However, when dealing with Anonymous their actions/speech can not be tied to any single person, organization or group. Due to the fact that anyone can use the identity (or lack thereof) at any time and for any reason, past actions/speech tied to the identity (Anonymous) cannot be reliably (or logically) used to predict future actions/speech of the identity. So the statement "Anon has a better record of telling the truth" has no real meaning because Anonymous can encompass everyone, no one, and all of the points in-between (depending on the context). The person who used the identity yesterday and happened to be truthful tells you nothing about truthfulness of the person who is using the identity today.
Only problem is that Anon has a better record of telling the truth.
A nameless, faceless, identity that anyone can assume at any time, by definition, does not have a record .
The cell phone location, by itself, instills no doubt whatsoever in my mind because it proves nothing by itself.
As a single juror okay this might not instill any doubt for you but you can't speak for the other 11.
And your statement of "no matter how unlikely" is untrue. That's why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt"
I said at the beginning of my statement that "if there is just one, reasonably believable, alternate version..." so I already covered that the doubt is "Reasonable". A version of events can be unlikely and still be reasonably supported by the evidence the two are not mutually exclusive.
Congress is within its right to pass laws criminalizing such speech.
No, they are not. They are within their right to pass laws criminalizing such attempts at causing harm.. The freedom of the person to speak their mind is absolute but if they do so with intent to cause harm, they can be found liable for the harm they caused, not the words they spoke.
It is not illegal to scream "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. It is illegal to start a panic by falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
DNA is an amazing tool in the crime database.
No, it is not. The current testing/matching methods put the chance of a duplicate at (I believe) 1 in 1000 - that's a whole lot of duplicates if you have a country or state-wide database. DNA is amazing tool in identifying a single person out of a small amount of suspects with the means and motive to commit the crime, say 1 out of 10 or 20. The probability of finding a duplicate in that small sample-pool is very small. This is why any attempt at building a comprehensive DNA database should be fought vigorously.
You're just playing with semantics. If you mentally rewrite what I said to be about how the cell phone does not raise a reasonable doubt, my point doesn't change at all.
But the phone indicating that the person was at his house does raise a "reasonable doubt" unless there is other evidence that proves he was somewhere else - not that his DNA was there but him. If they give a provide a reasonable explanation for how the DNA go there and have proof that his phone was somewhere else it all adds to a reasonable doubt.
if a court finds that a jury would not have sufficient evidentiary basis to rule as it
A not-guilty verdict cannot be contested this way as the jury is saying there is not enough evidence to find guilt. Rule 50 sounds like it is used when a jury finds a defendant guilty without enough evidence to support it.
As most of you, I only read TFS, but this wasn't the TSA to blame. It's completly in a pilots discretion if he want's to have some prankster on board who doesn't care if the whole flight gets delayed because of a funny shirt.
However, if the TSA didn't waste time harassing him over a stupid t-shirt, the flight would of been in no risk of being delayed. So who's fault is it again?
How can anyone be naive enough to think that you can wear an anti-TSA T-shirt when you're going through a TSA checkpoint and not have a problem?
I don't know, perhaps they read the First Amendment and thought it actually still applied.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
We have the right in this country to criticize our government, its agencies and agents without fear from legal repercussions from them. So, yes, when government agents harass him simply because he criticized them it is a big deal.
because -- get this -- the app comes pre-installed.
My thoughts are that since it is pre-installed, was advertised as a feature of the phone purchased and the cellular service contract that blocking it constitutes false advertising, bait-and-switch and the like. Cue the lawsuits!
However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.
Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true). But further than that they think it means that they are free from anyone else contradicting those beliefs with their own beliefs which is where they are wrong, they have no so such freedom as it, obviously, severely restricts everyone else's freedom to say and believe what they wish.
The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.