@#%$ Scalia

If you mean that I am anti-private property...

1. I'm not advocating that everything be public property. I am VERY much an advocate of the existence of private property.

A communist specifically advocates the abolition of private property. One cannot "advocate communism" otherwise.




If you mean that I support authoritarianism of public property...

2. I'm am advocating the representative regulation of property that is public (which, of course, should never be all property).

I'm not being "authoritarian", I'm being "pro-enforcement of democratically established laws". Note: a real communist would never ascribe authoritarianism to communism in the first place; they would say the communist regime became fascist.



In other words: what?

With a nearly filibuster proof majority in the senate the dems just might get your your air wave regulation(The Fairness Doctrine). Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.


I think the FCC's only responsibility should be to license out airwaves to prevent interference. Perhaps they should be allowed to require that companies identify a show rating(I think they're mature, teen, y, y7) so that parents can self censor themselves. Other than that let the market decide.
 
With a nearly filibuster proof majority in the senate the dems just might get your your air wave regulation(The Fairness Doctrine). Be careful what you wish for, it might come true.

Has any Democrat recently mentioned this?

Cleo
 
Has any Democrat recently mentioned this?

Cleo

Not that I know of. The Fairness Doctrine is currently mentioned by right-wing talk show hosts as a strawman against Democrats. With the internet providing a diversity of views, I do not know anybody who is arguing for it.

I really wish that our legislatures stand up to the religious wrong and eliminate the FCC's ability to enforce morality. I am tired of this group forcing their will on everybody else.
 
Sounds like the Broadcaster Freedom Act (anti-fairness doctrine) is the only thing that gets recent mention in the Wikipedia timeline for The Fairness Doctrine.
 
I really wish that our legislatures stand up to the religious wrong and eliminate the FCC's ability to enforce morality. I am tired of this group forcing their will on everybody else.

You think that only religious people object to mindless vulgarity on public airwaves? Please... anyone with half a brain and a quarter of a conscience objects to filling our public airwaves with sewage.

Further, they are not "enforcing their will on everyone else". They are enforcing the representative legislation on public property. You can feel free to go wherever (private property) you want for slimeball language and disgusting vomit, just don't expect it on our time and our property. Hell, you can spend your whole day in a slew of curse words spouted by idiots... there are plenty of internet and cable channels happy to oblige your needs. So stop pretending that they are "controlling everyone".
 
You think that only religious people object to mindless vulgarity on public airwaves? Please... anyone with half a brain and a quarter of a conscience objects to filling our public airwaves with sewage.

Are you so sure that all acceptances would be based on one or more of idiocy, retardation, or corrupt ethics? Is that a sham argument?
 
I'm sure that "they're trying to control everyone!!11!!!" is.
 
It seems people have run out of arguments in this thread, and are now turning to just viciously launching insults at each other.
 
I don't understand what it means.
Is fleeting same as floating? And what is an expletive?

Fleeting means making exclamations, but not intended to be taken literally. In other words, it's a secondary meaning of the word.

Expletitives are essentially taboo words; For example, the ones you can post in CFC-OT.

So in sum, it's using a naughty word with a non-literal sense. E.g. you stub your toe an yell out a naughty word as a random curse.
The SCOTUS is saying it's ok to ban some of those curses if they're especially naughty words, regardless if someone meant them literally, or not.
 
The Supreme Court never reached the constitutional question here. It's merely whether the FCC has the statutory authority to issue a regulation like the one in question. The Court doesn't address issues not raised below. Scalia in his opinion specifically stated that:

It is conceivable that the Commission’s orders may cause some broadcasters to avoid certain language that is beyond the Commission’s reach under the Constitution. Whether that is so, and, if so, whether it is unconstitutional, will be determined soon enough, perhaps in this very case….We see no reason to abandon our usual procedures in a rush to judgment without a lower court opinion.

Cleo
 
You Scalia fans might appreciate this.

Last year U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a public speech questioning the need for more privacy protections.

This year a Fordham University law professor teaching a course on privacy gave his class the project of turning up publicly available information on Scalia.

The fifteen-page dossier completely flipped Scalia out.

"It seems that Professor Reidenberg successfully created an active learning environment where his students took control and learned the subject in a way they will not soon forget."

Snip: His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.

Original source...
 
Ha! Good one!

