The lack of evidence or data pointing to a spike in sex offenses against children during Halloween suggests the laws on the books are working.
It also suggests the laws on the books are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. In fact it suggests that far more than that they are "working".
Sorry but sex offender registries are some of the most disgusting representations of abusive overpunishment we have today. When someone has served the time the law dictates they should for crimes they've committed they have a right to be treated as an honest citizen. And that doesn't even get in to how many of these registries are abused by law enforcement to punish people for whatever reason they want to come up with.
I think most here would agree that it's disturbing that individuals serving in the judicial system choose politics or even just their own personal opinion over actual law.
Of course pretending that that's somehow unique to the US is just silly. It's true of every country in the world, even independent of democracy. It's a people problem, not a system problem.
A passcode may be used so habitually that its retrieval is a function of muscle memory rather than an exercise of conscious thought
Talk about twisting yourself into knots to convince yourself you can get away with something.
Even if you're so used to entering a passcode that it is muscle memory you still have to engage in a conscious choice to trigger that memory. Entering the code is still a choice actively made by the user. Trying to run around that to pretend it's not an act of speech is absurd.
The "new" thing is often just the scapegoat for "old" problems
People usually want to blame the "new" thing on the logic that they didn't see this problem before so it must be the fault of something that has changed.
This logic is certainly sound as a starting point but you have to take the time to dig in and actually prove that that's the case. The other likely possibility is the one that most people don't want to acknowledge can be true: that the problem has always been there and the "new" thing has just made it visible for the first time.
We don't like to admit that we might have a problem. We don't like to face the fact that we might need to change to help fix that problem. So we default to finding something else to blame for the symptoms that are so clearly visible we can't ignore them anymore.
The alternative is to remove intermediary liability protection FOR those that engage in censorship
Censorship by private entities is a First Amendment protected activity. You don't get to throw that away just because you don't like what they are censoring.
The worst part IMO is that these kinds of provisions are generally blatantly illegal but the tenants don't know that and probably couldn't fight it even if they did.
fossil fuels that are largely responsible for our climate crisis
Stating facts not in evidence.
Now I get that a lot of people are going to hate me for saying this. Please understand that I am not saying this out of anger. I'm ok with disagreeing with all of you on things like this. I say this because I have studied the evidence that is repeatedly presented for this and I honestly feel this describes it. I am not ok letting people make this kind of statement as if it was absolute proven fact.
If there weren't any clearly marked signs against trespassing and this business's parking lot was clearly connected to a main road (like almost every business on the planet) it was 100% legal for someone to stop there for a short time.
There is no trespassing case. It's not just weak, it doesn't exist.
The problem is that the solution isn't as simple as that. Google needs to pull all presence it has in the country out entirely so that it can't be forced to pay fines like this. Otherwise they will start fining them for not linking at all.
The positive side to this is that imposing these kinds of insane fines moves the needle a lot closer to it no longer being financially worth staying in the country.
Back then, the US government considered the export of strong encryption to be a criminal act.
Put in simpler terms, they considered speech to be a criminal act if said speech crossed international borders. It continues to amaze me how easily people can ignore the fact that math is just speech when they don't like how things are being spoken.
The value of anonymity did not begin with the internet. Lack of understanding of computers or the internet itself is meaningless to this issue. So is age.
Being "ready and able" to use violence against others is not the same thing as "encouraging or inciting" violence against others.
I have never met anyone in the military of any branch that encourages the use of violence despite many people constantly trying to pretend that just maintaining the ability to use violence or even saying you're willing to use it is somehow the same thing.
Re: Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTI
I know feeding trolls is bad, but this is just hilarious.
Wyden and Cox had nothing to do with the rest of the CDA. You either know that or you just don't care to look and are jumping into a fun assumption because it plays well to your liking. Neither of those choices look good for you.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar's Next Unconstitutional Speech Control Bill: The NUDGE Act
Re: Uh
Great strawman you got there. You seem to be confused who these bills are about. It's not you.
On the post: Eleventh Circuit Smacks Georgia Sheriff Around For Posting 'Don't Trick Or Treat Here' Signs In Sex Offenders' Yards
More than one way to look at data
The lack of evidence or data pointing to a spike in sex offenses against children during Halloween suggests the laws on the books are working.
It also suggests the laws on the books are ridiculous and completely unnecessary. In fact it suggests that far more than that they are "working".
Sorry but sex offender registries are some of the most disgusting representations of abusive overpunishment we have today. When someone has served the time the law dictates they should for crimes they've committed they have a right to be treated as an honest citizen. And that doesn't even get in to how many of these registries are abused by law enforcement to punish people for whatever reason they want to come up with.
On the post: With Stephen Breyer's Retirement, The Supreme Court Has Lost A Justice Who Was Wary Of Overly Burdensome Copyright
Re:
I think most here would agree that it's disturbing that individuals serving in the judicial system choose politics or even just their own personal opinion over actual law.
Of course pretending that that's somehow unique to the US is just silly. It's true of every country in the world, even independent of democracy. It's a people problem, not a system problem.
On the post: Another Illinois Appeals Court Handles Compelled Password Production, Says There's No Fifth Amendment Issue Here
Insanity to give you what you want
A passcode may be used so habitually that its retrieval is a function of muscle memory rather than an exercise of conscious thought
Talk about twisting yourself into knots to convince yourself you can get away with something.
Even if you're so used to entering a passcode that it is muscle memory you still have to engage in a conscious choice to trigger that memory. Entering the code is still a choice actively made by the user. Trying to run around that to pretend it's not an act of speech is absurd.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows Mainstream Media Is A Key Vector In Spreading Misinformation
The "new" thing is often just the scapegoat for "old" problems
People usually want to blame the "new" thing on the logic that they didn't see this problem before so it must be the fault of something that has changed.
