With respect Mike, I'm not sure your argument is much stronger because you're still using the term "business". If we (accurately!) described Lavabit's encryption as an "activity" (to distinguish this from the revenue or other business-related aspects of their various "activities") then I think we get much closer to the heart of the matter.
"...handing over Lavabit's private keys absolutely wrecks any real security of Lavabit's system, which is Lavabit's entire *activity*." And, such *activity* is expressly not to be infringed upon casually by the government. (To my mind this makes a more direct connection to 4th Amendment principles...)
It might be a small point, but I think it's necessary to clearly distinguish this case from other cases where government regulation/activity is seen (by you) as "felony interference in a business model". We don't want to foster any chance that these cases can be confused, do we? (Or do we... if that argument is succeeding with judges in those other cases? /s)
Ah, no, I don't think so - I'd expect failing a student would land a professor in an internal grade grievance arbitration at least. I think you might have an inflated sense of faculty powers, Wally. Academic freedom is not absolute (especially when exercised for nonacademic purposes, as your hypothetical appears to qualify.)
Professors have to have as thick a skin as anyone. Though they probably wouldn't be fired (as a teacher might) for saying Rosario did stupid shit.
Probably said somewhere in someone's briefs or whatever, but could a plausible reason for conflating the two (the law & the facts) be that, as part of interpreting the law, specific factual details of the cases where the law is being interpreted are cited? So the interpretational element of a FISC decision that defines the scope of the laws is intertwined with facts about a particular case that are claimed to be 'sensitive'?
(Now, if that's the case, I think we could at least get a redacted version, or a rewritten one that summarizes the resulting interpretation without the case details it was built from.)
1) Just because I leave DNA all over the place doesn't mean I intend to, have no interest in it, or mean it's "public". Many things are and will be technologically possible that invade my privacy - this doesn't automatically invalidate any expectations of privacy that I have. (We may have to think about new justifications for that expectation, or revise the expectation itself, given new technologies. But that's different.)
2) Fingerprinting children is done *with the consent of parents/guardians*. And though the intent of those parents isn't relevant to the consent issue, most (I'd expect) do it not to solve crimes but to recover their children in the awful circumstance of abduction, etc. (I want my children found first. Catching the criminal is a distant second.) Therefore, I see no inconsistency here.
It's notable that many students coming to universities (especially "access" universities serving first-in-family college-goers) eagerly want to be 'trained' for jobs rather than become critically thinking, broadly knowledgeable citizens... this will not help.
But I think we need pushback from more than First Amendment grounds, because that only protects the *right* to express potentially objectionable or offensive ideas. Universities have a *duty* to expose minds to such things, IMO. To my mind, that's a core mission of universities: to intellectually challenge its students. And a necessary part of that is to make them uncomfortable with their present beliefs & attitudes, so they are motivated to examine them carefully. Of course, there are promising ways to do this, and there are crude ways... and there is actual harassment. But I wouldn't rely on a hastily drawn-up law to distinguish between those.
I would care about my privacy rights, sure. I'd be looking for the Prosecutor's office to charge you with the appropriate criminal charges, and/or go after you civilly. If you sold/leaked it to others and they reported on it, I'd be furious at that too. (Not sure my performances would be newsworthy, though...) In any case, I'd use that public dissemination at YOUR trial, not theirs, when it came to damages. Free speech is not stalking. The problem (if there is one - in this case, it's apparently unsettled fact) is the initial taping, not the reportage after that.
I'm a little surprised that an instructor isn't in control of the text they use in a course - that's traditionally something covered under academic freedom. But I guess for-profits are pioneers in educational efficiency. Did this just slip by their accreditors?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ockham's Stubble.