Jury Acquits Citizens of Illegally Filming Police 277
sexybomber writes "The Springfield (MA) Republican reports two men accused of illegally filming the process as they bailed friends out of jail that last summer, were acquitted of all charges Tuesday. Pete Eyre and Adam Mueller initially were granted permission to film the bail process, but later were forbidden by jail officials from recording the procedure. When they continued to digitally recording their encounter with jail officials, they were arrested by police. Eyre and Mueller testified that they never attempted to hide the fact that they were recording at the jail. Not only did they ask permission to film the bail-out process — which initially was granted — but their recording devices were 'out in the open,' Eyre said. The Jury found the defendants not guilty of three criminal counts: Each was acquitted of unlawful wiretapping, while Mueller also was acquitted of a charge of resisting arrest."
Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Informative)
fija.org [fija.org]
The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.
FIJA Works To:
Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce corrupt laws;
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their conscience at the courthouse door;
Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdict;
Inform everyone that juror veto—juror nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you and amen!
Re: (Score:3)
Can't tell if joking or horribly deluded.
You realize that "amen" is the battle cry of the enemy (corrupt power mongers attempting to enforce insane, anachronistic, laws), correct?
And I can't tell if you are joking. You do realize that "amen" means "so be it", correct? It is an accepted way of expressing complete agreement with what another has just said.
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Informative)
jury nullification---its a good thing
BTW the last time I was being questioned for service on a jury I asked the judge about it and I was dismissed and thanked for my time. I have yet to be called for jury duty again.
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this also apply to, say, an all white jury acquitting a KKK member of bombing a church and killing 4 young black girls?
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Insightful)
No, and I'll explain why. The same all white jury would not acquit a Black Panther member who bombed a church killing 4 young white girls.
The issue is that the jury needs to be opposed to the law in general, not it's application in a specific case.
Meaning, only if you truly believed that bombing and murder should be LEGAL FOR EVERYONE should you vote to acquit.
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong on all counts. First of all, jury nullification only requires one juror. Second, that juror can vote their conscience, regardless of what drives it, and can indeed cause a failure to convict, even when the entire world might (perhaps quite rightly) think otherwise. Third, there's no "should" about how the jury nullification power is, or can be, used. It's not specifically about legality, it's not specifically about innocence, it's not specifically about appropriateness or exceptional circumstances. It's simply about one or more juror's unwillingness to convict, period, end of story.
The only counter forces to this are (1) the other jurors and their arguments, and (2) the court's continuing attempts to hide the jury nullification power from jurors, to the extent that if it is even brought up, they'll typically declare a mistrial -- and that's a tool other jurors can use against someone who is attempting jury nullification; simply bring it up when the jury files back into the courtroom. Bang: end of trial, and they'll select a new jury.
Also, just as an aside, for the person who is intending, for whatever reason, to attempt to use jury nullification, a strategy that may avoid the above countermove is not to mention nullification at all, but simply to insist that you cannot in good conscience convict.
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're confused about what "jury nullification" means. It is not the right of a single juror to decide not to vote to convict -- it is when a jury reaches a verdict that is contrary to the law. Thus, by definition, it has to be all 12 people -- otherwise there is no verdict. Jury nullification is not a mistrial, its not a hung jury.
The law says "this act is a crime"; the judge interprets and applies the law (including determining if the law is valid or not, and such), and the jury then determines the *facts* of the case -- they determine what is true and not true, evaluating evidence and deciding what did, or did not, happen. Then they use those facts to determine if the law was violated or not: but the law is the law. They aren't (in general) supposed to determine if the law itself is invalid, if the act itself shouldn't really be a crime or not, or what not.
Jury nullification isn't about a juror voting their conscience, or failure to convict -- jury nullification is about the jury looking at the facts, deciding that the person did do the thing, and voting not guilty *anyways*, thus... (especially if it becomes a pattern) nullifying the law itself, as it applies to that case at least.
Yes, its a power juries have innately, by being... juries, and there's nothing you can do to take away the power, really. But its not, in general, SUPPOSED to be their part of the job to counter and nullify law. That's what the legislature and the judicial branches are supposed to do. Juries are the triers of fact, not law.
Jury nullification can be used for good or ill. You can have them vote not-guilty in some tragic one-off case where despite the law, in the interests of justice and their conscience, they can't convict someone due to extenuating circumstances. Or, a community can decide that killing black people is A-OK, and in effect essentially nullify the law against murder so that it only says "thou shalt not kill white people".
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Informative)
"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794 first Chief Justice of the United States.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you were probably right on the former (assuming the girls weren't serial killers, for instance), and definitely wrong on the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A priori yes, but we fixed that by moving those charges to federal court where trials could be moved out of state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the issue is that jury nullification allows every group of 12 people to disregard the laws in accordance to their own preferences (being them racism, being simpathetic of one of the parts and so on). The question should be:
Is a group of 12 people from the same town/country that go into a court room representative enough of the rest of the society that they should have the right to decide to enforce or not the democratically elected laws of the country?
A jury should limit abuse by being more difficult to
Re: (Score:2)
A recent trial in Florida actually pulled in juriours from a neighboring city/county because they could not find unbiased people from the local one.
I like your "democratically elected laws of the country". I chuckled.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it would. It would also apply to juries in the North refusing to convict people accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act, even when the facts of the case clearly showed they were guilty. It would also apply to juries in California and Oregon refusing to convict people accused by the Federal Government of violating Marijuana laws, when the facts clearly showed that the accused were guilty by Federal Standards, but the Feds refused to acknowledge the validity of Medical Need.
Be warned that no one pr
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and it's "you're", short for "you are". It's called a contraction. Not only did you skip American History, it seems you missed a few English classes also.
Re: (Score:2)
If by Average American you mean Nancy Grace and the mindless drones that watch her show, you're right. If by Average American, you mean Average American, you're wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
"BTW the last time I was being questioned for service on a jury I asked the judge about it and I was dismissed and thanked for my time. I have yet to be called for jury duty again."
Same here.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not an example of jury nullification though. You can agree with a law and still find people to be not guilty of it.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, a trial by jury is also one of the most conspicuously bad good ideas anyone ever had [wanderings.net].
Re: (Score:3)
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible article. Comparing jury decisions to a statistical process and Herring Gulls? Listening to the perspectives of 11 other people, contributing your own, and working through the consequences of all the evidence is not really the same sort of decision as a chick deciding where to peck.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a great article. The fact that you apparently don't "get it" means you don't understand anything about statistics or human nature.
Case in point: you know those signs politicians get placed on people's lawns, e.g., "Vote Jones for Governor"? I never understood their purpose. I mean who in their right mind would be swayed by a lawn sign instead of what the candidate stands for?
It turns out that a lot of "average" people are swayed by such signs because a lot "average"
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever been on a jury? They are quite frequently composed of folk who take their responsibility seriously, are committed to thinking through the evidence, and are willing to learn from their fellow jurors.
Dawkins is trying to apply mathematics to a situation where there isn't as yet any mathematical theory. What constitutes reasonable doubt? Dawkins would have it that if one jury decides to acquit, that would constitute reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt isn't a numerical value, it's jury instructio
Re: (Score:2)
I was the jury foreman on a murder trial and I'm really glad in that case there was only one jury b/c there were some real nutjobs on both sides (acquital and top punishment regardless of facts). By forcing the jury to stick to the process of evaluating the facts, we were able to reach a verdict (vol manslaughter) that was supported by the evidence. If I voted my "instinct" I probably would have gone to murder, and a lot of people on the jury wanted to do that, rather than look at what the evidence could pr
Re: (Score:3)
Note, for reference, that Richard Dawkins claiming that there is an upside to two juries doesn't actually make that true.
