> What about the hypocrisy of 2nd amendment
> advocates who totally disregard the 1st
> amendment rights of those who disagree with
What do you mean by 'totally disregard'?
If you're suggesting pro-2nd advocates are trying to have the government silence their critics under threat of arrest or sanction, then I will agree with you, that's a hypocritical position for them to take. I would also point out that no one on the pro-2nd side has actually done this.
If you're suggesting that merely arguing back is somehow the equivalent of 'totally disregarding' the free speech rights of their critics, I'd respectfully conclude that's nonsense. In other words, your free speech rights aren't being infringed merely because someone disagrees with you or says you're full of crap.
> I can agree with prosecuting someone for
> trespassing on private land, but that doesn't
> mean you can stop someone from making speech
> or recording it.
Actually, it does. I can make whatever rules I like for my own property. If I don't want people recording while there, I can legally do that. You don't have any constitutional right to film or speak or whatever on someone else's private property. (Try attending a taping of the TONIGHT SHOW or JIMMY KIMMEL or any other kind of show with a studio audience. Not only do they prohibit recordings, they run you through metal detectors and take your phones/cameras away from you and secure them until the show is over and you leave. You don't like it? You're free to not attend the show.)
The reason this case is different-- and why the charges were dropped-- is because this woman wasn't on private property when she was filming. She was on the public road, which makes all the difference in the world from a legal perspective.
Re: Re: Re: It's not "Make Porn Disappear Online", only in public spots.
> Art is something designed to elicit an
> emotional reaction from people. Porn certainly
> is that.
That's ridiculous. Merely eliciting an emotional response is hardly the sole qualificiation for artisitic expression. If it were, then those bombs that went off in Boston a few weeks ago qualified as performance art on a grand scale.
> "to make sure that people have confidence in
> public WiFi systems so that they are not going
> to see things they shouldn't."
Notice how he says "shouldn't" instead of "don't want to".
That tells you all you need to know about him-- that he's just another nanny-statist control freak who can't let grown adults decide for themselves how to run their own lives. He's going to decide for you, because he knows better than you do what's good for you.
> For a company of reasonable size opening a branch
> in a handful of states isn't going to be an issue.
They don't even have to open a branch. All they have to do is find an employee or someone they know who has friends or relatives in that state and have them file the request. Give them a Best Buy gift certificate for their time or something.
> Their bypass method is unlikely to work in
> the long run, the state is likely to take
> action against people who attempt to deceive them.
How is it an attempt to deceive? They're declaring themselves in-state residents (true) and they're making a legitimate request (true).
What 'action' can the state take against anyone who shares information gleaned from a FOIA response? That's the whole *purpose* of the FOIA law in the first place-- for citizens to be able to access their government's documents and share that information.
And while the Supreme Court may have upheld restrictions on who may *file* a state FOIA request, any attempt to procecute someone for sharing that information with an out of state resident or simply putting it on the internet would be bright-line violation of the 1st Amendment.
> it would seem to me that the constitutional
> issue is not if companies can force you to
> give up those logins in return for employment.
> its really if a state can pass a law that says
> they have that right.
If it's not an enumerated power of Congress under Article I, Section 8, then the power belongs to the state and/or local governments per the 10th Amendment.
> Are you implying that the companies aren't
> supposed to follow the Constitution? Heck,
> even law enforcement need warrants to go to
> such lengths. Are you mad?
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but assuming you aren't, and that you're a U.S. citizen, it's a stinging indictment of our educational system that you'd even ask that question. (If you're not a U.S. citizen, then disregard.)
The Constitution only legally prohibits the GOVERNMENT from doing certain things, like infringing freedom of speech, or searching a home without a warrant. It has no application or restraint upon conduct between private parties. The only part of the Constitution that regulates conduct between one citizen and another is the 13th Amendment's prohibition of slavery.
So in answer to your question, no, companies are not supposed to (nor are they required to) follow the Constitution.
> And if a candidate is not on a social media
> site? Are they disadvantaged for making a
> choice not to be on one? There is a serious
> issue of equal opportunity here if candidates
> are evaluated differently.
All candidates are evaluated differently all the time. Social media doesn't change that.
If you and I are applying for job at Company X and you have a masters degree and I don't, we will be be evaluated differently if Company X values post-graduate work.
If I have extensive real-world experience in running a business and you don't, we will be be evaluated differently if Company X values that type of experience.
And if Company X values people who know and use social media, they will evaluate candidates who don't even have accounts differently than those who do.
None of the questions you raised even come close to the most serious question, especially in regard to applicants and employment law.
There are various federal and state laws that prohibit employers from asking or raising a whole host of issues during an pre-employment interview. Things such as family status, ethnicity, religion, etc. cannot be the basis for an employment decision. However, being forced during an interview to allow the company to peruse your Facebook account basically does an end-run around all of that and gives the employer a voluminous amount of information to which it is not legally entitled.
> What if you don't have social media account?
I know of several police departments in the Southern California area that require applicants to allow them to peruse their Facebook accounts and if an applicant doesn't have one, they assume it was either deleted prior to applying or the applicant purposely never opened one in the first place because the applicant had something he/she didn't want them to know about.
Not having a Facebook account is pretty much a black mark on your application that you have to work hard to overcome.
> What if a cop arrests someone today, and that
> person is a US citizen who hasn't watched/read
> Jack Webb, Dragnet and Law & Order? You can't
> just assume someone knows their rights.
I'm personally in favor of the Miranda rule being eliminated entirely. It was a ridiculous decision when it was first issued and only gets more ridiculous with each further judicial 'refinement' of the rule.
The U.S. provides criminal defendants with more due process and substantive protections than any other society in the history of mankind. We bend over backward to give the accused every presumption of innocence and put high hurdles before the government to convict.
If you as a citizen can't be bothered to educate yourself on the basics of what your rights are and what burden the government meet to convict you, then that's on you. There ought to be some minimum personal responsibility on the part of the citizen and that's where I'd draw the line.