* Posts by Be Reasonable

9 posts • joined 15 Oct 2008

US teen cuffed for sending nude phone pics

Be Reasonable

Poorly Written Law

From the Newark Advocate (see http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20081008/NEWS01/810080302):

"According to Ohio law, 2907.323(A)(3) states anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony. The violation also might qualify the juvenile as a Tier I sexual offender, which requires annual registration for a decade.

The section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes but does not provide an exemption for the child themselves."

The article indicates that the law was written as such to ensure that children will take the law seriously.

To me it seems like a very poorly written law. Hopefully the judge will use his discretion to get the girl off. If not there is always (remember this if you ever get stuck with jury duty) the option of jury nullification. The jury *does not* have to follow the jury instructions. The jurors can make up their own mind and mete out their own justice. And it's totally legal to do this (albeit a bit unusual since most jurors are not aware of this). So hopefully if this case ever goes to trial (which would be very ridiculous) justice will prevail (though it seems terribly naive to believe it will)(but honestly, can you imagine that poor [clearly dumb] girl being stuck on the sex offender registry because of this.. it'll ruin her life!]

Still, the fact that this poor [again, clearly dumb] girl is going through this makes me sad for our justice system. I can't see that pretending to be Canadian or moving to Fiji will help the situation much.


Jacqui Smith trails überdatabase plans

Be Reasonable
Black Helicopters

I like the word "trawl"

"Nor are we going to give local authorities the power to trawl through such a database in the interest of investigating lower level criminality under the spurious cover of counter terrorist legislation."

Haha. Trawl. It makes me sad that people actually believe this crap.

Anonymous Coward @ 13:42: "What part of "we don't want to live in a police/big-brother state" does she not get?"

Actually, a lot of people do indeed want to live in a police state.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

We are those people. And by "we", I mean the collective masses. Seems to be pretty sure in England (CCTV, anyone?) and we've already entered Orwell Central here in the States (Patriot Act? [who could be against something called the Patriot Act? And right after 9/11! My God, if you hate America so much, move to Iraq!].

I personally enjoy the theory that they are dumping fluoride into our water supply to ensure that we become more compliant as a people. (see http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949)(much better than quoting wikipedia). If correlation = causation, then we have plenty of proof that this is exactly what happened to us. </not relevant>

I also enjoy the theory that our government is turning us all into debt slaves... doped up on television, high on credit, having too many children to fund foreign wars and buying too many things to keep the corporate machine going. </not relevant>

Steve: "Run away you little pansy, the databases are coming, the databases are coming!!!"

All right, dub dub, they're already here. We're surely doomed now.

Nano nano: "Why not be tough on the _causes_ of terrorism, not just on terrorism itself - or has someone said something similar before ..."

And what would you consider the CAUSE of terrorism?

Dave: ""...There are no plans for an enormous database which will contain the content of your emails..."

What I think they *ACTUALLY* mean is that there are no plans YET!"

Haha. Actually, they mean they need no PLANS because the future is HERE! The database to end all databases already exists! This legislation would just make it official ;)

Alan Fisher: "Is the EU the only place free from dictators?"

What makes you think that it is free from dictators?

Anonymous Coward @ 14:32: "Though I've despised Labour for a long time, no issue has got me as riled up as this."

Then you simply haven't been paying attention.

As we say in the US: I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide! Please turn my life into the Truman ** Show. Would you like me to bend over now?


Emails show journalist rigged Wikipedia's naked shorts

Be Reasonable
Thumb Up

Mr. Metz...

...what an intriguing followup.

Love the new angle. Keep up the good work :)


Yours truly, angry mob

Be Reasonable


If Jonathan Swift had made his Modest Proposal today, I'm sure it would have faced a takedown notice or two as well.

No need to create your own website, though. Just join a Facebook Group! ;)



Google in secret talks to stop Yahoo! probe

Be Reasonable

Antitrust Concern?

The hell you say!


Batman theme composer dies at 85

Be Reasonable

Boo hoo hoo...

...and a bottle of rum.


McCain begs for YouTube DMCA takedown immunity

Be Reasonable

Sorry, all. You FAIL.

Bob: "Politicians are not above the law, that is a fundamental tenant of democracy."

You are wrong. Sorry to burst that bubble.

Keith T: "It is morally wrong for members of governments to ask for exemptions from the law they apply to the rest of us. There is supposed to be one law for all -- common law."

Still wrong.

Matthew Neuder: "he (or rather his campaign) is not asking to be exempt from the law"

If You Tube has a policy in place that is compliant with the DMCA, and McCain and his band of merry men want priority in the application of the DMCA, that is asking for preferential treatment. That per se is not requesting an exemption from the law, but it is kind of a step in that direction, don't you think. Further down that slippery slope comes the exemption for politicians.

Anonymous Coward @ 3:44: "Tossers, if they think that their little poncing about should be treated any differently from anyone else's poncing about, well it just beggars belief."

It does indeed beggar belief. But still, politicians have always been exempt from the laws they just weren't that into (like laws regarding workplace safety, equal employment opportunity in the workplace, minimum wage...)(see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html?promoid=googlep)

James: "I agree politicians should not be given special treatment, though: the process does need safeguards, but they must apply to the rest of us as well as to them."

No. Sorry, fail.

Giles Jones: "One rule for them... Another rule for the rest of us?"

Got it in one.

Jonathan Keith: "One law for us, one law for them, right?"

Yay for you too.

Wayland Sothcott: "...but you can't just change the law to suit yourself"

Ummm... why not? He's a Senator. The law is inconvenient to politicians. The DMCA was voted in by the Senate on a 99-0 vote, and in the House by another unacceptable margin (I don't feel like looking it up). Other politicians are hardly likely to disagree with something that would make their campaigning life easier. So, why wouldn't an amendment to the DMCA pass on those terms? You wouldn't even need to add the amendment to a related bill. Just tack it on to something you know that everybody has to pass (as they do with most pork barrel spending). Voila, instant DMCA exemption for politicians.

Ed Blackshaw: "There should never ever ever be any exemption to any law just because you happen to be a politician."

Haha. FAIL.

Anonymous Coward @10:05: "at the end of the day, it's events like this, which will curb and push back the ludicrous laws that have fallen thick and fast in the last decade ..."

What makes you think that?

Anony Mouse: "'kin' really?"


Alan The Sequel: "Indeed, this is not asking for an exception under the law, and most certainly not specifically for his party, but asking that YouTube consider political campaign ads as a priority in the counter-notice process."

Technically true. But they are heading in that direction by asking for a "priority".

Be Reasonable

Hoisted By His Own Petard

It's very nice to see the Senator hoisted by his own petard.

Since the poor man has been burned by a law he helped pass (see http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=2&vote=00137), he should of course do everything in his power now to see that he is exempt from its enforcement.

It's not fair when Congressional Representatives and Senators have to live with the laws they pass too! (Usually, they are exempt -- as is the case with laws regarding workplace safety, equal employment opportunity in the workplace, minimum wage laws, etc.)(see http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,967427,00.html?promoid=googlep).


Russian conmen punt iPhoneys

Be Reasonable
Thumb Up

People this stupid...

...really deserve all the misery they get.



Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017