Until someone has actually put it to the test, it's just a hypothesis, based on the principle that everyone on a jury has a perfect memory (since you're not allowed to take notes) and are otherwise completely identical.
Note also that the purpose of a Jury is NOT to guarantee "justice", but to prevent the governm
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree with the logic Dawkins uses there. He's talking about measuring precision (getting the same result twice). But that won't tell you anything about accuracy (getting the "right answer"), and it also won't tell you anything about outliers. It may well be that most judges would be able to find the truth more reliably than most juries; but imagine the damage that a single "rogue judge" could do -- a judge with outrageous prejudices, or an axe to grind, or who was just a sadist. A bad jury will hap
Re: (Score:3)
No, I think he's talking about the Ecuadorian gang banger up for trial on the 30th.
Re: (Score:2)
I stated that there was no contemporaneous evidence. I suggest you look that word up, make sure you know precisely what it means and that you understand why it is a critical criterion, and then let fly.
I'm looking forward to this. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
Great-Great Grandparents were probably born ~100 years ago. Contemporaneous sources from that period (Birth certificates, town hall records, newspaper clippings if they ever did anything notable) are still pretty accessible, depending on the area in which they lived.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's the thing. I *had* great-great grandparents; because I'm here. That's how we get here. So we can establish the validity right up front that such great great folks definitely existed. The storybook Jesus had no offspring, so that line of evidence is closed.
Next, I never claimed that my grandparents were magical creatures, able to convert water into wine, walk on water, etc. So we can assume we're looking for normal people, which we also have evidence existed.
Next, odds are pretty good that we can find
Reliable evidence; scarcity (Score:2)
What I was saying, and I believe fyngyrz as well, is not that #1 isnt true because #2 isnt true. What we are saying is there is simply put no clear evidence of #1. And it's true. Literally EVERYTHING about him is written either by Paul (fr Saul) who never met him as a man but converted on the road to Damascus some years after his death, or else is written even later.
Once you rule out stuff written long after he died, and a couple of christian insertians in Josephus, there is nothing at all to prove that he
Re: (Score:3)
No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying there's no contemporaneous evidence for Jesus at all. Zero. Christians start from there, and all they can add to the state of "no evidence for" is a story about magic. That's not worthy of even paying attention to. That was my point.
Occam's razor, btw, says this about magical stars of myths: the safe bet is the other way. Anubis? No. Vishnu? No. Kali? No. Zeus? No. Odin? No. Azaka-Tonnerre? No. The angel Moroni? No. And Jesus? Still... no.
Also... see my t-shirt. [zazzle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly; thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Offtopic:
Speaking about Jesus and cheese, how about Jesus On Cheese [youtube.com] :)
Re: (Score:2)
> and a couple of christian insertians in Josephus
Did you even read the link I cited?
> as you couldnt prove that most of the people alive
> in those years ever lived either of course
Exactly.
> but he was supposed to have been someone
> rather more extraordinary
That's claim #2 (miracles and the like), not claim #1 (a guy who preaches and has a folllowing). People like that were a dime a dozen at the time.
Now I agree that "well-proven fact" existence of Jesus certainly is not. Neither is existen
Re: (Score:2)
There's no contemporaneous evidence for Hannibal either. And all that people can add to the that is a story from hundreds of years later about a guy who crossed the Alps with elephants. What does Occam's razor tell you about that?
