|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is.
i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread.
so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do....
|
On April 12 2013 05:45 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
so the law is bad and we should change it.... The law in the US is fucking fantastic. It's the legal system that needs work. I'm not an attorney and I probably shouldn't give you legal advice. I recommend looking up the difference between "legal" and "lawful" on your own.
i am an attorney. and i have never heard of this distinction. so, i am asking your advice as a layperson what i as a lawyer do not know. i am very curious.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do....
do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? the peta guys can't jump over a fence, that's clear. taking pictures and videos is different. though trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) and thus have a rather sovereignty shape, but it takes issues like this to change that.
it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here.
|
On April 12 2013 05:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:40 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:20 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:09 Barrin wrote:
Democracy doesn't work when the flow of information is being impeded.
When there are laws in place impeding the flow of information, it is no longer reasonable to expect the population to make informed decisions; you are taking away our ability to say "hey, these guys are treating the animals badly, but those guys are. i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent." oh, wait... This dialogue could be much more constructive if you dropped the sarcastic attitude. For one, this isn't actually a democracy, this is a Democratic Republic. You seem to have wrongfully assumed that I want the government to have full access to information - this couldn't be further from the truth. However, I do want the PEOPLE to have us much information as they have a lawful right to. Could you please explain your position a little more clearly? edit: Please tell me dAPhREAk, who do you think benefits from this situation the most? that is obvious. Who then? Didn't you say the consumers? Let's be clear please. you said follow the money, i followed the money, which turned out to be a fruitless exercise. not sure why you are upset. next time dont post a one liner that makes no sense. you want the people to have as much information as they have a "lawful right to," but then are essentially arguing that animal rights activists should be allowed to break the law to get the information. it does not compute in my mind. i explained my position on the law in my first post in the thread. I'm not upset, don't be silly, and don't tell me what I'm feeling. My one liner made plenty of sense, and believe me I'll throw them out whenever I want. --- You seem to have confused "lawful" and "legal". It is illegal - but not unlawful - to lie to your employer all you want. Big government so big $_$. thats very curious. please tell me the difference between illegal and unlawful. also, please tell me why you believe you can lie to a prospective employer to gain access to their property for ulterior motives? that is a new one to me.
Lawful is what a paladin does when he grabs women and children during an explosion
Unlawful is what an orc does when he grabs women and children during an explosion
And now everything is clear 
j/k
I think he's confusing criminally punishable with unlawful. You can lie to your employers all you want and so long as it can't be proven that you lied there is nothing that can be done.
So let's say you said
"I am not part of PETA"
Then your boss finds a PETA email in your inbox.
"I just joined recently to see what the fuss was about, I don't actually care"
Then your boss tags your facebook picture of you in a rally throwing blood at a minivan
"I met this girl, she's so hot, one thing led to another and suddenly the crowed was everywhere. I scored though, so worth it"
And so on and so forth.
Now your boss/police could spend time tracking spending records, cameras, etc... but at some point it will cost them more money than its worth to actually pursue you.
|
On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:15 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i agree. thats why i fully support the government's ability to search our homes and hard-drives unimpeded and unfettered by laws. i mean, how can our state and federal government function as a democracy without full and accurate information? we are really taking away the ability of the government and populace to say "hey, these guys are pirating games, but those guys arent."
oh, wait...
edit:
[quote]
that is obvious. animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here.
as i said in my first post:
1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law.
2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal.
3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws.
so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them.
as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law.
|
|
|
On April 12 2013 05:58 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:45 Barrin wrote:On April 12 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote:
so the law is bad and we should change it.... The law in the US is fucking fantastic. It's the legal system that needs work. I'm not an attorney and I probably shouldn't give you legal advice. I recommend looking up the difference between "legal" and "lawful" on your own. i am an attorney. and i have never heard of this distinction. so, i am asking your advice as a layperson what i as a lawyer do not know. i am very curious. It's completely understandable that you don't know the distinction because you probably only ever deal with the legal side of it. And let me be honest, I'm not a historian either. However, I do have access to the internet... and boy is there a lot of information about it.
third time is the charm: whats the difference?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:24 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
animal rights activists are clearly engaged in a political activity. this is picking sides in a political debate by force. RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law.
it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information.
even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause.
and as you've said there are whistleblower laws, which is the other side of the fence when it comes to private property rights vs citizen right to information and so on.
|
Lobbying... we should have listened to James Madison.
|
On April 12 2013 06:00 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
RIAA. not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law. it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information. even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause.
