7 ms·
Good news for him. But I kinda wanted this to make it to the supreme court so the question of linking could be more summarily decided.
by thatthatis 13y ago
Good news for him. But I kinda wanted this to make it to the supreme court so the question of linking could be more summarily decided.
- ageisp0lis 13y agoI agree. I wanted to see the EFF's amicus brief, and for the Court to decide on the issue so that we could have good case law with hyperlinks as protected speech.
- rhizome 13y agoDo you want that outcome enough to get yourself charged for activities that would bring it about? After all, without a SCOTUS decision the fruit is still hanging on the vine for any of us to snatch.
- fiatmoney 13y agoThere's no reason the EFF can't release their amicus brief, even if there's no longer a reason for them to file it. Good arguments should be shared.
- thisiswrong 13y agoAre 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.
- 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.
- rhizome 13y agoYou wanted to turn him into a martyr? That doesn't seem very nice.
- thatthatis 13y agoNo, I wanted him to ultimately be vindicated by the highest court so as to protect us all in the future. Martyrs die, I wanted him to set a precident without getting harmed. Like Brown when he fought the board of education, or Johnson when he fought the state of Texas.
- rhizome 13y agoThe sentence he's facing is effectively a death sentence. Care to volunteer yourself?
- Zikes 13y agoBy that reasoning all of life is effectively a death sentence. Poetic, but not entirely logical.
- rhizome 13y agoI'm not sure I understand the relevance, care to elaborate?
- VogonWorkEthic 13y agoHe's saying you're full of shit
- rhizome 13y agoExcept...I'm not?