US v Apple

[RobDownSouth]

You have to be a Glenn Beck alt...

We were thinking the same thing about you.

That's a lie.

As your situational Native American half succumbs to the inevitable ravages of alcoholism, it's not surprising that your memory is, at best, suspect.

Fortunately for you, The General Board Remembers.

We recall the halycon days of January 2009, when you declared The End Times Nigh, when #ThatNegroPresident was inaugurated. Rending your garments, you declared you were pullin' out of the stock market (it was gonna crash to 5999, you said) and invested in bullion and Glen Beck's Freedom Seeds™. Your "Go Bag" was ready to go, right next to the back door.

You were READY for Whatever Comes Next!

Seven years later, though, the stock market is at record highs, and we learn (insert Paul Harvey voice here) the rrrrrrrrrest of the story

It seems you never actually go around to cashin' in your stock market fund, you merely used that as a metaphor (maybe meth-aphor?) to show your deep seated unhappiness with a Democratic president. You'd actually enjoyed the stock market runup (cashing in at the market top, as you always do) while insisting that other do as you said, not as you did.

 

[Ishmael]

It's not being interpreted to mean "anything you want" it's a simple reality that people are not psychic. In the case of the Constitution 200 plus years and literally hundreds of millions of people interacting with it are bound to find every single flaw and oversight whther by stumbling into it or by actively bashing at the walls.

Twisted and tortured would be a better description. Particularly when it comes to the "General Welfare" clause that has been liberally read to include everything, in direct contradiction to the writings of the founders, most particularly Madison. Or the astounding decision that by NOT engaging in interstate commerce you are engaging in interstate commerce.

Ishmael

 

[Adre]

Twisted and tortured would be a better description. Particularly when it comes to the "General Welfare" clause that has been liberally read to include everything, in direct contradiction to the writings of the founders, most particularly Madison. Or the astounding decision that by NOT engaging in interstate commerce you are engaging in interstate commerce.

Ishmael

Or when it chose our President for us.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Twisted and tortured would be a better description. Particularly when it comes to the "General Welfare" clause that has been liberally read to include everything, in direct contradiction to the writings of the founders, most particularly Madison. Or the astounding decision that by NOT engaging in interstate commerce you are engaging in interstate commerce.

Ishmael

LOL now the opinions of the founders are the end all be all bar for modern laws.


Tell me ish what's Madison's opinion SPECIFICALLY on the internet with regard to freedom of speech, commerce, cyber crime and national security??

Feel free to add any other founders specific instructions on how to regulate the internet.

Does Washington have a plan to defeat Isis?

 

[Ishmael]

Or when it chose our President for us.

*chuckle* As it turns out the court found in favor of exactly what the electorate voted for. So the court didn't "choose" anything, it merely validated what already existed in a timely manner.

Ishmael

 

[RobDownSouth]

LOL now the opinions of the founders are the end all be all bar for modern laws.


Tell me ish what's Madison's opinion SPECIFICALLY on the internet with regard to freedom of speech, commerce, cyber crime and national security??

Feel free to add any other founders specific instructions on how to regulate the internet.

Does Washington have a plan to defeat Isis?

Supreme Court "Justice" Clarence Thomas has elevated his own perverse brand of originalism to an art form. In the BongHits4Jesus case, he famously disregarded the text of the First Amendment and instead went into a lengthy digression into the expectations of the ratifiers and Framers over the meaning of the text itself. LINK

"Original Intent" is a conservative fad, a crutch to use to promote their authoritarian-follower dogma.

 

[Sean]

*chuckle* As it turns out the court found in favor of exactly what the electorate voted for. So the court didn't "choose" anything, it merely validated what already existed in a timely manner.

Ishmael

That is just a flat out lie.

 

[Sean]

Meanwhile, in New York:

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/29...inst-fbi-in-a-case-similar-to-san-bernardino/

 

[about_average]

I'm sure both cases will end up before SCOTUS.

 

[Sean]

I'm sure both cases will end up before SCOTUS.