Lock juveniles up and throw away the key?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/us/05scotus.html

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider whether the reasoning that led it to strike down the death penalty for juvenile offenders four years ago should also apply to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

The court accepted two cases on the issue, both from Florida and neither involving a killing. In one, Joe Sullivan was sentenced to life without the possibility of release for raping a 72-year-old woman in 1989, when he was 13. In the other, Terrance Graham received the same sentence for participating in a home invasion robbery in 2004, when he was 17 and on probation for other crimes.

In the majority opinion in the death penalty case, Roper v. Simmons, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that teenagers were immature, unformed, irresponsible and susceptible to negative influences, including peer pressure.

“Even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile,” Justice Kennedy concluded, is not “evidence of irretrievably depraved character.”

Outside the context of the death penalty, however, the Supreme Court has not shown much interest in cases from prisoners claiming that the sentences they received were too harsh. But Douglas A. Berman, an authority on sentencing law at Ohio State University, said the factors cited by Justice Kennedy concerning juveniles might well apply in noncapital cases.

“The principles driving Roper,” Professor Berman said, “would seem to suggest that its impact does not stop at the execution chamber.”

The United States is alone in the world in making routine use of life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders. Human rights groups say more than 2,000 prisoners in the United States are serving such sentences for crimes they committed when they were 17 or younger. A vast majority of those crimes involved a killing by the defendant or an accomplice.

At the argument of the Roper case in 2004, Justice Antonin Scalia said the rationales offered against the juvenile death penalty applied just as forcefully to sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

“I don’t see where there’s a logical line,” said Justice Scalia, who voted in dissent to retain the juvenile death penalty.

But Justice Kennedy wrote that life sentences would continue to deter young criminals after the death penalty became unavailable.

“The punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person.”

Lawyers for the two Florida inmates cited international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits sentences of life without parole for juveniles. Justice Kennedy’s invoking foreign and international law in the Roper decision was controversial, and the new cases will reopen the question of how much attention the Supreme Court should pay to international law.

Bryan S. Gowdy, a lawyer for Mr. Graham, said in an interview that his client had never been convicted of the robbery that sent him to prison for the rest of his life. Though evidence was presented concerning the robbery, the trial judge found only that Mr. Graham had violated the terms of his probation after an earlier conviction for armed burglary and attempted armed robbery when he was 16.

“When our children make mistakes, are we going to lock them up and throw away the key for life?” Mr. Gowdy said. “If you follow the rationale of Roper, that’s not appropriate.”

In rejecting a challenge to Mr. Graham’s sentence last year, a Florida appeals court acknowledged that “a true life sentence is typically reserved for juveniles guilty of more heinous crimes such as homicide.” But the court added that Mr. Graham “rejected his second chance” in violating the terms of his probation “and chose to continue committing crimes at an escalating pace.”

A ruling in favor of the prisoners in the two cases — Graham v. Florida, No. 08-7412, and Sullivan v. Florida, No. 08-7621 — could be quite narrow. The Supreme Court may leave for another day, for instance, the question of how murders committed by juveniles may be punished.

Last year, drawing a similar distinction, the court said in Kennedy v. Louisiana that crimes against individuals that do not involve killing, including the rape of a child by an adult, cannot be punished by death.
 
You Scalia fans might appreciate this.

Original source...

Scalia said:
It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time. What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg’s exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any.
LOL, you have to admit, that's pretty badass.
 
LOL, you have to admit, that's pretty badass.
What? The class exercise or Scalia's response? If you mean his response, it actually shows how ignorant he is of the internet and privacy issues. All the info the students gathered was publicly gleaned. The whole exercise served to demonstrate how little Scalia understands about the issue.
 
Or he knows full well what the issues are and merely thinks doing so would violate the First Amendment. You may disagre with Scalia's views, but claiming he is that ignorant or stupid is nonsense.
 
What? The class exercise or Scalia's response? If you mean his response, it actually shows how ignorant he is of the internet and privacy issues. All the info the students gathered was publicly gleaned. The whole exercise served to demonstrate how little Scalia understands about the issue.

I just thought it was funny. /shrug :/
 
And the response from Professor Reidenberg (who I know!):

I’m surprised by Justice Scalia’s characterization of the project. The scope of protection for privacy in our society is at the forefront of the public policy debate. I assign this research project annually and last year used myself as itssubject. The exercise never fails to provide a keen demonstration for my students of the privacy issues associated with aggregating discrete bits of otherwise innocuous personal information.

When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways. A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise.

Cleo
 
Back
Top Bottom