And such a law is subject to strict scrutiny as it imposes limits on the freedom on what can said/not said, for consideration. It is legal, for example, for a private actor require payment to evaluate and certify a product (I believe the MPAA, for example, requires such payment for movie ratings).
*Nit pick, I don't think this is a free speech issue. I think its a free press issue. But the particulars are not particularly important.
Via "Lex iniusta non est lex", the action may be considered lawful if the law that outlaws it is invalid (such as for being unconstitutional).
I think copyright law, and yes, it's enforcement, is a good idea.
I think it allows for the expression of ideas, and there for increases the value of spread ideas, without fear (or at least a reduced fear) of loss from (insert plural curse word of your choice here) who would steal another's idea and work and claim it as their own.
However, the DMCA, and its out of court enforcement system, is a horrible implementation and ripe for abuse, and frequently abused in practice.
Then again, if we had more clarity as to what is and is not fair use, that would be good too. "I know it when I see it" is almost always absolutely attrocious.
I think most Americans tend to hate the 16th amendment in April...not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not.
I also think the 18th was a horrible overreach that indirect killed at least hundreds, and that we are effectively recreating with our current "War on Drugs" mentality, but that's just me as a teetotaler, I think.
There are, in general, four main types of jurisdiction (that is areas under which a court can take a case) for any government to act under: 1) Territorial: What happens in the EU/US/Anywhere else is under the purview of that government. 2) Actor: Governments always have recourse over the actions of their citizens, regardless as to where those actions occur. Governments MAY choose to (or be self-barred from) taking actions outside their borders, but they still can. 3) Subject-matter: If what transpires effects the nation or people or government, the government has jurisdiction. You can think of this as being about who the victim is. 4) Universal: Things that any nation can punish, because they are universal transgressions. War crimes and piracy go here. So if person from country A attacks person from country B while they are in country C (or international territory), in a piratical or war criminal nature, any country D has jurisdiction.
So an offshore bank dealing with a US Citizen IS actually under the providence of the US Government.
There is also the mechanism to consider. The EU has power over any company who does business in their territory; If they do not comply, they can fine you, seize your assets or prevent you from doing business. An entity solely outside of the EU can only be affected by the EU if the local government allows.
The US "meddling" with a foreign bank is, "if you do not comply with X, Y, and Z, we will not allow US companies to do business with you (including banks transferring funds)".
Perhaps I'm cynical but in the small town where I grew up (which may not be corrupt, but doesn't have term limits and has the same city council for 20+ years), there was a joke/not joke:
"Actual stuff gets handled by rules and regulations, laws are for when the city council wants to be in the headlines".
So it may just be the city council trying to make noise to counteract their prior bad press.
California, for example, explicitly requires you to possess and furnish a drivers license, registration, etc. to any police officer at their request when driving a motor vehicle on a public street.
Not slow and steady at all: If you really want to see how bad it has been, read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed by Adams, and how it was used (Yes, the 2nd President tried to gut the First Amendment).
The issue isn't "oh no my feelings are hurt", the problem is that people stopped fighting. People stopped voting (I find it pathetic that the recent "highs" of voter turn out are still only 50%), and those who do vote overwelhmingly don't do any research on issues or candidates, they vote by the letter in parentheses(that is , party affiliation).
Is it really? I thought France was rather centralized. My remembering of history class was that the French monarchy was extremely weak (outside of their zone of immediate and direct control, i.e. Paris), which is part of the reason for the French Revolution (they couldn't effectively collect taxes or deal with the outlying nobles).
Yes, it is completely acceptable to use prior convictions in sentencing. When prosecuting, you overcoming the presumption of innocence, even if you had prior convictions. After you have been found guilty, your prior convictions can be added consideration to your current conviction.
It is also acceptable, (technically required, on the part of the judge) for determining bail/release conditions.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your point, but, technically this isn't a shell company (unless this is a mini-Prenda).
A shell company has no assets, except money. Presumably they have the non-monetary
If I could make a patent law change it would be this: if you ever sue for patent infringement and lose, the plaintiff can ask the PTO to re-examine the validity of your patent, and cancel it if they think it does not meet the requirements, specifically the "new" and "non-obvious" requirements.
No, but if it's lower then the general population, then there's probably either an external co-factor, or no matter how bad it is, it is better than the alternative.
Those nets are standard in Japanese schools as well...
That works for publishing, but not the "anonymous" reviews prior to publishing by verified experts to verify the quality of the work, which are also central to the current academic model.
Then again, perhaps the current academic model needs to be reviewed and reinvented as well.
True, but we could limit the shield to an elected official's direct duties. Writing laws (no matter how bad), is always better for citizens, as the laws are public, and can be challenged in the courts (who can order stays, or basically stop the laws from taking effect). A letter cannot be challenged in the same way.
Repeated or blatant violations could have the city's powers reduced or contained (noting that municipal governments don't have constitutionally recognized status, but rather have authority delegated to them by state governments).
We could also have the elected officials liability limited to an amount that is large enough to (hopefully) deter bad action, but not people from running ; an example would be one year's salary.
Although in this case, I wouldn't say that the elected city officials are actually directly to blame, unless the city attorney is elected (which it could be, but I've never seen it), or was directly instructed to write the letter. Also, the city is using state law to attempt to prop up property values, which while dubious, is seemingly legal(see laws about litter, graffiti, lawn maintenance, etc.)
An unpopular opinion, but: I think the US has had several peaceable revolutions, to a certain extent.
In the last 15 years, - House of Representitives Majority has changed parties 3 times. - Senate Majority has changed parties 6 times. - The Presidency has Changed parties twice (And flipped twice more in the ten years before that)
The problem isn't that a revolution is impossible. The problem is that a majority of US voters don't seem to see the current trend as a problem
I would hope that "we are the elected city government, who are chosen by the people to represent their interest ands govern on their behalf, and you are city employees, so when we ask you for accounting of funds, you should immediately hand over what documentation you have (and which you darn well better be keeping), followed by, if necessary, a more comprehensive and up to date list when completed in a reasonable time frame" is a thought that would be unanimously held by the entirety of the city council, and that they'd be willing to act on.
1) The electorate decides that they don't like this anymore, and votes for a D.A. who will prosecute cops, even if it means reduced conviction rates. Probably won't happen.
2) The government provides for a special prosecutor who exclusively prosecutes cop cases (or perhaps all government corruption cases). Might happen.
"Breea Gross, 18, was driving when the crash occurred and was cited for driving without a license, seat belt violation and three counts of child safety restraint violation."
So the driver was also cited . I (erroneously) thought that only the mother had been cited/charged regarding the child safety restraint violation.
Re: Re: Re: They should've left CA alone!!
*Nit pick, I don't think this is a free speech issue. I think its a free press issue. But the particulars are not particularly important.
Via "Lex iniusta non est lex", the action may be considered lawful if the law that outlaws it is invalid (such as for being unconstitutional).
Not saying it is; just saying it potentially is.
(untitled comment)
I think it allows for the expression of ideas, and there for increases the value of spread ideas, without fear (or at least a reduced fear) of loss from (insert plural curse word of your choice here) who would steal another's idea and work and claim it as their own.
However, the DMCA, and its out of court enforcement system, is a horrible implementation and ripe for abuse, and frequently abused in practice.
Then again, if we had more clarity as to what is and is not fair use, that would be good too. "I know it when I see it" is almost always absolutely attrocious.
Re: Re: Techdirt's schtick is to take one in millions and claim is the
I also think the 18th was a horrible overreach that indirect killed at least hundreds, and that we are effectively recreating with our current "War on Drugs" mentality, but that's just me as a teetotaler, I think.
Re: Re: Re: GDPR
There are, in general, four main types of jurisdiction (that is areas under which a court can take a case) for any government to act under:
1) Territorial: What happens in the EU/US/Anywhere else is under the purview of that government.
2) Actor: Governments always have recourse over the actions of their citizens, regardless as to where those actions occur. Governments MAY choose to (or be self-barred from) taking actions outside their borders, but they still can.
