In other news today...



  • @rhywden I always thought precedents should solve the same problem in the anglo-saxon legal system. That is, the judge should be able to rule the law is not appropriate for this kind of case, there and then, and when the judgement becomes legally valid (because it is either not appealed, or the court of appeals agrees), it becomes binding for any future court, therefore effectively fixing the law.

    That, however, means that

    “But our duty is to interpret the law as written and, if unambiguous, apply its plain meaning to the facts before us.

    is a blatant lie, because it requires their duty to be to interpret the law is intended.



  • @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Yes. But in the meantime some people get fucked over by shitty laws. Blackstone's principle and all that.



  • @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Yes. But in the meantime some people get fucked over by shitty laws. Blackstone's principle and all that.

    "It's better that ten guilty child pornographers escape than that one innocent selfie-taking kid suffer"... hmm, something tells me that wouldn't go over very well.



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Seriously, you think there exists some people who would create child porn if only it were legal?



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Yes. But in the meantime some people get fucked over by shitty laws. Blackstone's principle and all that.

    "It's better that ten guilty child pornographers escape than that one innocent selfie-taking kid suffer"... hmm, something tells me that wouldn't go over very well.

    Why not?



  • @karla said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Seriously, you think there exists some people who would create child porn if only it were legal?

    No, but I think it could mean that you'd have nothing illegal to charge some of them with when you catch them. If the photos themselves weren't illegal, then you'd need photos of them raping a kid in order to actually charge them.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Yes. But in the meantime some people get fucked over by shitty laws. Blackstone's principle and all that.

    "It's better that ten guilty child pornographers escape than that one innocent selfie-taking kid suffer"... hmm, something tells me that wouldn't go over very well.

    Why not?

    Because a "goes light on pedophiles" reputation doesn't win many re-elections.



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Seriously, you think there exists some people who would create child porn if only it were legal?

    No, but I think it could mean that you'd have nothing illegal to charge some of them with when you catch them. If the photos themselves weren't illegal, then you'd need photos of them raping a kid in order to actually charge them.

    A person having photos of a naked kid means they or someone else did something to a kid. The photos are still evidence.

    When the new law is created, there is no reason to exclude those people.

    The retraction of the first law shall include, that those who can be charged with the new law not have a grace period if they were caught in between.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden in theory, I think it could work that way here, too. But it has a rather big drawback: if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    Having the legislature fix the law doesn't risk this, as they can actually amend the law to add exceptions, rather than what the courts can just do, which amounts to just striking out parts of it. And the same amendment would strike out bad parts and rewrite them, so you wouldn't have any lapse in time where there's not a legally valid ban in place against it.

    Yes. But in the meantime some people get fucked over by shitty laws. Blackstone's principle and all that.

    "It's better that ten guilty child pornographers escape than that one innocent selfie-taking kid suffer"... hmm, something tells me that wouldn't go over very well.

    Why not?

    Because a "goes light on pedophiles" reputation doesn't win many re-elections.

    A principle is a principle. Which bad guys get away has no relevance.



  • @Bulb

    Apollo 11 was powered by a Saturn V rocket which stood 364 feet (101.5 meters) tall. It weighed 525,500 pounds (239,725 kg), empty; and 6,100,000 pounds (2,766,913 kg), loaded.

    Well... It flew!



  • @karla said in In other news today...:

    A person having photos of a naked kid means they or someone else did something to a kid. The photos are still evidence.

    Not necessarily any evidence that implicates them in a crime.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    When the new law is created, there is no reason to exclude those people.

    Laws can't criminalize past events. If there was no law against something when it was done (or if the law that did exist has since been declared unconstitutional, in which case it's like that law never existed), you can't prosecute them for it. You're not allowed to retroactively charge someone for things they did before the law against those things existed.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    The retraction of the first law shall include, that those who can be charged with the new law not have a grace period if they were caught in between.

    If the legislature is changing the law, they can just repeal sections and add new language in one fell swoop. There doesn't need to be any "in between".

    If the courts are changing the law, then there will be an "in between", because the courts can only strike out sections; they cannot add anything. Unless they can find some way to cleverly strike out particular bad sections and still have the law's teeth remain intact afterward, but I doubt that they could in this case.



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    A person having photos of a naked kid means they or someone else did something to a kid. The photos are still evidence.

    Not necessarily any evidence that implicates them in a crime.

    So how many innocents are you willing to punish so that one doesn't get away?

    Possibly a decent DA could argue accessory after the fact.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    When the new law is created, there is no reason to exclude those people.

    Laws can't criminalize past events. If there was no law against something when it was done (or if the law that did exist has since been declared unconstitutional, in which case it's like that law never existed), you can't prosecute them for it. You're not allowed to retroactively charge someone for things they did before the law against those things existed.

    OK fair enough.

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    The retraction of the first law shall include, that those who can be charged with the new law not have a grace period if they were caught in between.

    If the legislature is changing the law, they can just repeal sections and add new language in one fell swoop. There doesn't need to be any "in between".

    That would be ideal.

    If the courts are changing the law, then there will be an "in between", because the courts can only strike out sections; they cannot add anything. Unless they can find some way to cleverly strike out particular bad sections and still have the law's teeth remain intact afterward, but I doubt that they could in this case.

    Less than ideal.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @bulb said in In other news today...:

    I always thought precedents should solve the same problem in the anglo-saxon legal system.

    They do… but they're only binding by a court on itself or those courts that are junior to it. (The supreme court is supreme because it is senior to all other courts.)

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    if the courts declared laws against child porn unconstitutional because they're written horribly, then child porn could potentially be legalized until the legislature got its shit together and wrote a new law.

    There may be other piece of legislation that apply as well. The prosecution under the bad law would fail, but the other ways in which the activity was illegal would still hold. The usual reason for doubling up a law like that is when the other more generic law is reckoned to be onerously difficult to get convictions with. Which isn't to say that that's either a good or a bad thing; just that getting rid of a particular law wouldn't necessarily make the activity that the particular case was about immediately lawful.

    The sky isn't falling. There may be occasional meteors…




  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @boner said in In other news today...:

    WTF was he a dog on Viagra or something?



  • @brisingraerowing said in In other news today...:

    😆

    A purple belt in my jujitsu class is a bouncer. Sounds like a handy (and probably common) skill for a bouncer to have.


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    Seriously, you think there exists some people who would create child porn if only it were legal?

    Yes, obviously. There exists people creating it today despite the illegality, so unless you believe that the deterrence effect of the extremely harsh laws against child pornography is literally zero, you have no choice but to believe that there are people who would do it if it was legal.



  • @boner

    undefined

    What an idiot.



  • @masonwheeler said in In other news today...:

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    Seriously, you think there exists some people who would create child porn if only it were legal?

    Yes, obviously. There exists people creating it today despite the illegality, so unless you believe that the deterrence effect of the extremely harsh laws against child pornography is literally zero, you have no choice but to believe that there are people who would do it if it was legal.

    I consider the desire to create and view child porn more a compulsion than a choice. So no, I don't believe it is a deterrent.

    How many innocents is it ok to punish to make sure no one guilty goes free?



  • @karla if it was permanently legalized, then I have no doubt that there would be money to be made in doing it, and people unethical enough to do it for the money.

    But that wouldn't really apply to either situation that we were talking about before, because we weren't talking about it being permanently legalized. If anything should happen to cause child porn to be legalized, then I have no doubt that getting a new law (a constitutional law) would become pretty much everyone's immediate number one priority. But passing a law under that much pressure to get one passed wouldn't really be very conducive to getting a good law passed.



  • @boner said in In other news today...:

    One dick, one hole, match made in heaven?



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @karla if it was permanently legalized, then I have no doubt that there would be money to be made in doing it, and people unethical enough to do it for the money.

    But that wouldn't really apply to either situation that we were talking about before, because we weren't talking about it being permanently legalized. If anything should happen to cause child porn to be legalized, then I have no doubt that getting a new law (a constitutional law) would become pretty much everyone's immediate number one priority. But passing a law under that much pressure to get one passed wouldn't really be very conducive to getting a good law passed.

    Agreed.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @1 said in In other news today...:

    @boner said in In other news today...:

    One dick, one hole, match made in heaven?

    This was one hole that just wouldn't let go...


  • Impossible Mission - B

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    I consider the desire to create and view child porn more a compulsion than a choice. So no, I don't believe it is a deterrent.

    Viewing, maybe. Creating...

    To draw a parallel to a different compulsion, do you know how many tobacco CEOs smoke?

    How many innocents is it ok to punish to make sure no one guilty goes free?

    That's a completely different question.





  • @masonwheeler said in In other news today...:

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    I consider the desire to create and view child porn more a compulsion than a choice. So no, I don't believe it is a deterrent.

    Viewing, maybe. Creating...

    To draw a parallel to a different compulsion, do you know how many tobacco CEOs smoke?

    How many innocents is it ok to punish to make sure no one guilty goes free?

    That's a completely different question.

    That was the intended context of all of my comments.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    Stupid iFramely and dumb video assuming I have a tall screen.

