Reminds me of David Penhaligon - sometime leading light in the British Liberal Party:
After an opinion poll that suggested his party might actually win the next election he was quizzed by a BBC interviewer who said: "If an election happened now then you would become Chancellor - that's ridiculous isn't it? (Penhaligon was known as something of a jokey character). His reply was along the following lines: " Well when I consider the great responsibilities of the chancellor I do think 'who am I to take on such a task?' but then I go down to the House of Commons and see the man who is doing the job now (Nigel Lawson at the time) and all my doubts vanish!"
...are unconstitutional. The copyright clause reserves that right to Congress. That is actually the original purpose of the clause - because before that state copyright laws had created a mess of conflicting rules.
During the 1780s the shortcomings of local protection for writings and technological innovations in the context of an emerging national market and culture were becoming apparent, at least to some. The efforts of Noah Webster (1758-1843) and others to secure state protection for their writings vividly demonstrated these shortcomings in the instance of copyright. The contest before state legislatures between John Fitch (1743-1798) and James Rumsey (1743-1792) over protection for the steamboat invention and the troubles of other inventors did the same in the patent context. In 1787, in preparation for the constitutional convention, James Madison (1751-1836) identified "the want of uniformity in the laws concerning naturalization & literary property," as one of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation's scheme of government. Later, when he defended the Constitution in the Federalist, Madison observed that "[t]he states cannot separately make effectual provision for either" copyright or patent. In 1787 F.W. Geyer observed that "a patent can be of no use unless it is from Congress, and not from them till they are vested with much more authority than they possess at this time." As it happened, when in 1787 a new scheme of government for the nation was created during the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, in the form of the U.S. Constitution, it included a new federal power to legislate in the field of copyright and patent.
It's about a lack of respect for Artists. Those in power don't give a damn.
and it is up to the voters to vote in someone who does.
The fact is that not everything that is immoral is illegal - and with good reason.
The moment you start to confuse the two then you are in worse trouble than you could possibly arrive at by simply not being very moral.
As C.S. Lewis wrote “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Re: I think the embarrassment that needs addressing...
.is that sometimes the artists whose music you use disagree with your politics, and they will voice that effect in this age of the internet and social networking. And that will make news.
Plus of course the purpose of copyright is not and has never been to prevent usage by someone in some cause that the creator disagrees with. It is designed to protect their financial/commercial interest only.
Even in the extreme case where one might successfullly argue that the usage had damaged the artist's public image and hence impacted his/her sales it would be a case under trademark or publicity rights law and most definitely NOT under copyright law.
Maybe we should be looking at removing all drugs from issues of legality.
Let's create the scenario, all drugs are legal. No restrictions on use and no restrictions on who can use. However, there are a couple of things that must take place now.
The first is that all people who willingly use drugs are now fully responsible for the consequences of their usage. That is, if they cause any kind of endangerment to the lives of other people, they will have mandatory death sentences applied. If they cause damage, they are fully required to restore said damage, up to and including life enslavement until full restitution is done.
Of course legalising drugs IS a good idea - but shortly after that I parted company from you.
The reason that legalising drugs is a good idea is that more than half the problems we have with drugs are related to the fact that they are illegal. In fact they constitute a "Criminal Business Opportunity".
If fact it is actually an International Business Opportunity - since that part of terrorist funding that doen't come from oil or kidnapping comes from drugs.
Legalising Heroin would have a major positive impact on Afghanistan.
Legalising drugs would also remove one of the major excuses for police harassment of minorities (and anyone whose face does not fit).
I think the one measure that would need to remain would be against promoting and marketing - as we have done with tobacco.
Perhaps the phrase "no sympathy" was a bit misleading - my real point was that in this case the phone was a piece of evidence left at the crime scene and the point of the search was to find the owner, so the situation is a little different from when the police stop someone and want to search his phone.
Do you think the police should have needed a warrant to say "home boy" to the dog?
The problem with scripture that requires interpretation is that even nine experienced jurists are unable to come to consistent conclusions as to what a given passage means, hence the ~40,000 schisms of Christian faith.
The moment you go from the authority of the Church to sola scriptura you get fragmentation like this. (Although it is also true that the moment you centralise the authority of the church in a single man you are in trouble too.)
Only protestantism is fragmented like this - and it is most fragmented in the US to which we europeans dispatched all our religious nutcases int he 17th century.
We were told that when it was said that God endorsed the children of the current monarch to be the next one.
We figured out after centuries that that was bullshit, so we tried out this system.
Actually we figured this out much earlier than you seem to think. The hereditary
Think Greek democracy and the Roman republic.
In fact even the Roman Imperial system was rarely hereditary.
The so called "five good emperors" (Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius) were appointed by a mechanism where each Emperor selected an heir who was NOT a relative.
The Buddhists of Tibet have a similar system for choosing the next Lama (although the Chinese have been trying to mess it up lately). Plus of course Jesus made some good remarks about leadership when he said " You know that the rulers of the unbelieverst lord it over them and their superiors act like tyrants over them. That’s not the way it should be among you. Instead, whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave."
If most of the time and resources that are currently allocated to "stopping terrorism" were instead redirected to bringing everyone to a living wage and basic education (globally, if possible)
I used to think that, and I'd still like to think that, but Osama Bin Laden was a well educated multi millionaire and most of those who go to fight for ISIS come from the educated middle class. Unfortunately we also have to do a job of ideological opposition - just as we did against Nazism and Communism.
In fact the rise of Islamic terrorism is caused by wealth not poverty. We need to stop flattering the wealthy states which promote an ideology that is hard to distinguish from that of the terrorists.
Before, it was all-or-nothing, either they don't touch the content at all or they carefully go over all of it, the law was changed such that they could safely remove or moderate some content without having to worry about being held responsible for all of it as a result.
Of course there is a phrase in the law "in good faith". So I would assume that a site that pretended to be an open forum - but in fact acted specifically as a terrorist recruiting operation - and which systematically deleted posts critical of terrorist ideology could at some point become liable.
(Having said that I just realised that such a site would most likely be being run by the FBI as a sting operation...)
Moderating, editing and/or deleting comments DOES NOT remove a website's Section 230 Safe Harbor protection whatsoever:
True as a general statement - but when Facebook permits terrorist to use their services freely but then acts in an extremely censorious way towards those who most strongly oppose them (See http://www.faithfreedom.org/facebook-is-enforcing-islamic-blasphemy-laws/ ) then you begin to wonder whose side they are actually on. At some point down that road they DO become liable. I don't think they are near that point yet but it could in principle happen.