I think most people already have feelings of disgust and disillusionment with the system.
Perhaps. However, there's a different degree of disgust between the two. It's one thing to flip a table and yell about how the system is unfair and votes don't matter. It's different entirely to realize that when you do try to vote for a different political party than the big two, you actually end up weakening the party you're more closely aligned to, almost guaranteeing the party you're least aligned with will win; or when you discover that there's a potential for a President to win the election with only 22% of the popular vote.
That kind of disgust is worse, because it's simple to come up with a better system, but I can't imagine the type of political pressure that would be needed to get it implemented. It's a more focused type of disgust, because the answer is clear and fair and can be easily implemented, but never will be-- because if there's one thing the two major parties can agree with, it's that there should never be more than two major parties.
The boogeyman is that the law was written to stop corporate fraud, but it's so broad that it can be used elsewhere.
Also, in the article it's noted that the law is used on *real world objects* and not just data:
This past February the Supreme Court somewhat narrowed the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley in the case of Yates v. United States. The feds had charged a commercial fishing captain under the same record-destruction law for throwing a batch of undersized fish overboard after a federal agent had instructed him not to. The Court ruled that applying Sarbanes-Oxley to the dumping of fish was too far afield from the law's original corporate-crime purpose. Another Tsarnaev associate, Azamat Tazhayakov, who helped throw Tsarnaev's backpack full of fireworks into a dumpster, may see his conviction overturned because of the Yates decision.
While I'll give you that the guy is a grade-A moron for lying about such easily-verifiable things, *and* then going home and trying to hide more things.. that doesn't draw away from the fact that this law is still being used in legal arenas it wasn't designed to be used in.
The law forbids the destruction of evidence, regardless of personal knowledge of ongoing investigations, or even if no investigation has even commenced.
Really *think* about that sentence. Any time you delete anything you are effectively rolling the dice on up to 20 years of your life. Someone you know could go missing tomorrow and you could become a suspect. What's this? You cleared your browser history just yesterday? Enjoy prison.
“But you have a dark place in your home you can talk, you can meet in a park –- there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.”
To be fair, there's a huge difference between this and encryption; the 'zillion dark places' can be monitored with a warrant. All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.
Don't get me wrong, I think they just need to suck it up, but at least I understand why encryption freaks them out more than clandestine meetings in the dog park, amongst the hooded figures.
And should it use those rules to revoke a trademark that it had already granted over 40 years ago?
Are you suggesting that, if the government finds it made a mistake, that it should go on making that mistake into perpetuity? That's a strange stance to make.
I just don't see the logic of "this word is offensive, therefore we should allow counterfeit goods containing this word."
Does your outlook change if you rephrase it to: therefore we shouldn't protect it with the rule of law?
Only if it actually rules that the term is not offensive.
No. If a word is trademarked, and there is a rule that no offensive words or phrases can be trademarked, then any trademarked word, in the eyes of the government, is either (a) not offensive or (b) trademarked in error. Since "Redskin" is at least debatably offensive, the government had only one choice: (b).
why didn't anyone oppose the mark when it was being granted, or within a reasonable time after it was granted?
Why does it matter?
And let's say the government actually DOES explicitly rule that the term is not offensive.
I think, by canceling the trademark, the government has already indicated that it *is* offensive-- the appeals process is where they could be proven wrong.
I don't understand the rest of the paragraph containing the quoted sentence above.
The USPTO may have rules that say no offensive terms can be trademarked, but it really shouldn't.
I fail to see how that has any bearing on this specific, real world scenario. They do have that rule, and so, their actions are justified by it.
What makes "Redskins" so much more offensive then "Creepy-Ass Cracka"?
The amount of people complaining about it, and the volume at which they are complaining. Logically speaking, the only way you can really determine if something is offensive is how many people are offended by it, and how offended they are.
Emotion should not come into play when making policy.
..and if we were having a hypothetical question on whether or not this rule should exist, I might agree-- I believe the stance is that, by doing this, the government is "not removing itself", but actually making a statement.
In reality, the government is following the rules it has set for itself. They really had no other option but to remove the trademark protection. That is not a statement of whether the law is good or bad, but a fact.
The government is refusing to offer the protections it offers to millions of other things based only on if the term is offensive or not.
It clearly has rules that say that offensive terms cannot be trademarked. By allowing the trademark to continue in the light of this new scrutiny, the government is affirming that "Redskin" is not offensive.