Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
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:establish rights? (Score 1) 84

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) 84

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) 84

"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) 84

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) 84

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: 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: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score 1) 140

Thank you. I greatly appreciate your citation to the law, your translation of it, and explaining that disclosing the recording capabilities does not make it not "hidden". I think my fundamental disagreement with the law is based on that last part, but my opinions do not change German law :)

Comment Re: Jacobin Jeopardy (Score 1) 904

Obviously, no one ever practices any large system in a pure form.

However, I would rather have lived in the United States any time in the last 100 years than in the Soviet Union at the same times. Life in the United States -- or Britain, or France, or the former West Germany -- has been better under more capitalist regimes (as actually practiced) than it has been in China, Cuba, Vietnam, or any of the other communist regimes (as actually practiced).

PopeRatzo and drinkypoo played stupid games, and won stupid prizes.

Comment Someone call Richard Gabriel! (Score 1) 113

Microsoft has apparently invented such a stinker of a product that better is actually worse.

In almost every case, as Gabriel's classic observation holds, it is better to get something out on the market fast rather than try to make it technically superior. The only obvious reason to cancel the second-generation Hololens is that it is fundamentally not ready for prime time, and would make the Microsoft and Hololens brands look worse if people saw them.

Comment Re: Hiding of recording abilities is crucial (Score 1) 140

Then what is the precise definition of an illegal hidden surveillance device? You apparently disagree with angel'o'sphere's conclusion that this doll is illegal because its security bugs void its license to transmit voice over a radio. Would the examples I have given elsewhere in this thread be legal or illegal?

Slashdot Top Deals

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor