I am saddened by what I like to think of the 'mtv-ization' of so many once-great tech news pages.
Do you remember when MTV actually had Music, like, on TeleVision? [Hence- MTV] Or, it had news stories regarding musicians?
Sometime after the first 5-7 years, they began getting more and more into what is now called 'reality' programming.
This story reminds me of MTV in the 1990s- when it had forgotten the music part of their business, and the M became money.
We have a call-out to apply universal disrespect against a class of people due to the developments of two accounts, coupled with a general trend in social attitudes toward that group of people.
Yet, here are two other stories about cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRWoRyZoMLk Police buy homeless man shoes after his were stolen.
http://www.therogersvillereview.com/rogersville/article_7b2cec70-a688-5021-878d-98a7042f8565.html Police buy homeless man shoes on a hot day.
My three 'good' accounts don't make all cops good any more than your two 'bad' accounts make them all bad.
And what the heck does ANY of your post have to do with tech? I can see that this is the dirt on a few people, but there is not tech- so why is it on techdirt?
I do not agree with Eric Posner, but I do find it interesting how much passion the first of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights generates when it comes to the idea of limiting it or ending it.
All ten were drafted to attempt to protect the individual from misuse of power by authorities. Most people get that about the 'miranda' rights section.
Why are they so willing to jettison another of the bill of rights when it is also part of the same bloc that was passed by the same people to protect us from misuse of power by authorities?
We voted for Change and Hope in 2008, didn't we? I mean, this was supposed to be the era of Change, and of Hope, instead of the era of 'business as usual in washington': wasn't it?
I seem to remember promises along those lines.
Wasn't there a prize awarded for the hope that was beginning and the change in America's politics?
Oh, wait: same story, different party?
I agree with you, anonymous, on some things.
It made me nervous 18 months ago when our leaders' wife publicly stated that we needed to accept it was ok to give up some of our rights, as guaranteed under the constitution. She meant 2nd amendment [sandy hook era], but that is only 1 step from 1st amendment.
Once someone says it is ok to toss our rights away and the public goes along, a precedent is set and our common law based system allows that to become the founding of a new principle.
Oh wait: sorry. I'm being a downer for some. can't let little things like the constitution or our legal system get in the way of feeling good.
"If they report that records show you haven't been paying your taxes, for example...Then when the IRS comes after you, you *will* have the right to confront your accuser (the IRS). The fact that they came after you because of a tip from a shielded source has no bearing on your right to confront your accusers, because it is the IRS who will be doing the accusing."
If a crime is committed and a witness identifies you for the crime, the DA arrests and tries you. So, according to your logic, the DA is the only one involved and you have no right to face the witness, whose accusation began the entire flawed investigation.
Your analogy to the IRS is flawed. Read the constitution. In fact, the shield law itself violates your 6th amendment rights "...to be confronted with witnesses against him...".
But, this is constitutional dribble. We don't follow it anymore.
Reporting hearsay doesn't make it reporting facts. How do we know she has any 'facts' and it isn't all hearsay? what are her professional credentials? Listening to a man rant with no education about a subject doesn't mean he knows the details of that subject. It seems the door is opening for unsubstantiated rumor [journalist have a code of fact checking] to replace responsibility.
of course, we are in a society that denies personal responsibility in our actions, so where is the surprise?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by jason.
This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
I am saddened by what I like to think of the 'mtv-ization' of so many once-great tech news pages.
Do you remember when MTV actually had Music, like, on TeleVision? [Hence- MTV] Or, it had news stories regarding musicians?
Sometime after the first 5-7 years, they began getting more and more into what is now called 'reality' programming.
This story reminds me of MTV in the 1990s- when it had forgotten the music part of their business, and the M became money.
We have a call-out to apply universal disrespect against a class of people due to the developments of two accounts, coupled with a general trend in social attitudes toward that group of people.
Yet, here are two other stories about cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRWoRyZoMLk
Police buy homeless man shoes after his were stolen.
https://patch.com/washington/seattle/big-hearted-washington-cops-buy-shoes-boy-wearing-torn-socks
http://www.therogersvillereview.com/rogersville/article_7b2cec70-a688-5021-878d-98a7042f8565.html
Police buy homeless man shoes on a hot day.
My three 'good' accounts don't make all cops good any more than your two 'bad' accounts make them all bad.
And what the heck does ANY of your post have to do with tech? I can see that this is the dirt on a few people, but there is not tech- so why is it on techdirt?
Or, is this site becoming more like MTV?
So much trouble over the bill of rights...
I do not agree with Eric Posner, but I do find it interesting how much passion the first of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights generates when it comes to the idea of limiting it or ending it.
All ten were drafted to attempt to protect the individual from misuse of power by authorities. Most people get that about the 'miranda' rights section.
Why are they so willing to jettison another of the bill of rights when it is also part of the same bloc that was passed by the same people to protect us from misuse of power by authorities?
just curious... .
Re: How much more...
We voted for Change and Hope in 2008, didn't we? I mean, this was supposed to be the era of Change, and of Hope, instead of the era of 'business as usual in washington': wasn't it?
I seem to remember promises along those lines.
Wasn't there a prize awarded for the hope that was beginning and the change in America's politics?
Oh, wait: same story, different party?
I agree with you, anonymous, on some things.
It made me nervous 18 months ago when our leaders' wife publicly stated that we needed to accept it was ok to give up some of our rights, as guaranteed under the constitution. She meant 2nd amendment [sandy hook era], but that is only 1 step from 1st amendment.
Once someone says it is ok to toss our rights away and the public goes along, a precedent is set and our common law based system allows that to become the founding of a new principle.
Oh wait: sorry. I'm being a downer for some. can't let little things like the constitution or our legal system get in the way of feeling good.
Re: Re: Shield Laws are Ridiculous
"If they report that records show you haven't been paying your taxes, for example...Then when the IRS comes after you, you *will* have the right to confront your accuser (the IRS). The fact that they came after you because of a tip from a shielded source has no bearing on your right to confront your accusers, because it is the IRS who will be doing the accusing."
If a crime is committed and a witness identifies you for the crime, the DA arrests and tries you. So, according to your logic, the DA is the only one involved and you have no right to face the witness, whose accusation began the entire flawed investigation.
Your analogy to the IRS is flawed. Read the constitution. In fact, the shield law itself violates your 6th amendment rights "...to be confronted with witnesses against him...".
But, this is constitutional dribble. We don't follow it anymore.
Reporting hearsay doesn't make it reporting facts. How do we know she has any 'facts' and it isn't all hearsay? what are her professional credentials? Listening to a man rant with no education about a subject doesn't mean he knows the details of that subject. It seems the door is opening for unsubstantiated rumor [journalist have a code of fact checking] to replace responsibility.
of course, we are in a society that denies personal responsibility in our actions, so where is the surprise?