Lots of folks are arguing whether or not they ought to be able to do this... But I wonder why they did.
Shouldn't Congress of all people be able to look and see what the rest of the world is exposed to. If there is some dirty little secret, that the whole world knows except for a particular Senator; might that Senator further embarrass our nation out of ignorance?
Just saying that we shouldn't be denying our Congress any information that might be pertinent to our nations future.
Very few people make that distinction...Which is terrifying to me. Observe the election time rhetoric "Candidate so and so will raise taxes". I feel like screaming "The President cannot raise taxes". Honestly, I think that there are many lazy folks that would just prefer a king.
In the case of the child porn, blackmail et.all I quite agree. However these things are crimes on their own. The act of speaking does not change the inherent underlying illegal act.
It is illegal for me to break into your home computer to leave a text document there indicting your behavior. The fact that I have the right to indict your behavior is irrelevant to the fact that I illegally accessed your computer.
We will have to agree do differ on the matter of a minor amendment process. I believe that the government unwieldy already; that more power to do things will only make it more so. I reserve to the right to change this opinion as age bestows wisdom upon me... Till then we will have to differ.
Yes but in the case of the book, I have a reasonable expectation that you will pay to be exposed to my point of view. That you knowingly enter into a paid exchange of personal opinion.
If I write a book condemning Christians as ritualistic cannibals: I maybe offensive, and harmful to the Christian faith. However I do not think they have a legal case against me.
However much they disagree, their proper recourse is to write a better book that explains why they consume the symbolic flesh of a 2000 year old Jewish carpenter. They are even free to attack my book, explain the flaws in my logic, and if they wish engage in personal attacks against me.
This is the way of public discourse. It is not prudent to outlaw ad hominem attacks; but it is necessary to teach the people to recognize all forms of logical fallacy
I'm not especially behind this idea, but for the sake of argument:
Might we see the paid exchange of information between an author and the reader of a book as a protected private conversation?
This of course raises other pie in the sky loopholes:
My web server is my personal property.... If you electronically access it you are accessing my personal effects (or papers). You are not consuming public media, you are visiting my personal information system. How can what I say on my own property be considered public conversation.
Like I said just a thought experiment, love to here your thoughts
Keep in mind that you and Christopher are making separate arguments. You are arguing that our comomn law system has established exceptions to the black & white diction of the Constitution.
Christopher is arguing that these exceptions are null and void, because the constitution does not allow common law courts to create exceptions; that they are only permitted to interpret what the written words of the Constitution mean and nothing more.
If I've placed the wrong argument before either of you, then I am sorry; but the issue of the Constitution's Supremecy, is a personal hammer of mine.
We don't want people to be able to take something that you worked hard on, and sell it for their own profit; or sabotage your ability to profit from your own work.
I'm sure we all agree on that. But there comes a point at which we have to be reasonable. We cannot infringe upon far more important rights to protect profit.
Anyone want to join me? I plan on talking to random strangers about the threat poised by Internet regulation and censorship at the @rally4sanity on 30 OCT 2010 in Washington.
It is not illegal activity! The activity is in support of a notion that alot of peple take issue with. Many people believe that the federal government illegally regulates intrastate trade of marijuana. A substance that CA has seen fit to allow in their state market. This is a legitimate grievance, and and no law can be made that abridges the right of the people to petition (that is build support by sending messages among your peers) the government to fix it.
After a few hours of though, and a glass of wine. I've decided that is actually quite funny. I guess the military could have tried to "suppress it in the name of security". I actually prefer them simply buying the Author off.
I wonder what could have been so bad. As a Soldier, I often wonder why things are kept secret... is it because they're dangerous or because they're embarrassing?
A few weeks ago I saw a report that this had actually happened. I admit I didn't do much more than psten to the news broadcast but apparently the case went down pke this:
-Person's House is robbed
-Video footage of robbery caught by nanny-cam
-Victim uses social network to identify intruder on tape
-Intruder was an aquantance from highschool that friended the victim
-Interrogation of suspect revealed that he had target the victim based on her facebook status
Again, not saying I buy it. But the fact that I have some "Facebook Friends" that I have not spoken to in years ranks it as plausible in my book
If you can't own software you purchase and receive a copy of, then your not stealing software you pirate. It may still be illegal to to use out of license, but this will have a much harder time holding up across international borders.
Licensing also implies that I am free to make the software available to anyone, so long as I give it to them with the understanding that they must approach X company for a license. They would then either hack or license the software, independent of my responsibility.