What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
I find this offensive and hopefully illegal. Though these days offensive may carry greater weight...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ses-aircraft-for-mass-cellphone-surveillance/
Click to expand...

I'm reminded of the pre-cellphone days when radio phones were available for general use. There was a big-time drug dealer in Chicago by the name of Flukey Stokes who used radio phones to coordinate his gang activities. The police listened in and recorded them, and used the recordings as evidence at trial. The defense wanted the recordings tossed, but the court ruled that there was no "expectation of privacy" because anyone with a radio tuned to the same frequency could listen in.

However, with landline telephones, there IS an "expectation of privacy" and that is why the police have to get warrants approved before they can tap a telephone line.

It seems like we need the courts to clarify which precedent "should" apply to cell phones. It seems to me that the latter should.

I'm waiting for the next entrepreneur to come forward with cell phone encryption technology that scrambles the outgoing message so that only a receiving phone with the right "key" can unscramble it. naturally only the bad guys would have that technology.

Haven't there been articles lately citing law enforcement officials complaining that some cell phone encryption is "too good" ?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Get well soon.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday night and had a stent placed in her right coronary artery Wednesday morning, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

Ginsburg, 81, the court’s oldest justice, is expected to be released within 48 hours, according to spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg.
Click to expand...

My Mom had this done 25 years ago and has been completely fine since. But 81 is 81.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Hasn't she already survived two rounds of cancer? I suspect she's got another decade in her.

It seems the jabot will go out of style with her.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Hasn't she already survived two rounds of cancer? I suspect she's got another decade in her.
Click to expand...

She's gotta make it to Hillary's inaugural. Seems pretty obvious to me that she goes out on Grrrl Power.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Interesting case.

Elonis v. United States, 13-983:

The case has drawn widespread attention from free-speech advocates who say comments on Facebook, Twitter and other social media can be hasty, impulsive and easily misinterpreted. They point out that a message on Facebook intended for a small group could be taken out of context when viewed by a wider audience.

"A statute that proscribes speech without regard to the speaker's intended meaning runs the risk of punishing protected First Amendment expression simply because it is crudely or zealously expressed," said a brief from the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.

So far, most lower courts have rejected that view, ruling that a "true threat" depends on how an objective person perceives the message.

For more than four decades, the Supreme Court has said that "true threats" to harm another person are not protected speech under the First Amendment. But the court has been careful to distinguish threats from protected speech such as "political hyperbole" or "unpleasantly sharp attacks."
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Kepler said:
Interesting case.

Elonis v. United States, 13-983:
Click to expand...
It should be an interesting decision. This court has been pretty protective of speech.

Tone Dougie obviously has some issues, and it sounds like his ex made a very good decision to get as far away as possible from him. Here, though, is what bothers me about this type of social media "threat." How real of a threat is it? So we have another internet tough guy. They're a dime a dozen. Also, how much of a threat can it be if you don't even know if they'll get it or read it? If someone is being a jerk, block them or drop them or put them on ignore.

If you come to my house and say, "I'm going to kill you," that's a serious threat. This guy's antics were just those of a clown.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

SJHovey said:
If you come to my house and say, "I'm going to kill you," that's a serious threat. This guy's antics were just those of a clown.
Click to expand...

If you send a letter through the mail to X that says "I want to kill Y," what happens?

If you send a letter through the mail that says "I want to kill you," what happens?

If you put a note on a public bulletin board that says "I want to kill X," what happens?

I don't know the answer to any of these things, but I think the Facebook threat is closer and closer to each.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top