Comment Re:"Everyone's situation is different" (Score 1) 1137
Take the line 780 from downtown Pasadena -- it runs about every 15 minutes -- and it will get you to downtown Glendale in about 20 minutes.
Comment Re:Sorry, but Schools DO have Totalitarian control (Score 1) 420
The Constitution, for the most part, does not restrain the individual; it restrains the government. The first amendment does not generally apply to private parties. Exceptions exist
On my personal property, I can restrain any number of First Amendment rights, such as not allowing guests to practice their religion or not allowing them to watch adult videos.
The states, as well as their proxies in local government, are restrained through the Supreme Court's incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment. Amendments not held to be incorporated against the states are the Second, the Third, part of the Fifth, the Seventh, and part of the Eighth. An analysis of the First Amendment's incorporation can be found here: http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Incorporation%20Chart.htm
Students are not subject to the same First Amendment protections as ordinary adult citizens. However, their right to access non-obscene, non-pornographic material is constitutionally protected. The LGBT filter employed by the Tennessee schools is restraining that right.
Schools and libraries are required under CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) to use web filtering software as a condition of receiving certain federal funds. The Supreme Court has upheld (wrongly, in my opinion) that this condition is a valid exercise of the spending power of Congress.
I don't believe any censorware can perfectly balance students' First Amendment protections with the requirements of CIPA. The filtering software used in Tennessee goes above and beyond the requirements of CIPA by blocking access to non-obscene, non-pornographic information. Interestingly, the software allows access to anti-LGBT information, such as "reparative therapy" and "ex-gay" ministries. This makes me suspicious that the filtering is targeting pro-LGBT sites, which in turn makes me believe that it's not simply a software deficiency.
On my personal property, I can restrain any number of First Amendment rights, such as not allowing guests to practice their religion or not allowing them to watch adult videos.
The states, as well as their proxies in local government, are restrained through the Supreme Court's incorporation of most of the Bill of Rights via the Fourteenth Amendment. Amendments not held to be incorporated against the states are the Second, the Third, part of the Fifth, the Seventh, and part of the Eighth. An analysis of the First Amendment's incorporation can be found here: http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Incorporation%20Chart.htm
Students are not subject to the same First Amendment protections as ordinary adult citizens. However, their right to access non-obscene, non-pornographic material is constitutionally protected. The LGBT filter employed by the Tennessee schools is restraining that right.
Schools and libraries are required under CIPA (Children's Internet Protection Act) to use web filtering software as a condition of receiving certain federal funds. The Supreme Court has upheld (wrongly, in my opinion) that this condition is a valid exercise of the spending power of Congress.
I don't believe any censorware can perfectly balance students' First Amendment protections with the requirements of CIPA. The filtering software used in Tennessee goes above and beyond the requirements of CIPA by blocking access to non-obscene, non-pornographic information. Interestingly, the software allows access to anti-LGBT information, such as "reparative therapy" and "ex-gay" ministries. This makes me suspicious that the filtering is targeting pro-LGBT sites, which in turn makes me believe that it's not simply a software deficiency.
Chrome On the Way For Mac and Linux 308
TornCityVenz writes "I've seen many complaints in the feedback on Slashdot every time an article on Google's Chrome browser hits; the calls for true cross platform availability have struck me as a valid complaint. So now it seems Google is answering your calls, promising in this article on CNET a deadline for Mac and Linux support." I'd really like to not care about the name of the browser I'm using, but the mental cost of switching could be high for someone used to particular Firefox extensions, unless or until they can all be expected to work seamlessly with Chrome.
Slashdot Top Deals
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself.
