I think the court missed an important point here. There was really no way to avoid the surveillance. There is a mention of fencing around the yard, but that would not have prevented pole mounted cameras from seeing into his property.
In many cases, steps taken by the surveilled individual to avoid that surveillance are an important factor. I believe that the lack of an opportunity to take such steps in this case should have been a factor weighed against allowing the surveillance.
"Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and content based restrictions..."
I guess the objective truth is a viewpoint if you want to look at it that way...
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there an even more obvious reason this is not trademark infringement: customer confusion (or lack thereof).
I don't think anyone is going to buy a dog toy when they want some whiskey. I doubt that my local liquor store even has a dog toy section. Wouldn't the infringing product have to be in the same market and risk customer confusion for a valid trademark infringement case?
Google should open negotiations with the referral fee they demand from the news publishers per person they send to their sites.
I see your snippet tax and raise you a referral fee!
OLC memos (and other "deliberative" stuff) shouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on until they're made public. Once they do have meaning and force, they can't be deliberative anymore, so there should be no problem making them public.
Answer: The law doesn't force Facebook to host content they don't want. The law (section 230) allows Facebook to moderate the content they don't want (e.g. white supremacist propaganda), while protecting them in cases where they miss content that they would remove if they found it.
Section 230 is the virtual world expression of the concept that: when a convenience store you are in one afternoon is robbed, and you as an innocent bystander are injured in the process, the convenience store isn't responsible for you being hurt even though the robbery occurred in their store. To take it a step farther and complete the example, the convenience store can hire an overnight security guard without becoming liable, even though they have taken action to address the threat some of the time.
The real crisis at the southern border (and anywhere within 100 miles of a border) is the myriad violations perpetrated by ICE. Maybe we could spend however many billions Trump wants for the wall on fixing that instead.
Isn't there some (flawed) legal principle about having no expectation of privacy in something you've shared with someone else? I'm pretty sure I've heard of that somewhere...
"The correct response to such concerns, however, isn’t to end asset forfeiture but to fix it."
You can't fix something that is broken at its core. Asset forfeiture is contrary to American values. How can you fix something that exists for the express purpose of depriving someone of property/cash without due process of law?
This is quite a win-win for any police department that doesn't like transparency and accountability. First, they get to implement body cams, which is a PR win, because the public thinks they're getting transparency and accountability. It doesn't cost them anything for the first year, so it's free and everyone likes free. After the first year is over, the police departments decide not to pay the various fees, so they lose access to any recordings (along with the public and everyone else). The recordings probably get deleted for good, ensuring that nothing can come of them. Likely no one is paying attention at this point, but if anyone does notice, they can just point to the unreasonable demands made for licensing, access, and storage and make Taser the bad guy.
Does this law contain an exception for statements made during election campaigns? If not, I don't see how a single law maker could possibly support it.
If AR&R wants to make money off everyone else using its roads, why aren't they trying to charge the National Take-A-Look Association (the NTA) for all the use they make of AR&R's roads?
I think the court missed an important point here. There was really no way to avoid the surveillance. There is a mention of fencing around the yard, but that would not have prevented pole mounted cameras from seeing into his property.
In many cases, steps taken by the surveilled individual to avoid that surveillance are an important factor. I believe that the lack of an opportunity to take such steps in this case should have been a factor weighed against allowing the surveillance.
"Defendants’ censoring of the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members from their Facebook accounts violates the First Amendment because it imposes viewpoint and content based restrictions..."
I guess the objective truth is a viewpoint if you want to look at it that way...
I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, so maybe I'm missing something, but isn't there an even more obvious reason this is not trademark infringement: customer confusion (or lack thereof).
I don't think anyone is going to buy a dog toy when they want some whiskey. I doubt that my local liquor store even has a dog toy section. Wouldn't the infringing product have to be in the same market and risk customer confusion for a valid trademark infringement case?
Re:
Google should open negotiations with the referral fee they demand from the news publishers per person they send to their sites. I see your snippet tax and raise you a referral fee!
"But this is a 12-year-old surrounded by fully-functioning adults..."
Apparently not.
OLC memos (and other "deliberative" stuff) shouldn't be worth the paper they're printed on until they're made public. Once they do have meaning and force, they can't be deliberative anymore, so there should be no problem making them public.
Re:
Answer: The law doesn't force Facebook to host content they don't want. The law (section 230) allows Facebook to moderate the content they don't want (e.g. white supremacist propaganda), while protecting them in cases where they miss content that they would remove if they found it.
A concrete example
Section 230 is the virtual world expression of the concept that: when a convenience store you are in one afternoon is robbed, and you as an innocent bystander are injured in the process, the convenience store isn't responsible for you being hurt even though the robbery occurred in their store. To take it a step farther and complete the example, the convenience store can hire an overnight security guard without becoming liable, even though they have taken action to address the threat some of the time.
Why don't we save the American people some money? We can cut the FCC and just let the ISPs run things. They do already anyway.
"And: what crack legal staff actually signed off on this thing?"
The crack legal staff must have been smoking a funny brand of crack...
The real crisis at the southern border (and anywhere within 100 miles of a border) is the myriad violations perpetrated by ICE. Maybe we could spend however many billions Trump wants for the wall on fixing that instead.
"...nothing drives innovation more effectively than unleashing the free market economy."
It's not a free market if it's dominated by a few mega-corps.
Isn't there some (flawed) legal principle about having no expectation of privacy in something you've shared with someone else? I'm pretty sure I've heard of that somewhere...
"The correct response to such concerns, however, isn’t to end asset forfeiture but to fix it."
You can't fix something that is broken at its core. Asset forfeiture is contrary to American values. How can you fix something that exists for the express purpose of depriving someone of property/cash without due process of law?
"Terwilliger complains it's too difficult to tie cash and property to drug kingpins."
To that I say: "Law and order harder, law enforcement people".
Can anyone say: "Most transparent FCC in history"?
This is quite a win-win for any police department that doesn't like transparency and accountability. First, they get to implement body cams, which is a PR win, because the public thinks they're getting transparency and accountability. It doesn't cost them anything for the first year, so it's free and everyone likes free. After the first year is over, the police departments decide not to pay the various fees, so they lose access to any recordings (along with the public and everyone else). The recordings probably get deleted for good, ensuring that nothing can come of them. Likely no one is paying attention at this point, but if anyone does notice, they can just point to the unreasonable demands made for licensing, access, and storage and make Taser the bad guy.
Does this law contain an exception for statements made during election campaigns? If not, I don't see how a single law maker could possibly support it.
"...it is a semi-convincing KickassTorrents clone with a similar logo, color scheme and word cloud."
Cue the trademark (trade dress?) Infringement suit...
If AR&R wants to make money off everyone else using its roads, why aren't they trying to charge the National Take-A-Look Association (the NTA) for all the use they make of AR&R's roads?