I think the court missed an important point here. There was really no way to avoid the surveillance. There is a mention of fencing around the yard, but that would not have prevented pole mounted cameras from seeing into his property.
In many cases, steps taken by the surveilled individual to avoid that surveillance are an important factor. I believe that the lack of an opportunity to take such steps in this case should have been a factor weighed against allowing the surveillance.
"Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and content based restrictions..."
I guess the objective truth is a viewpoint if you want to look at it that way...
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there an even more obvious reason this is not trademark infringement: customer confusion (or lack thereof).
I don't think anyone is going to buy a dog toy when they want some whiskey. I doubt that my local liquor store even has a dog toy section. Wouldn't the infringing product have to be in the same market and risk customer confusion for a valid trademark infringement case?
OLC memos (and other "deliberative" stuff) shouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on until they're made public. Once they do have meaning and force, they can't be deliberative anymore, so there should be no problem making them public.
Section 230 is the virtual world expression of the concept that: when a convenience store you are in one afternoon is robbed, and you as an innocent bystander are injured in the process, the convenience store isn't responsible for you being hurt even though the robbery occurred in their store. To take it a step farther and complete the example, the convenience store can hire an overnight security guard without becoming liable, even though they have taken action to address the threat some of the time.
Answer: The law doesn't force Facebook to host content they don't want. The law (section 230) allows Facebook to moderate the content they don't want (e.g. white supremacist propaganda), while protecting them in cases where they miss content that they would remove if they found it.
The real crisis at the southern border (and anywhere within 100 miles of a border) is the myriad violations perpetrated by ICE. Maybe we could spend however many billions Trump wants for the wall on fixing that instead.
Isn't there some (flawed) legal principle about having no expectation of privacy in something you've shared with someone else? I'm pretty sure I've heard of that somewhere...
"The correct response to such concerns, however, isn’t to end asset forfeiture but to fix it."
You can't fix something that is broken at its core. Asset forfeiture is contrary to American values. How can you fix something that exists for the express purpose of depriving someone of property/cash without due process of law?
This is quite a win-win for any police department that doesn't like transparency and accountability. First, they get to implement body cams, which is a PR win, because the public thinks they're getting transparency and accountability. It doesn't cost them anything for the first year, so it's free and everyone likes free. After the first year is over, the police departments decide not to pay the various fees, so they lose access to any recordings (along with the public and everyone else). The recordings probably get deleted for good, ensuring that nothing can come of them. Likely no one is paying attention at this point, but if anyone does notice, they can just point to the unreasonable demands made for licensing, access, and storage and make Taser the bad guy.
Does this law contain an exception for statements made during election campaigns? If not, I don't see how a single law maker could possibly support it.
If AR&R wants to make money off everyone else using its roads, why aren't they trying to charge the National Take-A-Look Association (the NTA) for all the use they make of AR&R's roads?
On the post: Seventh Circuit Says (Reluctantly) That 18 Months Of Pole-Mounted Camera Surveillance Isn't Unconstitutional
I think the court missed an important point here. There was really no way to avoid the surveillance. There is a mention of fencing around the yard, but that would not have prevented pole mounted cameras from seeing into his property.
In many cases, steps taken by the surveilled individual to avoid that surveillance are an important factor. I believe that the lack of an opportunity to take such steps in this case should have been a factor weighed against allowing the surveillance.
On the post: It Can Always Get Dumber: Trump Sues Facebook, Twitter & YouTube, Claiming His Own Government Violated The Constitution
"Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and content based restrictions..."
I guess the objective truth is a viewpoint if you want to look at it that way...
On the post: Jack Daniels Gets Chewed Up In Trademark Case Over 'Bad Spaniels' Doggy Chew Toy
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there an even more obvious reason this is not trademark infringement: customer confusion (or lack thereof).
