5 ms·
Are you serious? Why would you even say that? People like you are the problem. Linking to something, just like talking about something, is protected in most co
by thisiswrong 13y ago
Are you serious? Why would you even say that?
People like you are the problem. Linking to something, just like talking about something, is protected in most countries by free speech. The simple fact that this journalist was arrested is disgustingly totalitarian and should be of great concern. To everyone.
Why would you want this to go all the way up the rotten vines of a corrupted court system that only gives favorable rulings to those with ties to the rulers?
- dublinben 13y agoA Supreme Court ruling upholding linking as free speech would be incredibly important.
- ryandrake 13y agoBut, a Supreme Court ruling equating linking with distribution would be a disaster. If I were the Internet I'd rather not roll the dice with a court consisting of people who remember black and white TV.
- notlisted 13y agoSorry, but that made me laugh and feel terribly old at the same time (touché, oh wait... so do I!). Can we use "played 78RPM records in their teenage bedrooms" instead? (Fun fact: "The date of the very last 78-rpm record is not known, although some claim that the last one issued in the U.S. was Chuck Berry's "Too Pooped to Pop " (Chess 1747), released in February 1960.)
- a3n 13y agoThe NRA pretty much never wants to settle 2nd Amendment issues at the Supreme Court for the same reason, you never really know which way the dice will roll. (Beyond that, it's much more lucrative for the NSA to have the doubt and controversy persist, because there will always be pro-2nd people who see the NRA as their best shot at grouping together to fight for their 2nd Amendment rights. That was my main motivation when I belonged to the NRA. "It's a profit deal.")
- thatthatis 13y agoWhen it comes down to it, I trust the supreme court more than I trust prosecutors. Right now, the decision of if linking is speech that can be prosecuted is being decided by prosecutors. And, if scotus rules that it isn't protected I'd like to know that so we can fight to change the laws to make it protected. And so I can follow their clear tests to keep myself out of prison. I find prosecutorial discretion to usually be a far worse form of tyrany than clear case law, even if I disagree with it. Tyranny thrives in the opaque discretion of buerocrats.
- rayiner 13y agoYou think the Supreme Court somehow manages to wade through incredibly complex insurance or financial regulation cases but can't understand the relevant features of a hyperlink? Read through Reno v. ACLU, which struck down portions of the Communications Decency Act almost two decades ago (written by Justice Stevens who was at the time 77): http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427725&q=+521+U.S.+844&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1557224836887427.... The description of the internet, as it existed in the late 1990's, is pretty cogent for a bunch of people who remember black and white TV.
- WildUtah 13y agoYeah, but Stevens was the smartest one on the court on tech issues into his 90's because he cared. That overcomes age. But Stevens is gone. I hope his retirement is healthy and happy. Aside from Breyer, I don't think anyone on the current court cares at all.
- thatthatis 13y agoThose protections you say other countries have, I want them too. Case law created by the supreme court is how we get them.
- pekk 13y agoI don't trust the system at all, which is why I want the system to generate case law which will prevent the system from doing wrong things. What?
- pessimizer 13y agoAre you intending the first sentence to be a quote from somebody? If so, it couldn't be from the person you responded to, who never said that they didn't trust the system.
- Crito 13y agoSetting precedent is great and all, but I wouldn't dream of telling somebody else that I think it should it happen at their expense.