I never said we didn't live in a police state. But, then again, I don't go out actively trolling cops with a loud mouth and a videocamera or a camera/cellphone. While it technically isn't illegal, when you actively provoke a bear, expect to get chased down and attacked. How many of you deliberately provoke a hive of angry bees? Remember, never wake the sleeping dragon, because you're bound to get bit.
I find it hilarious that the above article leaves out too much. First, if the person you're walking with is under suspicion of a crime, the police don't know if you're also involved. They have every right to detain you until they can confirm your identity and involvement with that person you're walking with.
While the ruling is too broad, it's more designed to prevent morons from stopping and distracting police officers who are not just investigating someone they suspect but also because they don't know who you are.
Don't always assume that decisions like this are 100% wrong. There are legitimate concerns for officers to be concerned with their own safety.
I have to side with the victim's family members because autopsy photos, even if they are considered to be in the public domain, doesn't give anyone else the right to profit off those photos. While there may be exceptions, such as journalism and the news media; when other entities, such as movie and television studios, seek to profit off those photos, it just creates one massive screw-up, and also creates liability for anyone involved in the production of that movie or television series.
First of all, the county of Los Angeles should have exercised more restraint and they should not have released those autopsy photos and I seriously doubt that the law was designed to allow the entertainment industry to profit from those autopsy photos.
Second, Warner Brothers Television, producer John Wells, NBC, Turner Network Television, the city of Los Angeles, the County of Los Angeles and Warner Home Video have all set themselves up for liability because not withstanding that the scene appears on a large number of episodes in the series, but also the rebroadcast of those episodes, the DVD releases, digital downloads, torrent downloads, Blu-ray releases and releases to other regions and other countries, the aforementioned people and entities may be in a lot of trouble for using those photos without permission from the family.
I also expect that the aftermath of this lawsuit could force municipalities, cities, states and even congress itself, to pass a law making it a crime to use sensitive photos such as autopsies in any commercial venue.
Fact of the matter is, Warner Brothers and everyone involved, have commercially profited off those autopsy photos in such a way as to invade the privacy of Andy Nelson Abarca's family.
Such autopsy photos, even if they are considered to be in the public domain, are not without limit. I think some overzealous crew member on Southland discovered the photos and decided to suggest them to the producers to add to the montage, not realizing what kind of impact it would have on the family.
Imagine that a member of your family was brutally murdered and the country medical examiner took photos and then Paramount, Universal or Warner Brothers decided to include those photos in every episode of one of their TV shows. There you are, sitting at home, interested in watching this TV series and you're confronted with the autopsy photos of your slain family member. Nobody can imagine what kind of psychological effect that could have on a family member and it was callous of Warner Brothers and everyone mentioned above to even use those photos in the production of their TV series.
These studios have special effects departments, they could have easily created fake autopsy photos, but they decided to use real-life autopsy photos? This isn't like the TV series COPS or World's Dangerous Police Chases. Everyone involved in this TV series should be sued because they intruded into the private lives of this mourning family.
I just don't see these students prevailing because campus administration and campus safety had an absolute right to search those student's dorm room and they had no expectation of privacy since they were in violation of campus policies and they were violating the law.
I missed the point on that issue but the fact is, you cannot file a lawsuit publicly shaming an institution and then hide behind anonymity. These frat boy morons should be ashamed of themselves.
They filed their lawsuit alleging the violation of their constitutional rights, except that their rights weren't violated. What Mike Masnick left out of his article above was that a faculty member found a cell phone in her classroom with numerous texts suggesting drug activity, a court document states, from a court complaint back in February where Bucknell attempted to dismiss the lawsuit in a complaint filed earlier this year.
From what I found out about searches of campus dorms: "with limited exception, courts support the rights of college and university officials to enter and search rooms in order to serve institutional purposes, which include protecting the health and safety of students and enforcing college rules and regulations."
In effect, once the campus discovered that some of its students were engaging in the business of illegal drugs on its campus, it had the right to search the student's dorm in relation to this illegal activity.
Additionally, what Mike's article also neglected to mention was that campus authorities discovered LSD tablets, marijuana, synthetic marijuana, 5.5-inch hunting knife, slingshot, pellet gun designed to look like an automatic pistol, 11-inch bong, 16-inch bong, nine pipes, digital scale, seven grinders and a lock-picking set.
I don't see these students on the winning side of this court battle.
I have to admit that this is an interesting argument. But, unfortunately, there is no constitutional right to keeping your name out of a legitimate court trial when you are accused of a crime. These students were busted for possessing illegal drugs and they got caught. Arguing that revealing their names is a constitutional violation is such a wrong reading of the law that you have to scratch your heads wondering how any competent attorney came up with this argument.
Sure, anyone accused of a crime is going to be embarrassed, but arguing that they have a constitutional right to keep their names out of it violates the very visit of open court proceedings.
If these students didn't want their names revealed, then here's a suggestion, DON'T VIOLATE THE LAW.
I actually believe the stupid morons in this country for all of these crap laws that put the NSA, FBI, DOJ and the TSA in power. That's right, I called everyone a moron.
Because it's those morons who agreed with congress to pass the Patriot Act and every other law that congress passed to give our government unprecedented power. By the way, what happens when you give government too much power? They are unwilling to relinquish control of that power.
The sense of entitlement here is simply staggering. If a police officer stops you in the street and asks you to identify yourself, and you've done nothing wrong, it doesn't hurt to answer his question.
Unfortunately, everyone here would rather risk a negative confrontation with the cop and simply argue with him just for the sake of arguing.
After September 11th, in order to feel safer and more secure, Americans agreed to give up certain liberties in order for our government to keep us safe.
Now, it seems everyone in this country is now having "buyer's remorse" after the Snowden Era. Suck it up. Now that everyone "GAVE" the government approval to conduct massive surveillance, live with it and stop whining about it.
I was very reluctant when The Patriot Act and other bills were being voted and passed unanimously by congress and when they received support from the American People. I warned people what would happen and this is the result.
So, don't start whining about it now, since the government has abused those laws that were passed by congress.
Once you give government the power to do something, they are very reluctant to give that power up. So, deal with it.
The problem is that we're making too big a deal out of this. Before that moron Snowden came along, the government was pretty much doing all of this without the public's knowledge. Just exactly how gullible are you people to think that this only started happening after September 11th, when we were attacked by terrorists?
The only difference is that idiot Snowden absconded with documents he should never have taken in the first place. How would everyone react if a contractor took documents that contained the codes to our nuclear arsenal or national security plans and gave them to a country that was hostile to America?
This "surveillance" has been going on since well before September 11th came along. The fact that everyone is making a big issue out of this just goes to show how unaware that most Americans are and that is such a limited grasp on the situation. Even without the courts, without the laws passed in congress, the government would continue spying on its own.
This controversy over the government's surveillance of its own people and the hysteria it causes is exactly why this surveillance should never be revealed. Because it creates more problems than it solves.
I have to say that while I detest the government's spying, I'm not too concerned about it. Why? Because I don't do anything wrong. I don't violate the law, I don't do anything illegal, so I don't exactly care about it.
The problem is the same problem I have with idiots and morons posting their escapades with videotaping police up on youtube. 99% of the time, Americans are deliberately going out of their way to stage a confrontation with police either in an attempt to embarrass the police or to create their own viral video.
It's gotten ridiculous. The problem is that it gives Americans a false sense of entitlement. If you aren't doing anything, don't worry about it. The majority of people who do complain are the ones who are doing something against the law that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
It looks like the Caddy Club, which is being sued, is going to end up losing. While there are some minor differences, it's likely to create brand confusion and that the Caddy Club must "change its name" and "change the design of their uniforms".
Petty lawsuit? Maybe. But I don't see Caddy Club coming up with a recognizable defense.
Let me see if I got this right, the only way the dog gets to eat is by performing tricks? Where's the ASPCA when they are really needed? For that matter, where's SHARK? Additionally, last I checked, you can't hide a kidnapped woman on a hard drive, thumb drive or any type of memory device.
There are ways around browser-related "copy protect". Just copy the source, save it to your hard drive, and edit out the code that enables "copy protect". MonsterZero.us has the same thing and I manage to get around it. Copy Protect is the dumbest thing ever for websites because those websites using this idiotic code even copy-protect website links posted on their site.
I'm not trolling. I'm simply making a point. But what nobody is getting is that in order to eliminate the influence of money in politics, then you need to ban all money in politics where it comes in the form of donations to an election or re-election campaign.
THAT is the only way to prevent the the influence of money.
Every time a single citizen donates to an election or re-election campaign, YOU are influencing politics through your donation. YOU contribute to a politician engaging in a smear or dirty campaign against a member of their same party or against a member of the opposing party.
It just doesn't matter whether you donate $1 or $10,000, YOU are influencing politics through your donation.