The difference between the cases you cite and the Jesus case is that his story includes various historical events that are verifiable from other sources. Now maybe he was just cleverly inserted into those, Waldo-fashion. It's possible. But the general setup makes it somewhat u
Re: (Score:3)
Look; the use of real places and events in fiction is so common as to be absolutely unremarkable. You're arguing, in effect, that Jack Ryan in Tom Clancy's Hunt for Red October was real because the CIA, the US Navy, the Soviet Union, and Washington are all real. Get over it; fiction writers use historical and geographic context all the time. It doesn't suff
Re: (Score:2)
Yes? We know of Pontius, do we not? A man of considerably less stature, and ability, and magic, than Jesus was supposed to have. Same time frame. Also others. But no evidence at all of Jesus. Now, add to that the only place he appears -- ever -- is in the Christian mythology, either directly as in the gospels, or indirectly as complaints about the doings of the cult, complaints made primarily by the Romans. He's a character in a work of fiction. Claiming that is evidence for his actual existence (which is w
Re: (Score:2)
Yes? We know of Pontius, do we not? A man of considerably less stature, and ability, and magic, than Jesus was supposed to have.
But far more political power, which is what really counts. Leaders and kings get recorded. Folk heroes don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, lack of being recorded is not positive proof of one's existence.
Re: (Score:2)
But more importantly, it's not proof of one's non-existence. And considering there are other, less official sources describing him, the case for his existence is quite a bit better than that of most people living at that time.
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. This was more a case of "You idiot prosecutor, the law you charged them under has nothing to do with this case and is completely inapplicable. Oh, and by the way, we don't agree with the trumped-up 'resisting arrest' bullshit you tried to tag on either."
From comparison of experiences of numerous acquiantances, friends, co-workers, and family who have ever dealt with police, "resisting arrest" is a bullshit charge they throw in just to punish people for bothering to assert their right to trial instead of plea-bargaining guilty.
The plea bargain system is about forcing the innocent to plead guilty, nothing else. [latimes.com]
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:5, Interesting)
Not in the USA. The citizenry have nothing to do with crafting the law here. That's done by legislators, pre-selected by the political party machines, where both said political machines and legislators work for lobbyists, who in turn represent special interest groups such as "Drill, baby, Drill", "Zygotes Are People Too", "OMFG homos!, LLC" and the hon. Rev. Dumbkopf, Holy Leader of "Mythology Should Control Sexuality." In the process, they typically ignore their solemn oaths to obey and defend the constitution that authorizes them to even have jobs making law which is required to conform to the constitution; even above and beyond that, they don't think the process through and almost uniformly create waves of unintended consequences (prohibition is the poster child for that one, not by any means alone but certainly one of the most high-profile foulups our government has ever entered into); and they hardly ever go back and fix anything they've broken. Even when it harms the living heck out of said citizens, obviously, publicly, and with great regularity.
Basically, it's a madhouse. Our legal system sucks rocks, doesn't address fairness or justice worth a darn, and is not uncommonly completely unauthorized to our form of government. Also, it is basically a form of institutionalized corporate fellatio. So those of us who are actually paying attention tend to be very grateful for the opportunity to redress a few of the government's many, many wrongs with low-level tools like jury nullification.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it is ok for a group of 12 people to ignore the law? But then... why is 12 the magic number? What if 4 people can ignore the law? Then it is ok for me and 3 buddies to go robbing banks? Or maybe it is true that 12 is the magic number and I only need 11 more associates...
Re:Fully Informed Jury Association (Score:4, Funny)
Please don't breed. It'll make Darwin cry.
Re: (Score:2)
The law does not establish guilt, that is the job of the jury.
And as others have said, yes jury nullification can lead to miscarriages of justice. But the whole legal process as it currently exists is vulnerable to this kind of problem. I hardly think that 12 people unaminously deciding that the police and DA were wrong in their reading of the law is a travesty of justice.
Amen! (Score:2)
Yes, jury nullification happens when the jury finds the law itself invalid. In this case, the police & prosecutor are clearly abusing the legal system to harass innocent people they simply don't like.
Not justice (Score:5, Interesting)
There won't be justice until we can hold the people who arrested and tried these men accountable.
Re:Not justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Hatta didn't say anything was wrong with the trial. Just like you said, "the arrest is where the problem was" so the next step is to sue the police department for the arrest, and hopefully get compensation for the jail time and legal fees. An acquittal doesn't stop the police from abusing their power the very next time this happens. And the judge should inform the police that they cannot refuse to allow the filming at all, should they choose to do so next time.
