that's an excellent point.
further, there's a the posioned fruit concept where anything further that you would not have gotten if you had not broken the law in the first place is excluded as well.
which would probably leave not much of a case at all.
except, there will likely be arguments that they didn't break any US laws.. which would fall into areas like guantanamo, it's not here, we'r enot breaking US laws, that's someone elses prison, etc etc..
ie. the letter vs the spirit of the law, etc.
after all, we have to protect the children.
I haven't heard the clip myself, but I wonder if the audio quality is good enough to be used in a song parody. :-)
and then if that goes viral (with further encana help in trying to quash it)... this could be great fun.
you are correct. a few years back there was a doctor in.. michigan or illinois (I think) that opened up a clinic and charged actually personally affordable rates.
the law stepped in because he was charging too little, and they forced him to change things.
he used to work at a hospital but saw the craziness and just wanted to help people.
bureaucracy and legislation get pretty crazy.
further, there are many govt hurdles to overcome to set up a hospital, both state and federal wise.
with the corruption in place, your 'reasonable' hospital might not even get approved by the powers that be.
or delayed with so many costs that it's easier to shut down.
meaning, is there a law that says cameras can't be present?
so, bring a camera.
if the court tries to remove the camera, claim first amendment reporters rights.
if they still ban the camera, well, there's a lawsuit right there.
which wil likely end up in the supreme court, and wuld either allow cameras from then on, or have to give an actual reason why it would be illegal to have a camera in a public setting, doing the publics business.
if there are any reporters present in the first place, who is to say what medium they can or can not use for their reporting?
stick to the law, I think.
I'd like to see the 'voice' vote option removed from congress and the senate, that is their version of anonymous voting, which they use for unpopular law. so it can pass, but you'll never know who ovted for it or against it.
but, that's the public money at work.
in the private sector, anonymous speech seems lie a natural right.
not sure how they can bann anonymous commenting if the first amendment starts with "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"... it doesn't follow up with "as long as the person speaking makes his address and name public, so we can track him down"...
would like to see it more as an open text response, and do some word cloud analysis.
personally, I think the biggest safety threat is unemployment.
I think (but have no study to cite) that the more people working, the less crime there will be on the street.
other likely things to pop up from the open text word cloud might be things like 'drugs' 'drunk drivers' 'politicians' etc.. :-P
could a student then stamp a (c) on their paper and claim personal copyright and also effectively grant a limited license to the school, which would then have to pay to re-use the material?
"by accepting the submission of this term paper, the teacher and the organization they represent agree to the following..."
in which case the irs should get involved and figure out how to charge the school that is trying to avoid paying for health care, and the students for avoiding income tax.
that's about the same logic, I think.
I did a quick search on twitter, evidently journo (or variant thereof) is not an uncommon abbreviation for journalist.
as language changes, especially via txting and twitter, where words get abbreviated or merged, these terms tend to get adopted. wait a few years and you may see it officially added to a dictionary.
I'm guessing 'etcc' is a variation of 'etc etc', commonly used when I was much younger, but often changed to simply 'etc' a decade or so ago.
maybe as a compromise for 'etceteras' ...
overall, I'm less inclined to attack someones language as their ideas. it's the idea that is important.
if it's valid, it'll stand up under attack, if not it'll tend to crumple.
otherwise, attacking language is about as useful as calling someone names.
'einstien speaks funny' is a poor argument aimed at his theories. ;-)
so.. focus. :-)
I see this as the same as organizations that focus on police misconduct. the point is that the misconduct is bad, it doesn't detract from the erm.. proper beatings delivered by police, but there's a particular focus to not let abuse in the system be ignored because "1%" is perfectly acceptable.
except, it's not perfectly acceptable, and god forbid it's 10%. so, if you want to focus on correct actions by... police or correctly applied take down notices, feel free to start a site devoted to that.
I'm more interested in being aware of abuses of power, the twisting of logic, effectively keeping an eye on an ever more powerful and irrational legal body.