Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:There are limits to freedom of speach (Score 1) 484

by dryeo (#48201145) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

No, constitutionally the legislature is the only branch that can create law through statute. Even today much of contract law, tort law and property law is not covered by statute yet the law exists.
Now while statute law usually overrides common law, there are exceptions such as whether the law is constitutional, and that is left up to the judicial branch. Same when two laws contradict. And something that is obviously criminal such as murder was still illegal before a statute was passed as precedent has existed for a long time that murder is unlawful.

Comment: Re:heaven forbid! (Score 1) 54

Actually under this government, if a non-profit negatively comments on legislation, they get audited by the Canada Revenue Service. Shit a bird watchers society wrote a minister about bee colony collapse, the answer they got back was that since they were being political, they were going to get audited.

Comment: Re:What "uninteded consequences" ? (Score 1) 54

Not in Canada where corporations are not allowed to contribute and people are limited to around $1200. More likely "wouldn't want an accidental leak of where your money came from would you" or "do you expect a nice well paying job after you leave office?"

Comment: Re:There are limits to freedom of speach (Score 1) 484

by dryeo (#48192159) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

In common law jurisdictions (98+% of the USA, Louisiana is the exception), Judges can make law. This was especially true at the time the American Constitution was written as there was a shortage of statutes.
Examples of a Judge being able to limit speech include contempt of court where a person can be locked up indefinitely for speech. Restraining orders, where if you bother me enough with speech, I may be able to get an order for you to stay away from me, backed by the force of the law including jail. Various other forms of injunctions can also be issued by courts to limit speech.
As for the President, at least as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, he has the power to tell his subordinates to shut up, order no talking back to officers and perhaps order no talking to the enemy. All limitations on speech.

Comment: Re:There are limits to freedom of speach (Score 2) 484

by dryeo (#48183641) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

There is a big difference between someone making an empty threat about killing you and someone making the same online threat and including your real life address, the school that your kids go to including their route and such.
You also don't seem to understand that the first amendment only banned congress from passing laws limiting speech. Nothing about other levels of government including the courts (common law) or even the President (as CiC he can limit soldiers speech rights).
It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the first amendment to all forms of government but it is not clear and the fact that the 14th amendment was passed with federal soldiers holding guns on the members of state legislatures to force its passage makes it questionable anyways.
All rights are limited, the famous example is your right to swing your fist stopping where my face is. Security of person is as much of a right as free speech and serious threats against your person can be unlawful.
Now it can be argued that this law is too broad and I'm inclined to agree but if someone is making credible threats they are crossing a line.

Comment: Re:Ahhhh.... (Score 2) 484

by dryeo (#48183335) Attached to: In UK, Internet Trolls Could Face Two Years In Jail

His use was correct. Liberals are the first to demand everyone else walk on egg shells when their feelings get hurt.

A Libertarian will be the ones trying to remove such laws.

Yet it is right wing governments bringing in these laws. My right wing government loves increasing jail sentences, creating new crimes, expanding spying on their own citizens and the libertarian part stays quiet as long as their are tax cuts promised and certain parts of government are shrunk.

Comment: Re: a quick search (Score 3, Informative) 317

by dryeo (#48181177) Attached to: No More Lee-Enfield: Canada's Rangers To Get a Tech Upgrade

Bears and whatnot haven't evolved much since 1914

Actually there is a new species appearing due to global warming, the Pizzly bear, a cross between a Polar Bear and Grizzly Bear, so even bigger and thinks of people as food. It's new enough that the Inuit don't have a name for it.

Comment: Re:Let me get this right (Score 1) 834

by dryeo (#48165857) Attached to: Bill Gates: Piketty's Attack on Income Inequality Is Right

Of course corporations pay tax and if we lowered their actual tax rate to zero and increased the workers tax rate to 70% (number pulled our of my ass) the corporation would have to pay the workers quadruple what the actual worker keeps, whether the corporation is profitable or not. And no matter what the tax setup is they'll charge as much as possible.

Comment: Re:Telling quote (Score 1) 304

by dryeo (#48156487) Attached to: Technology Heats Up the Adultery Arms Race

Once you've been cohabiting for a year (may vary on jurisdiction) you're considered married in common law. If you've bought stuff as a couple such as a house or have children, splitting can be much the same as divorce. The opposite can also be true, if married but not owning anything substantial, with no kids, divorce can be pretty simple.

Help stamp out Mickey-Mouse computer interfaces -- Menus are for Restaurants!

Working...