3) Subject-matter: If what transpires effects the nation or people or government, the government has jurisdiction. You can think of this as being about who the victim is.
4) Universal: Things that any nation can punish, because they are universal transgressions. War crimes and piracy go here. So if person from country A attacks person from country B while they are in country C (or international territory), in a piratical or war criminal nature, any country D has jurisdiction.
So an offshore bank dealing with a US Citizen IS actually under the providence of the US Government.
There is also the mechanism to consider. The EU has power over any company who does business in their territory; If they do not comply, they can fine you, seize your assets or prevent you from doing business. An entity solely outside of the EU can only be affected by the EU if the local government allows.
The US "meddling" with a foreign bank is, "if you do not comply with X, Y, and Z, we will not allow US companies to do business with you (including banks transferring funds)".
Re: Re: new law
"Actual stuff gets handled by rules and regulations, laws are for when the city council wants to be in the headlines".
So it may just be the city council trying to make noise to counteract their prior bad press.
Re: Re: Please close the door and roll down your window, sir
Depends on what state you are in.
California, for example, explicitly requires you to possess and furnish a drivers license, registration, etc. to any police officer at their request when driving a motor vehicle on a public street.
Re: the slow steady expansion of thought-crime laws
The issue isn't "oh no my feelings are hurt", the problem is that people stopped fighting. People stopped voting (I find it pathetic that the recent "highs" of voter turn out are still only 50%), and those who do vote overwelhmingly don't do any research on issues or candidates, they vote by the letter in parentheses(that is , party affiliation).
Re: Unsurprising
Re:
It is also acceptable, (technically required, on the part of the judge) for determining bail/release conditions.
Re:
A shell company has no assets, except money. Presumably they have the non-monetary
If I could make a patent law change it would be this: if you ever sue for patent infringement and lose, the plaintiff can ask the PTO to re-examine the validity of your patent, and cancel it if they think it does not meet the requirements, specifically the "new" and "non-obvious" requirements.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was a good cop, now a silent cop.
Those nets are standard in Japanese schools as well...
Re: Was a good cop, now a silent cop.
Re:
Re: Re: Err.. all of this is dumb
Then again, perhaps the current academic model needs to be reviewed and reinvented as well.
Re: Re:
Repeated or blatant violations could have the city's powers reduced or contained (noting that municipal governments don't have constitutionally recognized status, but rather have authority delegated to them by state governments).
We could also have the elected officials liability limited to an amount that is large enough to (hopefully) deter bad action, but not people from running ; an example would be one year's salary.
Although in this case, I wouldn't say that the elected city officials are actually directly to blame, unless the city attorney is elected (which it could be, but I've never seen it), or was directly instructed to write the letter. Also, the city is using state law to attempt to prop up property values, which while dubious, is seemingly legal(see laws about litter, graffiti, lawn maintenance, etc.)
Re: Rewriting the Script
However, altering the script and adding it to the movie would be creating a derivative work, which would be copyright infringement.
So ****ed if you do, ****ed if your don't.
Re: Re: Something to keep in mind
In the last 15 years,
- House of Representitives Majority has changed parties 3 times.
- Senate Majority has changed parties 6 times.
- The Presidency has Changed parties twice (And flipped twice more in the ten years before that)
The problem isn't that a revolution is impossible. The problem is that a majority of US voters don't seem to see the current trend as a problem
Re: Re: Re: "Well if you don't need the money..."
... I'm not being hopelessly idealistic, am I?
Re: Why?
1) The electorate decides that they don't like this anymore, and votes for a D.A. who will prosecute cops, even if it means reduced conviction rates. Probably won't happen.
2) The government provides for a special prosecutor who exclusively prosecutes cop cases (or perhaps all government corruption cases). Might happen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Nice double Standard! No, "negligent homicide", serious.
"Breea Gross, 18, was driving when the crash occurred and was cited for driving without a license, seat belt violation and three counts of child safety restraint violation."
So the driver was also cited . I (erroneously) thought that only the mother had been cited/charged regarding the child safety restraint violation.
More comments from Sharur >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sharur.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt