Comment Re:It's a 1A issue, not a 2A issue. (Score 0) 354
That decision was overturned. Stop spouting nonsense.
. . . It used to be a "right" to shout "fire" in a theater, but that "right" was not permitted under the 1st Amendment. .
That is a common misconception. That decision has been overturned and you're free to shout "fire" any time you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
The First Amendment protects us from people like you who would abridge our rights. I'm thankful that SCOTUS agrees with me.
Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.
Any such law would be blatantly unconstitutional. The right to publish 3D models of anything is guaranteed under the First Amendment. This is not a Second Amendment issue. Would you make publishing a book with the plans to build a gun illegal, too?
. . . nor was it referring to anything but 1-shot muskets.
Nor did the founders anticipate digital media, yet the 1st Amendment protects speech on the Internet. Are you suggesting that only the technology available at the time the Constitution was written should be protected?
I recently purchased a 2011 model-year GM Lambda-platform vehicle with the in-dash navigation unit. It has 2011-era bluetooth support (i.e., hands-free profile only), and a really craptastic USB implementation that doesn't easily allow third-party music apps to play over USB. Considering that model-year implies 2010 at best, we're talking tech that's at least four years old.
The map data is also from the 2011 model-year, so it is really old and the UX is terrible. Updating the maps requires a $200 DVD. WTF?
So, for around $500 more than the DVD upgrade, I can get all of the modern conveniences and map data that updates at Internet speed. I am at the edge of my seat waiting to see the options once they become widely available.
“Though our nation has changed in ways which it is difficult to imagine that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen, the rights of criminal defendants which they sought to protect in the venue provisions of the Constitution are neither outdated nor outmoded.”
“Though our nation has changed in ways which it is difficult to imagine that the Framers of the Constitution could have foreseen, the rights of criminal defendants which they sought to protect in the venue provisions of the Constitution are neither outdated nor outmoded.”
And yet you are alone... So very alone...
I find this statement to be one of the best examples of the condescension that many religious people feel the need to express toward atheists. "Oh, my. I'm so sorry for you."
Atheists don't need an imaginary friend in the sky to make them feel that they are not alone. Instead, they surround themselves with friends and family, and enjoy this life because they know there won't be anything else.
If anything, I think atheists in general cherish the one life we have better because of the knowledge that this is all there is.
Furthermore, it might a violation of copyright. If the victim did know that she or he was being filmed, there is no guarantee that victim was not in fact the one who made arrangement for the film to be made and in fact the person with copyright. The person who releases the film may just be an participant who did not own the camera, or set up the production, and therefore has not right to communicate the film to the public.
If it's a copyright issue, the DMCA already empowers the copyright holder to have the violating images taken down. So, no new law is needed to address this.
"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra
