It beggars credulity that the parents were aware the objectionable materials were available on an ongoing basis, and did nothing about it. It is possible they though it was a one-time thing, like sending an email? Did the parents of the other child request the account be take down, and did this set agree to do so?
Are we now legally required to know how Facebook works?
Never heard of SXSW until today, and already they have a bad reputation with me. They're an entertainment venue, right? Aren't they supposed to be fun, and not just a chute that separates you from your money?
I'm reminded of the process by which the New Jersey State Aquarium became the private Adventure Aquarium. The place got better exhibits, better maintenance, more staff - and became no fun at all. You get the impression a cashier will leap out from behind a display if you smile without paying an extra charge. I never go there anymore.
We now live in a world where the letter of the law doesn't matter. e.g., if it seems like a cable company, we get to treat it like one. This SEEMS like it infringes (no one can mistake the reference to The Band Who Must Not Be Mentioned) so logic, good sense, and common english words mean nothing.
"If someone managed to use this to generate a malware infection spreading throughout the iOS ecosystem, and it was known that Apple hadn't addressed it, they would be raked across the coals."
The vast majority if iOS users are far more concerned about the absence of malware than the availability of emulators. Apple, like any company, does well to serve their most important clientele. Has anyone tried to create an emulator that could be distributed through the App Store?
Certain groups in the middle east believe the west is out to get them; so they lash out, and sure enough, eventually is is. Countries like the US have, in my opinion, been remarkably tolerant so far.
Certain police offices believe (or claim to believe) they're in unusual danger from the public; so they lash out at any opportunity. Eventually, the police WILL be in the danger they fear, simply by reaction.
I always assumed that every action I took - how fast I read, what pages were skipped, whether I finished the book, if I deleted the file afterward - was monitored. They do because they can.
Ditto TV viewing. I ASSUME TiVo knows every time I fast forward through a commercial, or press "page down" to hide an ad. That information has value (to someone), think they're going to leave it on the table?
War, what war? I don't think the USA has declared war on anyone since the 40's. Uh... are they still called "police actions"? Or don't we call it anything at all, just intermittently get grumpy and blow things up.
Ideally, judges don't make law; they enforce and occasionally have to interpret law as written and passed by the legislature. It seems pretty clear that, based on the law as conveyed in the article, he's doing so correctly. Is it a bad outcome? Yes. Will it have wide negative consequences, contrary to the common good? Yes. But reading between the lines, I almost believe the judge is encouraging the politicians to fix the law by forcing those consequences.
A law actually meaning what it says in plain english.. Who'd have thought?
Since the school officials clearly have no idea how to administer to children, I believe they can only be brought back to reality by giving the students the full legal rights of adults when on school grounds. No unreasonable search and seizure, right to remain silent, right to legal representation, evidentiary rules...
We treat them like criminals but deny them the protections we offer criminals.
Yes, but there's no law against that. The worst that could be said is the implication the CONSUMERS of these products are associated with the negative terms. There's nothing derogatory or unflattering about the brands or products themselves.
"Well, first, was a telephoto lens in use? Second, you can (at least in my state) use a telephoto lens (or binoculars, or a telescope, etc.) to peer through windows -- you just have to be in a place you're legally entitled to be when you do it."
The focal length of the lens is irrelevant; you could as easily come closer while still staying on public property, or crop the image. I'm pretty sure your locality has peeping tom laws that would prevent you from photographing the interior of a house, even if some view could be obtained in an otherwise legal manner. Ditto, the secure area inside a police station or courthouse.
I am somewhat unimpressed by shenanigans like this. I'm all for exercising ones rights to demonstrate and reinforce them, I've been stopped from photographing in public myself, and didn't back down. But there's little reason to photograph this particular area other than to force a reaction.
If you listen carefully, the officer appears to be objecting to the fact that the interior of the building - as visible through the open doors - was being photographed. That may or may not have happened, but the possibility exists.
Just as you can photograph the outside of a house, but NOT use a telephoto lens to peer through the windows, this might have some validity.
There's another remote possibility that such photographs would be useful for planning a break when prisoners are being transferred - which is why our local courthouse closes the doors behind the vehicle before this is done. Jacksonville doesn't?