This logic is certainly sound as a starting point but you have to take the time to dig in and actually prove that that's the case. The other likely possibility is the one that most people don't want to acknowledge can be true: that the problem has always been there and the "new" thing has just made it visible for the first time.
We don't like to admit that we might have a problem. We don't like to face the fact that we might need to change to help fix that problem. So we default to finding something else to blame for the symptoms that are so clearly visible we can't ignore them anymore.
On the post: The Corruption Is In Congress: When Your New Bill Exempts The Biggest Employers In Your State, Perhaps There's A Problem
Re: Re: Same old song, just louder
HAHAHAHAHA ooooohhhh that was a good one.
On the post: CNN Shutting Down Its Facebook In Australia Shows How Removing 230 Will Silence Speech
Re: Wrong Pairing
The alternative is to remove intermediary liability protection FOR those that engage in censorship
Censorship by private entities is a First Amendment protected activity. You don't get to throw that away just because you don't like what they are censoring.
On the post: Tampa Bay PD's 'Crime-Free Housing' Program Disproportionately Targeted Black Residents, Did Nothing To Reduce Crime
Re: Re:
The worst part IMO is that these kinds of provisions are generally blatantly illegal but the tenants don't know that and probably couldn't fight it even if they did.
On the post: Fossil Fuel Companies Want Governments To Pay $18 Billion For Bringing In Laws Tackling The Climate Crisis Largely Caused By Fossil Fuel Companies
ISDS is crap but that doesn't excuse this
fossil fuels that are largely responsible for our climate crisis
Stating facts not in evidence.
Now I get that a lot of people are going to hate me for saying this. Please understand that I am not saying this out of anger. I'm ok with disagreeing with all of you on things like this. I say this because I have studied the evidence that is repeatedly presented for this and I honestly feel this describes it. I am not ok letting people make this kind of statement as if it was absolute proven fact.
On the post: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Amazon For Selling Books Containing Misinformation; Perhaps Forgetting The 1st Amendment
Re: A workaround
So instead of engaging in unconstitutional threats, she should just create an unconstitutional law? Don't see where you're going with this.
On the post: Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene
Re:
Oh it's way worse than that.
If there weren't any clearly marked signs against trespassing and this business's parking lot was clearly connected to a main road (like almost every business on the planet) it was 100% legal for someone to stop there for a short time.
There is no trespassing case. It's not just weak, it doesn't exist.
On the post: Body Cam Video Shows Cop Killing A Harmless Dog Within 15 Seconds Of Arriving At The Scene
Re:
Citation needed
Honestly this is just an incredibly selfish idea to jump to. I don't see any chance you actually have evidence to back up this ridiculous claim.
Also person of what color? And why should the color of any person's skin have any effect on how mad people "should" be over it?
On the post: French Competition Authority Fines Google Nearly $600 Million For Failing To Negotiate A Nonsensical Deal With Publishers 'In Good Faith'
Re:
The problem is that the solution isn't as simple as that. Google needs to pull all presence it has in the country out entirely so that it can't be forced to pay fines like this. Otherwise they will start fining them for not linking at all.
The positive side to this is that imposing these kinds of insane fines moves the needle a lot closer to it no longer being financially worth staying in the country.
On the post: Researchers: 2G Connection Encryption Deliberately Weakened To Comply With Cryptowar Export Restrictions
In other words
Back then, the US government considered the export of strong encryption to be a criminal act.
Put in simpler terms, they considered speech to be a criminal act if said speech crossed international borders. It continues to amaze me how easily people can ignore the fact that math is just speech when they don't like how things are being spoken.
On the post: No, Getting Rid Of Anonymity Will Not Fix Social Media; It Will Cause More Problems
Re:
The value of anonymity did not begin with the internet. Lack of understanding of computers or the internet itself is meaningless to this issue. So is age.
On the post: Parler's Laughably Bad Antitrust Lawsuit Against Amazon
Re:
Being "ready and able" to use violence against others is not the same thing as "encouraging or inciting" violence against others.
I have never met anyone in the military of any branch that encourages the use of violence despite many people constantly trying to pretend that just maintaining the ability to use violence or even saying you're willing to use it is somehow the same thing.
On the post: Once Again, Section 230's Authors Feel The Need To Tell Everyone That Section 230 Is Not The Evil You Think It Is
Re: Re: WHERE'S rest of Communications Decency Act? UNCONSTITUTI
I know feeding trolls is bad, but this is just hilarious.
Wyden and Cox had nothing to do with the rest of the CDA. You either know that or you just don't care to look and are jumping into a fun assumption because it plays well to your liking. Neither of those choices look good for you.
On the post: You'll Need Fifty Stimulus Checks To Pay The Damages You Might Get Hit With Under The CASE Act
Re: Re: Re: Unschmonstitutional
Perhaps you'd like to make a point? Throwing quotes around doesn't tell anyone what you're trying to say with them.
On the post: Nintendo Plays 'Control Inception', Cancelling Splatoon Broadcast After Teams Protest Canceling Smash Bros. Tourney
Re: Re: Re: Think you intended to write "modifying":
It's called format shifting. Look it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Format_shifting
Despite your continued insistence, archiving is not the only purpose recognized as sitting strongly within fair use.
On the post: Bad Analogy: Comparing Social Media To Guns
Re: Re: Re: YOU assert that those are PRIVATE corporate-controll
what are supposed to be NEUTRAL PUBLIC FORUMSThe courts have literally declared that as not true.
Next >>