btr1701’s Techdirt Profile

btr1701

About btr1701




btr1701’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 1:32pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > If the law passes, "100% protected" means as much as
    > Verizon's "100% coverage."

    Not sure where you went to school, but if you paid for it, you ought to consider asking for a refund.

    Civics for Dummies:

    State laws do not trump the U.S. Constitution.

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:31am

    Re: Re: Re: More on morons outlawing Nature Photography.

    > The iconic image of the lone (wind-blown dwarf pine) tree
    > at the beach in Carmel, California has been copyrighted
    > for years. You could not legally photograph that tree

    Naturally occurring objects can't be copyrighted. Only the author of a work can hold the copyright on it, and no human was the "author" of that tree. I suppose God could claim copyright on the tree (if said God actually exists).

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:28am

    Re: Re: Jurisdiction

    > Setting aside the First Amendment issue, ever heard of extradition?

    One can only be extradited for violating a law in the requesting jurisdiction.

    In the above example, as a Florida citizen, located in Florida, I am not legally required to follow Utah's laws, no matter how much Utah may desire otherwise, therefore there's nothing upon which to base extradition, and my own state's attorney can't legally comply with any extradition request from Utah.

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:23am

    Re:

    > There's your example right there of irrelevant and
    > excessive content

    And yet still completely, fully, 100% protected speech under the 1st Amendment to Constitution of the United States of America.

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:21am

    Re:

    > Just how would Techdirt protect itself from the so called
    > inventor of email if such a law existed?

    Simple. Point out that TechDirt is a California company and as such has no obligation to follow the laws of New York.

  • Mar 15th, 2017 @ 10:20am

    Worse

    > New York state legislators apparently think the state's
    > so cosmopolitan it may as well be Europe.

    It's worse that Europe. Europe only requires the de-listing of articles from search engines so that the information isn't so easy to find. This NY law apparently requires the web sites hosting the actual content to take down anything someone doesn't like.

    It's the difference between Europe requiring Google to de-list a TechDirt article from its search results, and NY requiring TechDirt to take down the actual article itself.

  • Mar 14th, 2017 @ 11:40am

    Re: More on morons

    Please provide details.

  • Mar 14th, 2017 @ 11:39am

    Jurisdiction

    "A person is guilty of electronic communication
    harassment and subject to prosecution in the
    jurisdiction where the communication originated or was
    received if with intent to intimidate..."

    Here we apparently have another state that thinks its legislature has the power to bind the whole country to its will.

    If I'm a Florida citizen, in Florida, I can to post to the internet without having to worry about whatever crazy laws Utah has passed. Utah can't tell me what I can and can't post to the internet, nor can it hold me responsible for violating its nutty laws just because someone in Utah was able to see my post.

  • Feb 13th, 2017 @ 1:45pm

    Jurisdiction

    Once again, we have a state that either thinks it can legislate for the whole nation (or world), or doesn't realize that this law will only apply within its boundaries. If someone from Oklahoma makes the "offending comment", this law will be useless in unmasking them because people in Oklahoma (or anywhere else) don't have to abide by acts of the Texas Legislature.

  • Feb 13th, 2017 @ 11:14am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, and there's this:

    California receives about 20% of its water from the Colorado River, which comes from out of state. If it secedes, it will no longer have access to that water and its already-extreme drought will suddenly become a national emergency. Losing access to the Colorado River would put a tremendous strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts, not to mention the vast farmland in the Imperial Valley.

    Then there's the matter of defense. California would have to start funding it's own national defense by itself. Other than the state national guard, the federal government would remove all of its troops and equipment long before secession would be official, so it would have to hope that its exes in the American government would allow it to contract with the American defense industry to buy replacement equipment and/or that America will continue to defend California the way we do Canada. Either way, it's no small problem to solve.

  • Feb 13th, 2017 @ 10:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without
    > realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against
    > deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder
    > or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be
    > explained.

    You obviously haven't been paying attention, because yes, they are.

  • Feb 13th, 2017 @ 10:58am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > So you're in L.A. too? Christ, how embarrassing.

    Yes, given the lunatics we have at the helm in this city, it is often quite embarrassing to admit to living here.