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdf
thats the ag-gag law i found. it applies to anyone who takes photos and video without consent of the property owner. i am fine with that. your property, you get to control access.
contract is not a political matter, it is a legal matter. "spying for a political cause" is not a defense to lawbreaking that i am aware of. i am not sure why you are caught up on this political cause issue. "political cause" is not an excuse to lawbreaking. ask nixon.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 12 2013 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2013 06:00 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:52 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:44 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:42 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:39 oneofthem wrote:On April 12 2013 05:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 12 2013 05:29 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
not sure what your point is. private public distinction breaks down once we realize it's a political matter (i.e. whether we are a feudal society or a modern society) the reach of private sovereignty. animal rights laws are effective across the boundary of your lawn, so the issue itself is not private entirely. take the law and input RIAA instead of animal rights activitists. now you have RIAA members breaking the law to get information on criminal activity (input piracy instead of animal abuse). still have the same feeling about the law? that analogy does not work. animal rights activists are engaged in a political activity, like protest or publishing. it's a different set of issues so, if its a political activity, laws no longer apply to you? i really dont get the distinction you are making and why that would allow animal rights activists more rights than others. i feel people are poo-pooing the law because they dont like the result rather than critically thinking about what the law actually does, and what our current laws already are. when animal rights activists lie on employment applications, that is illegal. when animal rights activists take videos and pictures when they are prohibited from doing so, that is illegal. whether they can march into a facility and take videos is already covered by trespass laws. whether the information itself is criminalized is about a political expression/activity issue. it's rather clear on my end, i don't know what your problem is. i think my problem is that the laws criminalize the act of what you already described as being illegal (i.e., taking photos and pictures); it does not prohibit distributing the illegally gained information--indeed, it apparently requires that it be turned over to law enforcement according to others in the thread. so, the law punishes what is already illegal to do.... do you think the standard for criminalization is that low? trespass laws have themselves a rather feudal history (railways for instance.) it's clearly an attempt at barring political expression though. if you value that then you should see a problem here. as i said in my first post: 1. employers are legally entitled to ask whether you are part of an animal rights groups. and if you accept employment based on a lie that you are not, you are breaking the law. 2. employers are legally entitled to put conditions on their premises (i.e., no photos or video). if you take photos or videos you are breaching the conditions of employment/contract. that is illegal. 3. if an employee uncovers illegal acts and reports them then they are covered under whistle blower laws. so, this "new" law criminalizes what is already illegal--i.e., the act of fraud and violating employer rules. i have no problem with that--although i imagine the penalties are excessive even without looking at them. as for barring political expression, i dont see the nexus. political expression doesnt allow you to break the law. it's not only for employees though. it's targeted at anyone within premise and about taking information. even if it's about employees, it's still dependent on your idea of contract which is clearly a political matter. contractual honesty vs spying for a political cause. http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stat_pdf/stusia2011hf589.pdfthats the ag-gag law i found. it applies to anyone who takes photos and video without consent of the property owner. i am fine with that. your property, you get to control access. contract is not a political matter, it is a legal matter. "spying for a political cause" is not a defense to lawbreaking that i am aware of. i am not sure why you are caught up on this political cause issue. "political cause" is not an excuse to lawbreaking. ask nixon. the shape of contract law is a political matter, whichis being discussed. whether some laws are ok, and whether the legal principle behind the laws are ok.
googling ag gag laws, it seems like this started in 2011. so the issue is broader than a particular law about employees. clearly they want to seal the place up from pesky peta people.
|
why should corporations have an expectation to privacy about anything at all? That's what I don't understand. We should be spying on all of them all of the time
|
arent there some loopholes to this? like what if someone videotaped animal cruelty going on secretly to expose it and stop it? would they be held liable in this case?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
think fo all the sets! dats a set. think of a bunch of people doing stuff, that's a people.
logic, flawless
|
On April 12 2013 06:12 sam!zdat wrote:
why should corporations have an expectation to privacy about anything at all? That's what I don't understand. We should be spying on all of them all of the time
why should anyone have an expectation of privacy?
|
corporations are not anyone, because they aren't people
if they're doing something they don't want people to see, they shouldn't be doing it
|
|
|
I think it makes sense that the video taping without permission should be against the law, and even that the tapes get recalled.
How would you like it if some peeping tom or spy was recording embarrassing and/or intimate or taboo situations? If it's something you didn't want out there, you would probably want those tapes recalled, and because it was on private property without your permission, you'd have full rights to that desire.
That said, there should have to be some sort of organization that IS allowed to do inspections undercover in order to ensure proper regulations are being followed, since there is obviously an issue with the way things are going.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