Re: (Score:3)
Suing may get you money but remember where the money comes from. So that still doesn't stop the police from doing what they did. They don't pay YOU and I Pay. The officers must be fired,the DA must get Fired for brining the case to court. He is a criminal lawyer so he should have known the laws.
The money comes from the police department budget. And the people responsible for that budget are elected officials. Since beading money to highly public lawsuits is really good way to get tossed out in the next election, the officials are inclined to take action against those who caused the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying there is no chance of justice in their justice system, and you think that is a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the only thing wrong with the trial is that there was a trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not justice (Score:5, Insightful)
There is plenty of reason to hold a good many people accountable. The police for making the unjustifiable arrest, the DA for pressing forward with criminal charges in spite of the obvious injustice, and the JUDGE for not sanctioning the DA.
Judges have the authority AND the responsibility to throw a trial out early if it cannot succeed as a matter of law. That is, if the facts as laid out by the DA cannot support a criminal charge, that charge should be thrown out on the spot. They also have a responsibility to sanction a DA who brings charges that cannot be justified by the facts.
Most particularly, it is the judge's responsibility to make sure that the court does not become a crude bludgeon used as a punishment against those who annoy the police and the DA.
As far as relative guilt goes, the judge should probably get off with a reminder of those important responsibilities. The DA and police should face more significant sanctions.
Re: (Score:2)
But throwing it our would not have established a precedent. Actually letting it go to trial and passing a clear verdict is probably the biggest help the judge could give the accused in this case, especially regarding their potential countersuit.
And unless courts work very different in the US, the judge simply didn't have a way to sanction the DA beyond a stern reprimand.
Re: (Score:3)
But throwing it our would not have established a precedent. Actually letting it go to trial and passing a clear verdict is probably the biggest help the judge could give the accused in this case, especially regarding their potential countersuit.
The judge decides whether the purported actions of the accused constitute a crime. The jury decides whether he really committed those acts. In this case we would expect the judge to decide whether it would have been illegal to film in the jail. If he decided that it would have been illegal, the jury would have to decide whether the accused did film. Because a jury only decides what the facts were, it cannot establish precedent.
The puzzling thing here is that the accused were accused of "wiretapping". Making
Another victory for Cop Block (Score:5, Interesting)
Cop Block is a brilliant resource for those wanting information on abusive state practices.
As always, government needs to be on a short leash. Give these folks too much power and they'll abuse it time and time again.
Re: (Score:2)
Way, way too late. :^(
it's always "resisting arrest" (Score:3)
Maybe it's a good predictor of BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's always a fun one, but I love how they tried to apply wiretapping.
I mean, wtf!?
Re: (Score:2)
Wiretapping laws are usually written fairly loosely. It made sense when the only applicable situation was telephone wire tapping. But now we have these portable things that can record anything anywhere. The wording of the law is broad enough that you could charge someone with "wiretapping" even when there is no wire to tap.
You act in a way that violates a badly worded law, you get charged with whatever the law says the crime is called.
Kinda like going to a flea market and buying some good deals, then the
One is compelled to wonder... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it'll be EMP - Tasers are the precursor for it, they're already using these "non-lethal" weapons, even though they do cause the death of the occasional alleged perpetrator.
How well do you think the electronics that make up the borgification will function after a few ma at 50kv wanders through the circuitry? You can test this easily; get a little camera PCB (about $10 most places now), hold it in your hand, scuff your feet on the rug for a few minutes, and then still holding the camera PCB, touch t
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like the board would be embedded naked with no protections whatsoever.
This would be retarded for a variety of reasons!
