone OTHER than the AG to determine that something is NOT legal expression and then take down the entire website to stop that (now questionably-labeled) illegal expression.
Is it doom & gloom to say that there’s going to be a smoke-filled, dimly lit back room where power-brokers are discussing which sites to take down next because they’re saying things that go against their shadowy agenda? Absolutely. But have we not seen in the recent past where the RIAA and MPAA have taken actions that are morally- (and, some would argue, legally-) questionable in the name of preserving their business model?
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re:
It's not a red herring.
The mention of those technologies is to illustrate a documented history of action taken by the industries that would utilize this law. In the past they have used the language of "dedicated to infringing activities" to condemn things they don't like. Can a VCR have a legitimate non-piracy use? How about watching home movies of your kid's graduation? So you see how they applied that label to a device INCORRECTLY just because they didn’t like it?
If we give these industries a law that says "you tell us what is 'dedicated to infringing activities with no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose'" and they'll again stretch the imagination to make sure everything they don't like is included in that definition.
On the post: Why Voting For COICA Is A Vote For Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
But that's the whole point... we're not talking about the small good negating a larger bad. We're talking about the unconstitutionality of blocking ANY of those good just to stop the bad.
It's against the applied-interpretation of the Constitution, as demonstrated by case law (read post), for the government to block an entire publication (website) just to stop the illegal portion of that publication.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Re: The Geffen Effect
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scanners
I was harking back to an older 'rights to travel' argument that brewed a while back concerning whether or not the right to freely travel was implicitly granted by the constitution. And I wanted to keep the unlawful-search part of this in the foreground too.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
~applause~
or ~applesauce~ if you prefer.
I guess I should be careful with the HTML symbols even in 'plain text'. :/
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Dateline Washington, D.C.
On the post: President Obama, After Traveling With Naked Scanner CEO, Defends Naked Scans
Re: Re: Scanners
I'm with DH on 99.99% of his posts around here... but I do want to point out one thing with this statement: we're not... or, I guess, 'I'm not'... arguing about the freedom of travel. I still hold that we have no protected right to fly if no one wants to fly us. If airports are putting in security measures to protect themselves and their customers, and you receiving their services is dependent upon complying, that's their business decision. Don’t like it? Find a competitor who treats their customers better.
What I'M arguing is the unlawful & unconstitutional searching being done by agents of the federal government.
DH, I’m with you on the fact that this is wrong… but I didn’t agree with the ‘right to travel as we please’ part. :)
On the post: TSA Defending Its Groin Grabbing Or Naked Image Security Techniques
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
I never mentioned citizens reporting suspicious activity to anyone. Interesting and illustrative that this is the first place your mind went.
It is the duty of individual citizens to take personal responsibility in their own safety. And I feel it is a noble trait for an individual to take personal responsibility for the safety of others. But note that I said for an individual to do this. Because we have, as a society, failed to do this and to constantly cry to the government to do it for us, we have this situation where the TSA is being forced on us whether we want it or not.
If everyone would take this responsibility, we wouldn't need the TSA except for the more broad-scope things like making sure a shipping container isn't packed with a nuke.
So, for example, if some jackass pulls a gun in a line at the security check, every parent should react to shield their children, and everyone who's not doing that should tackle and subdue the guy. Could someone be shot? Yes. Would I rather be shot while taking action to protect myself and others instead of cowering in the corner? You bet your ass.
So, where in all of that did you hear me say "point and blow the whistle and tell big brother what Jonny is doing over there"?
On the post: Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly
Agreed, Homeland Security is applying their wonderful wares [sic] on other avenues. My point was that all this increased security at the cost of our privacy is unnecessary because terrorists are less likely to try the same path again. I'm not changing the subject, I'm illustrating my point.
No thanks, I don't need Mucinex. And I did not prove your point... why do you keep thinking that saying "Uh HUH!" is going to make you right? All other factors in this equation cannot be ignored in determining which single one is effective. You CAN NOT say the TSA is effective or ineffective just by removing it unless it is the ONLY FACTOR INVOLVED. Why is that so hard to understand?
My fallacy is trying to avoid failure? Are we switching to an Ad Hominem now?
And your twisting my points doesn't help your case. My comment was on the effectiveness of the technology the TSA is employing. I didn't say ANYTHING on how that reflects on the TSA's effectiveness. If you read that into my point, that's your inference, not mine.
On the post: TSA Agents Absolutely Hate New Pat Downs, Find Them Disgusting And Morale Breaking
Re: Re: amazing
I'm a responsible gun owner and licensed for concealed carry. Yet I'M restricted in defense while criminals who don't give a shite are free to be ready to cause greater harm than I ever would. But I guess locking them up AFTERWARDS is such a wonderful way to handle it. /sarcasm
Next >>