Actually, the results here are important legally. One important persuasive argument in free speech cases is the chilling effect on speech. Empirical data showing that people do *not* engage in certain speech because of a government practice is useful for lawyers arguing against the illegality of those practices.
While there is a First Amendment issue here, the government almost certainly wins.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment activity are usually Constitutional so long as there is some rational basis for them. A reasonable time, place, and manner restriction with a public safety rationale would almost *never* be struck down.
When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.
Yup. We're talking about the FBI here, so that qualifies.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?
Google it; it's lying around if you look for it. Look up parallel construction of cases and read up a bit on deliberate withholding of evidence from the court.
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.
Wrong in this context. Section 1983 actions are what you bring when you file a civil claim against the government for having your rights violated. Juries decide issues of fact in Section 1983 cases. Therefore juries devaluing accused criminals results in less protection of constitutional rights.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Citation needed please.
Haven't looked through the literature for it--you are welcome to look. I am personally aware of it happening to someone who the cops beat the shit out of.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The US Constitution requlates state goverement since the passage of the 14th Amendment. A New York free speach law can not limit the speach of the owners and employees of Baidu. They are allowed to have bias.
They are allowed to have Bias if they admit they have Bias. If they claim not to have bias, or not to be sensoring results, they may be committing fraud / violating truth-in-advertising laws.
Civilised society doesn't work like that.
This.
When someone violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Sometimes they tell the truth; when it is in their best interest.
This. The story may or may not be true, but their willing and demonstrated duplicity in past Congressional reports makes it suspect. Here the story serves their interests by (1) making it seem like it's not really their fault they missed the guy, and (2) making it seem like should grab and harass near-matches and misspellings of peoples' names. It *ALSO* does not say *WHO* misspelled the name when entering it in the database. Because that person should probably be fired.
It's actually extremely easy to tell the difference between a good player and a cheater. It's just hard to tell the difference between two good players, one of which is cheating. A bad player who scores highly thanks to cheats is very easy to spot.
You've also got lame players who aren't cheating. Campers in a first-person shooter and the like.
Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.
Malarkey. I don't think a single serious legal scholar today believes prisons are about rehabilitation.
Prison is about punishment. That's it. It's a way of hurting someone. This serves three purposes--politics, retribution, and disincentivization. Politically, overcriminalization lets politicians swear they're tough on crime. Retributively, prisons punish in order to hurt the person who did something bad. Finally, the fact that they are punishment disincentivizes criminal behavior.
What would the dialog be in a confrontation between Zathrus, Thor, and Loki? If you cannot tell us for legal reasons, what would it be in a meeting between not-Zathrus, not-Thor, and not-Loki, who happen to resemble the characters they are not?
Nobody at DHS is stupid enough to put a Federal Judge on the no-fly list.
Why not? Congressmen did end up on this list a few times
Granted, they would probably be taken off when this issue comes up (unlike the rest of us who just have to deal with it).
Federal Judges are more powerful than Congressmen in many ways. They are also, as a rule, more respectable.
Federal Magistrate Judge John Facciola has been added to the no-fly list.
He's a good judge who's made a name for himself in electronic discovery. He's also... well, a Federal Magistrate Judge. Nobody at DHS is stupid enough to put a Federal Judge on the no-fly list. Actually, if anything, they would have them on some sort of VIP whitelist.
Got to the point the teacher stopped giving me the whole book and I was only given 3-4 pages at a time. So I could "keep up" with other students..meanwhile I coulda had finished the book and been on a 2nd or 3rd by the time the other kids finished the first.
that teacher should be fined or something. That's ridiculous.
Does it make any practical difference? Is there any point to this post?
Yes. Practically the poster and various commentators enjoy the hypothetical. In addition, if there were actually a chance of this happening, it would make a practical difference in the security status of the president of the United States.
Call wealthy alumni. You could probably get a list from the alumni office.
A school like Georgia Tech would already have a finely tuned fundraising apparatus targeting 'wealthy alumni.'
It is highly unlikely the alumni office would provide this list to just anyone.
However, as a 'parent said, there may be funds available at the school.
The alumni office shouldn't provide this list--it's intelligent to tightly control fundraising efforts, if they know their job; and having someone go off-script or divert a $50K donation from their general fund is a big deal. (Especially since their job is to build that fund and preserve those relationships).
You might be able to get a donation from alums you are aware of--successful entrepreneurs tend to make the biggest donations, but for $40K it would be worth contacting successful engineers and the like for a few thousand each. Their companies may have matching programs. But if you're an employee, figure out who to ask at the school about the politics.
How much time will pass before we get a SCOTUS ruling?
One of the problems with the judicial branch is that the appeals process is generally only limited by the size of one's purse.
Bottomless budgets, like governments and large corporations have at their disposal, make for quite the unlevel playing field.
Actually, appeals are relatively cheap, because all you have to do is look at the record from the court below, research a bunch of cases, and write and talk about why your client should have won.
Trials, on the other hand, are expensive and a pain in the ass. You have to do discovery--collecting millions of documents, *analyzing* millions of documents, interviewing lots of people while having at least two lawyers and a court reporter in the room, doing a bunch of motions (each basically like an appeal--look at the docs you have and research a bunch of cases and write and talk about why your client should win), and finally arguing your case in court.
Are you having fun yet?