The system would be closed and shielded, and the I/O points-of-entry would be protected from such things. Fuses or breakers, if you will.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand EMP. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. Research "taser deaths"
Wait a sec... you didn't mean to imply that the cops / government would care if they knocked someone's pacemaker out, did you? Oh, you funny, funny person, you. :^)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, disabled pacemaker != instant death.
Most pacemakers help people with a reduced cardiac capacity to get an almost normal lifestyle, but not all of them are so grave that without pacemaker they will die. They will feel tired, won't be able to do some things (climbing stairs, v.g.). Of course the risks of death are increased (both due to the absence of pacemaker and the surgery needed to change it), but it is not as immediate as some suggest.
For example, think that all the people wh
Re: (Score:2)
Three "problems" I see with this (problems for the bad guys, anyway): first is that soon enough the "borgification" will be on 24/7, second is
Re: (Score:2)
And when the first person wearing a pacemaker gets EMP'ed because a cop doesn't want to be filmed, the wrongful death suit will be fun to watch.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll probably take the rulebook on cavity searches, and tack on a new rule that says it's also okay to create a cavity. Yes it's messy, but think of the children!
Copblock.org (Score:2)
Congrats to Pete and Ademo! These guys have been, often alone, pushing the bounds of keeping cops accountable, which of course often leads to them ending up behind bars. Most of the time they have charges against them dropped, but apparently the prosecutor in this case saw it necessary to push it to trial. Good thing the jury saw the light. Perhaps this case will motivate politicians to come up with clear legislation banning cops from arresting citizens for filming or recording their actions; maybe hold
Re: (Score:2)
Cops certainly can be sued personally. It happens all the time.
http://www.wcax.com/story/14953981/embattled-s-burlington-police-officer-sued-again [wcax.com]
Refreshing. The power of the Jury (Score:2)
But you know, this isn't where it ends. The abusive cops are still going to do what they want to do. Worse, they think they are right to do so.
But with all this police hate moving about here these days, imagine what it would be like if they decided the job wasn't worth doing any longer. Perhaps the good ones would be the last to quit.... perhaps the first. There are still very real bad people out there and they are ready and willing to do you harm for fun and for profit. We need some balance.
Still. Ba
Any one notice (Score:3)
I'm beginning to think there is a mandate for these shows to be pervasive, just to broadcast the message: do not question authority and the organs of enforcement as they are beyond reproach.
To become second? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To become second? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're in that awkward stage where it's too late to vote them out but too early to shoot them
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Traditionally, it goes soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
We're in that awkward stage where it's too late to vote them out but too early to shoot them
If we keep waiting, it's going to be too late to shoot them.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just that we tried that option and it did no good so we move on to the next. Should the jury box also fail, grab the guns.
MPAA's soap boxes are bigger (Score:3)
Control the media with the zeroth box: the lock box, namely your wallet.
Citizens who don't care about the lock box outnumber me. Even if I myself boycott The Walt Disney Company over the Bono Act, so many more people in my country don't boycott Disney than boycott Disney that Disney remains profitable, and home broadband ISPs still pay Disney for ESPN3.com access whether I want it or not.
The jury box is a failsafe against politicians who no longer represent their constituents.
The Bono Act and the DMCA had enough bipartisan support to pass by unanimous consent procedures. This shows that politicians no longer even attempt to represent me as a constituent. The media g
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the Bono and DMCA laws were the implementations of international treaties right? Once congress ratified the Uruguay round table agreements, the WCT and WPPT treaties, they were constitutionally mandates to create the law on it.
I see so many people who think Disney or RIAA or MPAA was behind it. That may be true, but they convinced a lot more then your US politicians well before you even heard about it. In fact, the EU attempted to implement the extensions before the US did, and signed in
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that the Bono and DMCA laws were the implementations of international treaties right? Once congress ratified the Uruguay round table agreements, the WCT and WPPT treaties, they were constitutionally mandates to create the law on it.
