"But you're okay with Facebook's arbitrary insane pages of unfounded legalese that says it can grab any and all content it hosts?"
Funny, I don't remember reading that anywhere in the article. That suggests it might be something you just imagined.
"Yet again, you simply advocate for a mega-corporation rather than users."
Not a thing that happened.
"And show that you're rabidly anti-copyright."
Pointing out that something is not copyright law is anti-copyright?!
"Facebook is a permitted entitry that must serve the public or be taken apart..."
Interesting how you like to accuse damn near everyone of having an entitled gimme-gimme attitude, and yet you are demanding this private company serve the public to your satisfaction or be shut down. Hypocrite much?
"...and does not get to dictate all terms."
Actually that's exactly what it gets to do if you use Facebook. What it can't do is force you to actually use Facebook.
When large, influential companies lie to the public about the reasons for their commercial decisions, people should care. Amazon can stock and sell whatever they choose as you say, but they can't falsly claim it's for their customers' benefit and expect not to be called on it.
"The confidence in police dropping is in no small part in a shift of much of the US towards a "me" mentality, where people break the law all the time and don't expect to be held accountable."
That's a pretty big claim to make with absolutely nothing to back it up, not even some examples that might give us half a clue about this supposed rampant criminality you're referring to.
"Law enforcement are left in the unhappy situation of enforcing laws that people refuse to respect - because their personal needs are way more important than societal peace and harmony."
If there are laws that a significant proportion of the populace don't respect, then the problem is with the law (and the lawmakers), not the people. Bad laws are the antithesis of "peace and harmony". But again you provide no examples of these personal needs clashing with the law.
"That last came to a head in New York in the early 70s, and Los Angeles in the 80s with street gangs who felt they had impunity to operate."
Street gangs only represent a small fragment of society, and it's ridiculous to claim their attitudes have spread to society in general.
"The population at a whole seems to have caught this point of view, and the result is a society where the rules just don't seem to apply."
About the only thing I can think of where you might be right is widespread copyright infringement, but you couldn't possibly think that topic has a place in a discussion about the dangers supposedly faced by frontline police officers...
"Dissatisfaction with the police comes in no small part from the lengths police have to go to try to enforce the rules, and the nasty things that happen when they get carried away or frustrated while doing it."
First, police should not have to "go to lengths" to try to enforce rules, they should operate under reasonable constraints that try hard to minimise that amount of force used and harm caused. And second, cops that "get carried away or frustrated while doing it" should not be cops! There should be no place in civil society for law enforcement officers that have low levels of self-control or tolerance. These are things that they should be better at than the average person.
"It is only a matter of time where the party in charge of the government will have enough info on the other party to keep them from making a serious run for their office."
This is the vital fact that needs to be hammered home to those people who don't think government surveillance is such a big deal, because they've done nothing wrong, and terrorists! Even if you're never directly affected by government surveillance, if it keeps going unchecked eventually it will be used in ways that completely undermine the idea of a democratic government. It's just human nature, and there are plenty of historical examples. This is actually something worth hundreds of people of people dying at the hands of terrorists, because the end result could be hundreds of millions living under a far worse form of government than we have now.
"The part you are forgetting is that the victims are also the perpetrators."
Forgetting? That fact has been mentioned many times, because it's the fact that makes this all so stupid. How exactly can you be both victim and perpetrator?
"Why is it OK for a teen to do it to themselves but put an adult in jail when they are a part of the crime?"
Are you serious?! The whole point of these laws is to prevent adults from abusing and/or exploiting minors. Two consenting teens of the same age swapping pics between themselves is not abuse or exploitation.
What is it exactly that you think deserves punishment here? Are you trying to disguise a moral judgement as a legal one?
"I doubth anyone on scene was qualified to say for certain that its a bomb or not."
You've looked at the photo right? You don't have to be "qualified" to know that's not a bomb, but the science teacher who saw it first was probably one of the best people on the scene to make a judgement call, and he's the only adult coming out of this mess looking alright.
It's not an outrage borne of a single indecent. This weapons-grade stupidity is being demonstrated by school officials and LEO's on a painfully regular basis. It's like they've all decided mental scarring is a good education technique. See teen sexting and armed terrorism drills for other examples.
"A briefcase that starts beeping out of nowhere could easily be misinterpreted as a bomb in a moment of panic."
A moment of panic that should immediately be followed by logic and common sense overwhelming that panic, just before a wave of inner embarrassment for leaping to a stupid assumption based on watching too many movies, and promising not to tell anyone about your brief bout of stupidity.
"Of course, it is a snippet that in full and accurate context might prove otherwise."
But is obviously didn't, since they released him without charge and apologized.
"For a site that regularly rails against perceived denials of due process, it seems out of place to present an article that lambastes in the crudest of ways the opinion of an individual who advocates investigating first."
Nice try, but no. This site regularly rails against perceived denials of legal due process. It does not say the public shouldn't voice an opinion based on the available info.
"To tell the truth, this is actually a non article, or something made up to seem like it actually is news."
Your opinion is not necessarily the truth.
"Even if that were not the case, what is wrong with a news organization asking if they can use the image."
The sheer ridiculous volume of tweets shown above show one thing wrong with it. As explained in the article, this would've been a major PITA for the recipients. The tweets mostly sound friendly and chummy, like they're doing you a solid by asking, but I'm sure these guys were pretty sick of the attention after a short while.
"They probably do have the legal right to use it anyway, fair use or not."
you sound a little confused here. If it's fair use then they have the legal right to use it. If it's not, then they don't.
"Politicians have the right to use certain parts of songs, but it is still a good idea to get permission."
Music licensing is a completely different (if equally frustrating) topic not at all related to fair use.
"This decision basically stripped the trademarks that companies and businesses have registered in their names and placed them under the protection of the first amendment so that anyone can use those brand names without having to compensate the company for the right to do so."
It's a bit ironic that you would call the judge an idiot and then demonstrate your complete confusion of copyright and trademarks. These are two different sets of laws for two different purposes, and it's sad how often the two are incorrectly conflated under the guise of "intellectual property". You should learn the difference before making any more dire predictions about the fate of poor old Hollywood.