Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re: Can't sue cops *personally* for requesting ID (Score 1) 91

And you're missing the point several times over. Qualified immunity is not about requiring a plaintiff to demonstrate their rights before they can sue the government over infringements of those rights. It only applies when they want to sue government officials in a personal capacity, rather than the government itself. The rule exists because without something like it, government officials would not vigorously enforce laws due to the risk of civil liability.

Comment Re:establish rights? (Score 1) 91

If a plaintiff wants to sue government individuals as individuals for violating the plaintiff's civil rights, the officials will almost certainly assert qualified immunity, at which point the plaintiff must demonstrate the officials' actions violated "clearly established" law.

If a plaintiff cannot or will not do that, he or she can only sue the government entity, not the officials in a personal capacity.

Comment Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 1) 91

All the justices in Branzburg v. Hayes found that some kinds of newsgathering are protected by the First Amendment, although the court ruled that there was not an unqualified right of journalists to refuse to testify about what they knew. I don't know that any case's holding speaks directly to the question.

Comment Re: Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score 1) 91

"Clearly established" is not "just empty bullshit waffle". Read the court's ruling. It pretty clearly explains why the courts must grant qualified immunity if there is not "clearly established" law protecting what the plaintiff was doing. And, as the article here states and I said, the appeals court here did make a precedential rule that the right to record police is "clearly established" from this point forward (in the 5th Circuit). The dissent said they should not have set that precedent, which is defensible under Pearson v. Callahan, but often bad jurisprudence.

Comment Re: Texas Catch 22 Injustuce System (Score 2) 91

The question of whether the right is "clearly established" goes to whether the police get qualified immunity. If there was no clearly established right, they get qualified immunity, and don't have to stand trial. If the question goes to an appeals court, they are supposed to first determine whether the right exists -- after which it becomes clearly established, helping the next plaintiff -- and then whether it was clearly established before. They have to clearly establish whether the right exists before they can say whether it was already clear or not.

Comment Re: How is FILMING "speech"? (Score 4, Informative) 91

The US Supreme Court has ruled that gathering evidence in support of one's claims -- particularly against the government -- is an integral part of the freedoms of speech and seeking redress. There's a huge difference between someone saying "X happened, trust me" and "X happened, here's video proof", especially when X is something they governed clearly should not be doing.

That doesn't mean the right to record public servants is unqualified, but it's definitely broad.

Comment Re:Fake News (Score 1) 261

Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.

Comment Re: Mod parent down (or up as per bias) (Score 1) 190

Registering as a Democrat, running as a Democrat, and being nominated as a Democrat does make you a Democrat. Calling her "decidedly 'right'" does not make her so. Denying plain facts makes both of you look childish, as does blatantly mischaracterizing what I said. There's a huge difference between silencing someone and moderating them. You do come across as a bitter Bernie supporter who ought to be dismissed and modded down by the grown-ups at the table.

Comment Re: Mod parent down (or up as per bias) (Score 1) 190

Name one mainstream 1970s Republican who advocated for gay marriage, transsexual bathrooms, or any of Hillary's distinguishing social positions. Name one who supported free trade with China, open borders, hugely increased capital gains taxes, cap and trade for emissions, single-payer health care or any of Hillary's other specific economic proposals.

You should be delighted that instead of a 1970s Republican, we elected a 1980s/1990s Democrat.

Comment Re:But.. (Score 1) 173

The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.

Slashdot Top Deals

You do not have mail.

Working...