It's a straight up and down first amendment case. The code does not yet exist. The FBI are trying to force Apple to write the code. Code is speech as defined under the first amendment. So the govt is trying to use the courts to make a private citizen (REMEMBER CORPS ARE CITIZENS NOW IN 1A CASES) say something against its will. It's no different than if the gubmint were trying to force Bill O'Reilly to stand in Times Square and shout "Obama is the messiah!"

It's a straight up first amendment violation and the government can't win. Not with this court and not if Scalia was still there.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Twisted and tortured would be a better description. Particularly when it comes to the "General Welfare" clause that has been liberally read to include everything, in direct contradiction to the writings of the founders, most particularly Madison. Or the astounding decision that by NOT engaging in interstate commerce you are engaging in interstate commerce.

Ishmael

What they wrote outside the Constitution is all well and good for getting insight but "general welfare" does in fact cover any and everything we want it to.

Instatate Commerce is tricky and aside from it should never have been included at all (just like states) I'm not gonna wander into that one.

 

[about_average]

It's a straight up and down first amendment case. The code does not yet exist. The FBI are trying to force Apple to write the code. Code is speech as defined under the first amendment. So the govt is trying to use the courts to make a private citizen (REMEMBER CORPS ARE CITIZENS NOW IN 1A CASES) say something against its will. It's no different than if the gubmint were trying to force Bill O'Reilly to stand in Times Square and shout "Obama is the messiah!"

It's a straight up first amendment violation and the government can't win. Not with this court and not if Scalia was still there.

First SCOTUS would have to rule on whether code is speech (as far as I know they never have).
One thing going against that argument is that some software companies have argued that you should be able to patent code. And you don't patent speech.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

In another case, that of a drug dealer's phone, a judge just ruled in Apple's favor...



And that's not comparing Apples to oranges.

 

[Lancecastor]

First SCOTUS would have to rule on whether code is speech (as far as I know they never have).
One thing going against that argument is that some software companies have argued that you should be able to patent code. And you don't patent speech.

Code is Intellectual Property.

sean should stick to astrology.

 

[about_average]

Code is Intellectual Property.

sean should stick to astrology.

That doesn't mean it's not speech. You can copyright speech.
Then there's the fact several lower courts have ruled code is speech.

 

[Sean]

First SCOTUS would have to rule on whether code is speech (as far as I know they never have).
One thing going against that argument is that some software companies have argued that you should be able to patent code. And you don't patent speech.

The 9th circuit did. Bernstein vs US Dept of Justice.

And Lance should stick to pretending to be a dom, his pretending to be a lawyer isn't working out too well.

 

[Sean]

2nd circuit ruled the same way in Universal Studios vs Corley.

 

[Lancecastor]

That doesn't mean it's not speech. You can copyright speech.
Then there's the fact several lower courts have ruled code is speech.

Lower courts...phhhrrrnt.

 

[Sean]

Lower courts...phhhrrrnt.

Run along now, groveller, until I decide to give you your next lesson.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Lower courts...phhhrrrnt.

Gutter snipe...

 

[AlexVega]

Clearly we cannot afford to trust the NSA, Obama, or the FBI

 

[Lancecastor]

You guys are such fucking lightweights.

According to Stuart Benjamin, a First Amendment scholar at Duke University, the outcome is not clear cut, especially as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

He says that while lower courts have found on several occasions that code qualifies as speech, they have never adopted the broad arguments that Apple is claiming.

 

[about_average]

You guys are such fucking lightweights.

According to Stuart Benjamin, a First Amendment scholar at Duke University, the outcome is not clear cut, especially as the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.

He says that while lower courts have found on several occasions that code qualifies as speech, they have never adopted the broad arguments that Apple is claiming.

So, in other words, the quote is confirming exactly what I said.

 

[Noor]

Clearly we cannot afford to trust the NSA, Obama, or the FBI

Absolutely not, trust no one.!

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well ultimately when it comes to Supreme Court stuff we never really know until we know. The best we can do is guess.