    > Oh, and there's this: Research shows immigrants are
    > substantially less likely than native-born Americans to
    > be involved in bad behavior

    How is that relevant to the question of whether illegals that *do* go on to commit further crimes should be deported when caught?

  • Feb 13th, 2017 @ 10:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > I'd say "explain the part where I'm wrong, then," but I
    > actually would rather you just quit gibbering your
    > nonsense.

    No more nonsensical than your attempt to turn the question of which immigrants "sanctuary" cities care about (legal vs illegal) into whether Trump cares about immigrants at all.

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 4:28pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting Choice of Examples

    > That lame excuse gets parroted but never justified.

    I would think the explanation would be self-evident to anyone with an IQ above that of a cantaloupe.

    An order purporting to usurp another branch of government and assume its powers to the executive is vastly different from an order declaring March 18 to be National Hot Dog Day.

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 1:02pm

    Re: Re: Interesting Choice of Examples

    > This site and us readers were constantly criticizing
    > Obama on transparency and surveillance issues and more.
    > You're citing a myth to back a different myth.

    Hardly. It's you who is strawmanning here.

    I didn't say, "Plenty of TechDirt authors and commenters were just fine with that. The same TechDirt authors and commenters who are now having kittens over Trump using that same pen and phone."

    I said, "Plenty of Democrats were just fine with that. The same Democrats who are now having kittens over Trump using that same pen and phone."

    > it's Bush Administration officials - notable for
    > cheerleading obscene executive overreach - who are
    > freaking out over the level at which Trump is doing it.

    And so are plenty of Democrats who had nothing but praise for Obama's "bold moves".

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 12:59pm

    Re: Re: Interesting Choice of Examples

    > President Obama Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than Any
    > President in Over 100 Years

    It's not the total number that's relevant, it's the content and what they purport to do.

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 11:55am

    Interesting Choice of Examples

    Why reach all the way back to the Bush Administration for examples of people who were fine with executive overreach when their guy was in power, but not anymore?

    Remember Obama and his pen and phone, who said he would act unilaterally if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted them to? Plenty of Democrats were just fine with that. The same Democrats who are now having kittens over Trump using that same pen and phone.

  • Feb 9th, 2017 @ 11:43am

    Warrants

    > The minute you get behind the wheel of your vehicle, your > 4th Amendment protections take a nosedive. Having a
    > vehicle on a public street makes everything
    > viewed through the windows a perfectly acceptable
    > warrantless search.

    You say that like it's a bad thing or that it should be otherwise.

    Why should the police need a warrant to look through a car window and see the murder weapon on the back seat? If it's publicly visible from a public place, it's fair game, whether it's in your car or sitting on your front lawn.

    Put another way, it's absurd to say people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things that the general public can see on a city street.

  • Feb 7th, 2017 @ 3:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    > Nothing bad at all would happen to the US economy if the US
    > were to lose direct access to those ports.

    Secession would be a lot worse for CA's economy than the other way around. The vast majority of the tax base would up and leave because most people of means will prefer to keep their U.S. citizenship. That means moving elsewhere. Even all those mouthy celebrities who constantly threaten to move to another country if their preferred candidate loses an election wouldn't stay behind. (Ever notice they never actually move when their candidate loses?)

    That leaves behind who? The poor and the illegals, all of whom have their hands out demanding government benefits. The rich and middle class have left, leaving no source of revenue to meet the demands of millions who think they're entitled to free stuff. Won't be long until the cities are burning.

    In the meantime, the U.S. still has the Port of Seattle to bring in shipping from the Pacific.

  • Feb 7th, 2017 @ 3:16pm

    Re: Also...

    > legal non-American immigrants are related to undocumented immigrants,
    > and breaking up families is messy.

    The government is breaking up their families merely by enforcing its laws. *They* are breaking up their own families by placing them in a situation where it could happen. They came here knowing it was against the law and if they were caught, they could be deported, so if that results in a separated family, that's on them.

    When a guy robs a bank and gets caught, we don't say it's the government's fault for breaking up his family when it sends him to prison. We say it's the bank robber's fault for committing the crime that put him in that position.

More comments from btr1701 >>