I don't think anyone is going to buy a dog toy when they want some whiskey. I doubt that my local liquor store even has a dog toy section. Wouldn't the infringing product have to be in the same market and risk customer confusion for a valid trademark infringement case?
On the post: French Government Says Google Must Pay French News Agencies For Sending Traffic Their Way
Re:
Google should open negotiations with the referral fee they demand from the news publishers per person they send to their sites.
I see your snippet tax and raise you a referral fee!
On the post: Cops Arrest 12-Year-Old For Pointing 'Finger Guns' At Classmates
"But this is a 12-year-old surrounded by fully-functioning adults..."
Apparently not.
On the post: Office Of Legal Counsel Sued For Refusing To Turn Over Legal Memos Congress Said Aren't Exempt From FOIA Law
OLC memos (and other "deliberative" stuff) shouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on until they're made public. Once they do have meaning and force, they can't be deliberative anymore, so there should be no problem making them public.
On the post: Section 230 Is Not Exceptional, It Is Not Unique, It Is Not A Gift: It's The Codification Of Common Law Liability Principles
A concrete example
Section 230 is the virtual world expression of the concept that: when a convenience store you are in one afternoon is robbed, and you as an innocent bystander are injured in the process, the convenience store isn't responsible for you being hurt even though the robbery occurred in their store. To take it a step farther and complete the example, the convenience store can hire an overnight security guard without becoming liable, even though they have taken action to address the threat some of the time.
On the post: Section 230 Is Not Exceptional, It Is Not Unique, It Is Not A Gift: It's The Codification Of Common Law Liability Principles
Re:
Answer: The law doesn't force Facebook to host content they don't want. The law (section 230) allows Facebook to moderate the content they don't want (e.g. white supremacist propaganda), while protecting them in cases where they miss content that they would remove if they found it.
On the post: Pai's FCC Crushes Rules That Brought More Broadband Competition To San Francisco
Why don't we save the American people some money? We can cut the FCC and just let the ISPs run things. They do already anyway.
On the post: Ariana Grande Demands All Photographers At Her Concerts Transfer Copyright To Her, NPPA Revolts
"And: what crack legal staff actually signed off on this thing?"
The crack legal staff must have been smoking a funny brand of crack...
On the post: ICE Officers Forging Signatures, Deploying Pre-Signed Warrants To Detain Immigrants
The real crisis at the southern border (and anywhere within 100 miles of a border) is the myriad violations perpetrated by ICE. Maybe we could spend however many billions Trump wants for the wall on fixing that instead.
On the post: Trump Administration's 'National Broadband Plan' Comically Refuses To Acknowledge A Lack Of Competition
"...nothing drives innovation more effectively than unleashing the free market economy."
It's not a free market if it's dominated by a few mega-corps.
On the post: Judge Tells CIA It Can't Hand Classified Info To Journalists And Pretend The Info Hasn't Been Made Public
On the post: Former DOJ Prosecutor Steps Up To Defend DOJ's New Asset Forfeiture Rules
You can't fix something that is broken at its core. Asset forfeiture is contrary to American values. How can you fix something that exists for the express purpose of depriving someone of property/cash without due process of law?
On the post: Former DOJ Prosecutor Steps Up To Defend DOJ's New Asset Forfeiture Rules
To that I say: "Law and order harder, law enforcement people".
On the post: FCC Won't Release Data To Support Its Claim A DDOS Attack, Not John Oliver, Brought Down The Agency's Website
On the post: Taser Seeking To Lock Down Body Camera Market With 'Free' Camera Offer To Law Enforcement Agencies
On the post: Tell California Assembly Not To Ignore The First Amendment As It Tries To Ban Fake News
On the post: Film Distributor Creates Torrent Site Clone That Gives Away Movie Tickets To Combat Piracy
Cue the trademark (trade dress?) Infringement suit...
On the post: Move Over, Series Of Tubes, The Internet Is Now A Bridge Over A Creek For A Dozen People?
Next >>