I think the fifth amendment is underused (Prenda not withstanding): Youtube presentation by a law professor
Never talk to police, but if you have to, never do so without a lawyer (representing you!) present.
That may be so, but there is porn and there is porn and the "films" (and I use the term advisedly) they are trolling for (which they OWN!) are as far from "mainstream" porn as they could get -- not simple M/F, but things like gay porn and bestiality, although I'm not even sure if "gay porn" isn't mainstream these days. They would be laughed at if they went after people for downloading something like "Deep Throat" or "Debbie Does Dallas".
Pruitt said officers were forced to use their batons to arrest Silva but no tazers, pepper spray or guns were used during the altercation.
Interesting that they don't use any of the non-lethal means to incapacitate (tazers or pepper spray) and seem to be proud of it [I acknowledge that is just my opinion on what they stated]. I can imagine someone intoxicated might be able to shrug off the pepper spray, but I doubt they'd be able to shrug off the effects of a tazer.
Most people don't have a law firm on retainer; I certainly don't, but it is situations like this that make me wonder if I should just so I'd have someone to call (if they allowed me to call!)
Now that is a call to fix the distribution issues of the entertainment industry! Make Game of Thrones easily streamable! Give people the opportunity to watch it at their own pace and the way they want to! It isn't just CwF -- it is a civic duty!
Get that hurdle out of the way so we can watch this chow and then pay the appropriate amount of attention to the government!
The other issue is the massive volume it deals with -- 72 hours uploaded every minute -- which makes it impossible to police uploads with any level of detail.
But it isn't the UPLOAD of videos that is at issue. It is the challenge to them by third parties; YouTube needs to implement some mechanism to detect these types of challenges. I presume they require them to register -- especially if they are getting to monetize the video, so their contact information should be available.
At the least it should be a red flag when companies are constantly challenging content but drop those challenges when it is contested -- at least to the extent of having a human (or whatever YouTube employs :-) ) looking at the issue.
I am quite aware that the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch. I am upset at the Judicial Branch for letting the DOJ get away with these baseless prosecutions; acting more as a facilitator than an actual check on the powers of the Executive. Part of that is that the Judicial Branch is not assertive -- a case has to be brought to it before it can rule, and even then not everyone can bring forth a case (it always requires standing) -- but the automatic deference to the Executive Branch on invocation of "State Secrets" is absurd when there have been many examples of those claims being lies.
I am quite upset about the heavy handedness of the US in other parts of the world; but that is far away and I'm generally a common American in that if it isn't in my own back yard I don't care (however, I actually do). The evil of the DOJ is that this is what they are doing to Americans (or, in the case of Kim Dotcom, "visitors") in our own court system. What the Executive or Legislative branch do I have little or no confidence in, but without trust in the Judicial branch of the US Government, all hope is lost.
I am losing my confidence in the US Judicial Branch. They are letting the rights of the non-powerful be trampled. Yes three American citizens were executed! And the Judicial Branch appears to have no incentive (or mechanism? who has standing??) to reign the Executive Branch in for abuse of power; a simple, if nauseating, example of why I'm losing trust in the one branch of "my" government that is supposed to protect me from abuse by the rest.
It does not pale in comparison; it is a case study in how the balances designed into the US Constitution have become corrupted.
... more than I wanted to get into, but I used to hold the courts on a *very* high pedestal, but no longer.
Maybe it was a good thing that the Govt went after such high profile target as Kim Dotcom has resources to fight back. Not infinite, yes but enough to put up a fight and cause severe damage to the farce that the DOJ is.
Except for the fact that they went after him at his house with a SWAT team and could very easily have killed him in the process ("He was 'resisting arrest' -- oops!")
I have never been more ashamed of being an American than the DOJ's behavior at the behest of the "Entertainment Industry."
Oddly, I consider Sandy Hook an "Accident" in the same way that I look at airplane accidents; trying to jump on guns, gun owners, or make claims about 2nd amendment rights is just ignoring the situation.
Planes have accidents for any number of reasons, but mostly I suspect improper maintenance would come out as a leading cause; good maintenance workers usually find (and fix) potential accidents all the time. The Sandy Hook tragedy is similar in that a part of our community, Adam Lanza, should have been cared for "better" (what that means is up for debate) and as a result caused our normal community to fail/have an accident.
Guns didn't cause the problem; they did, however, probably make the body count higher, but considering elementary school kids it may not have been much lower if he had gone wild with a hunting knife. I suspect that the problem was a matter of our social network breaking down, especially in the case of handling "special needs" individuals (if Adam had Aspergers, for which I have no real evidence, that would qualify him). Maybe the reasons for him doing this will eventually be revealed (but maybe not).
When an airplane has an accident, professionals study it and try to make sure it doesn't happen again. Our society had an accident. Let the professionals study it and see if there are ways to prevent it from happening again; pointing the blame at anything right now is premature.
And the NRA saying "it isn't guns" is also premature.
This whole argument is downright stupid. First off, there really isn't such a thing as a "legal grey area". Something is either legal or it isn't. Period. Until a court or legislative body declares something illegal, it's legal.
I wish it were that easy. One major job of the Supreme Court is to deal with the situation where two of the circuit courts have ruled differently on the same question; the Supremes will usually accept those cases so one unifying ruling can be made (and so the cases don't get sent to the Supreme Court again if they do it right).
The problem with the tax code is that there are a number of places where things are open to interpretation; those are certainly "legal grey areas" since which examiner you get during your audit/colonoscopy results in whether you chose right or not.
Once a system gets complex enough (taxes, law, even coding); once you have "interpretation" you get into "grey areas" (legal or not is just a point of view from there...)
I was disappointed by the link to PublicKnowledge and the "contact your representative" -- no tool for finding your Rep (or their phone number); their expectation is for you to call your rep's office rather than sending an email or pointing you to your Rep's web page (if any). In effect all it looked like was a mechanism for them to get your contact information. Very disappointing.