I looked at the Wikipedia article for the Sonny Bono law [wikipedia.org] , and it says nothing about being passed to fill the requirements of a treaty. What it does say is that they wanted to "harmonize" the US law with the European Union law. Please cite a treaty that the US has ratified that states life+70 is required.
Most voters have been corrupted (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You suck it up buttercup. That's all the thrills and benefits of having a democracy elect your republic for of government. Now get out there and sign up more ignorant idiots to run to the polls come November and elect the candidate I convince their friends to tell them to vote for because they aren't smart enough to turn the lights out when they leave the room.
In case you missed the point of that, as long as we have idiots voting, we will have idiots elected. as long as idiots are elected, we will have the
Re:To become second? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you're saying 100%, then? I mean, disregarding for the moment that the voters only have choices from Democrats and Republicans, which someone once quite conservatively characterized as a choice between a shit sandwich and a turdburger... so once we get someone out and replace them, the replacement, being a member of one of the two parties that have put us in our present, seriously screwed up situation, is virtually guaranteed to continue in the same vein.
Also disregarding that a great deal of the process that screws with the citizens isn't electoral, but buried in the appointments process, and therefore out of reach -- we can't do anything about the supreme court judges who in case after case violate their solemn oaths, for instance, nor do we have any effective control over the FCC's preventing any significant use of the RF spectrum by the people, reserving that for corporations exclusively (speaking as an EE with extra class ARO and (now) general commercial licenses, btw.) The list goes on -- a great deal of the governance we receive (right after we're instructed to bend over) comes from non-elected sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you learn about the candidates vies from the traditional media, or from each candidates web site? The broadcast media has a much dimished role in being all you know about your choices. This is a wonderful change,
Re: (Score:2)
As a licensed amateur myself, I'm curious what you would envision as a "significant use of the RF spectrum by the people". The garbage you can hear on SSB is bad enough, and we hams are licensed and tested. My guess is that any move to "open" the spectrum to the la
Re: (Score:2)
Re:To become second? (Score:4, Insightful)
Low power (community level), local AM and/or FM and/or television broadcast stations. RF networking. All unregulated except for signal quality and channelization. Those are the ones that we would benefit most directly from, at least as far as I've given it thought.
I don't disagree, but it would *also* open the spectrum to the occasional citizen with valuable content to offer, and therefore give others a chance to hear what they have to say, as opposed to the corporate/government combined viewpoint. As long as basic channelization is maintained, individual signals would be discernable, and so one could browse and choose as one saw fit.
I see that as disingenuous. As a ham, in fact particularly as a ham -- you should know full well that giving a bit of spectrum to the public, using type-approved gear, won't cause the rest of it to become unusable or decrease its social value or otherwise cause any significant spectrum related trouble at all.
For instance, hand off 10% of the AM, FM, and television bands for local, low power use, and now... what "tragedy" occurs? Corporations have a little less ground to try and sell us Gold Coins, Coast to Coast has a little less spectrum to tell us about Ghosts and UFOs and Hollow Earth, and television has a little less spectrum to pour evangelistic Christianity and "reality" shows down our throats. I don't see it as a potential tragedy; I see it as a glorious victory for the common man, and a step up the ladder of civilization.
There are over 100 usable broadcast channels in the US between 540 and 1700 KHz; Assigning ten of them for local use would result, I think, in a most interesting burst of self-expression from the public. A lot of it would be trash, of course, but -- just for instance -- one might encounter a well spoken atheist, or a libertarian, or a socialist, or a communist -- all people we *never* get to hear from or talk to within the confines of the corporate/government controlled airwaves. And that's not even counting what could happen with similar allocations of FM and television channels.
I think it is important to consider that free expression is valuable, and it is also important that note that we have very little of it, when you get right down to it, as far as the airwaves go.
And as for RF networking... right now, corporations have engineered a government sponsored monopoly. I'd like to see that end, straight up. I think it's disgusting, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actualy, filming any police work should not be a crime.
Keep in mind too, that the police routinely film you without your consent or knowledge.