    0_1505620819736_4020311a-310a-46a9-a11f-e9fadd2e657c-image.png

    Even at 100% mode, I had to scroll to see the reason for his tearfelt reaction:

    0_1505620873836_8069a330-64d0-4c4d-af56-9c76daeb2981-image.png

    Anyways, it was cute.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    This dad's wife and kids all pitched in to buy him Enchroma glasses for his birthday, so he could see color for the first time in his life.

    ...sort of. More info here.

    Which is not to put down the technology - it's a really good sort-of solution, but it's definitely more limited than stated in the quote.





  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    But passing a law under that much pressure to get one passed wouldn't really be very conducive to getting a good law passed.

    Let me ask you a question: How much time do you think will be needed to pass an amendment to the law we're talking about where the victim can also be the perpetrator?

    As in: Which month in which year will see it changed?



  • @karla said in In other news today...:

    @masonwheeler said in In other news today...:

    ... There exists people creating it today despite the illegality, so unless you believe that the deterrence effect of the extremely harsh laws against child pornography is literally zero, you have no choice but to believe that there are people who would do it if it was legal.

    I consider the desire to create and view child porn more a compulsion than a choice. So no, I don't believe it is a deterrent. ...

    I think we have expressed here in this statement, better than any I have ever seen, the essence of modern (as opposed to classical) liberalism. If people do not and cannot modify their behaviors based on the expected consequences of those behaviors, then there would be no point in holding people accountable for their actions.


  • SockDev

    @boner said in In other news today...:

    Frank Duke said simply: "Too healthy for me."

    undefined


  • area_can

    @atazhaia said in In other news today...:

    And in slightly exciting phone news*:

    Funny you should ask... – 00:36
    — Google

    *May just be a date and not actually any news.

    Why is my smartphone so impersonal?

    undefined



  • @chozang said in In other news today...:

    @karla said in In other news today...:

    @masonwheeler said in In other news today...:

    ... There exists people creating it today despite the illegality, so unless you believe that the deterrence effect of the extremely harsh laws against child pornography is literally zero, you have no choice but to believe that there are people who would do it if it was legal.

    I consider the desire to create and view child porn more a compulsion than a choice. So no, I don't believe it is a deterrent. ...

    I think we have expressed here in this statement, better than any I have ever seen, the essence of modern (as opposed to classical) liberalism. If people do not and cannot modify their behaviors based on the expected consequences of those behaviors, then there would be no point in holding people accountable for their actions.

    Sentencing purpose is not solely punishment as a deterrent but protection for the rest of society.

    I've mentioned before that my friend's son who is bipolar and schizophrenic would be better off in prison than the current mental health options. Both for his own protection and others. Currently he can be committed and forced to take medicine, then he gets better and can choose to leave where he stops taking his medicine and cycle continues.







  • @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    But passing a law under that much pressure to get one passed wouldn't really be very conducive to getting a good law passed.

    Let me ask you a question: How much time do you think will be needed to pass an amendment to the law we're talking about where the victim can also be the perpetrator?

    As in: Which month in which year will see it changed?

    No clue. I don't think enough people care about those victims (of the law) to risk their reputations or their political careers by trying to alter laws to let anyone off for producing child porn, even in the cases of "teen talking selfies meant only for his/her boyfriend/girlfriend", where there's no victim until the law makes one by ruining their lives.

    And there are still people whose position amounts to "well it's too bad, but they should be punished just like anyone else would, because even though they only meant the pictures to be for their boyfriend's/girlfriend's eyes once the pictures are taken there's the risk that they end up getting onto the web and some pedophile might whack off to them". And we certainly can't have that.



  • @dcon said in In other news today...:

    @Bulb

    Apollo 11 was powered by a Saturn V rocket which stood 364 feet (101.5 meters) tall. It weighed 525,500 pounds (239,725 kg), empty; and 6,100,000 pounds (2,766,913 kg), loaded.

    Well... It flew!

    INB4 Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theory WHARRGARBL.



  • @pjh said in In other news today...:

    @shoulder-alien said in In other news today...:

    And the Reddit link goes to somewhere talking about seat pitch on planes...⁉

    I think the use of the word 'simulator' in the name might be a clue. It's basically Inspirobot for Reddit - a chatbot that uses a travesty generator fed with phrases from existing thread titles and posts the resulting parody to its own sub-reddit.



  • @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden said in In other news today...:

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    But passing a law under that much pressure to get one passed wouldn't really be very conducive to getting a good law passed.

    Let me ask you a question: How much time do you think will be needed to pass an amendment to the law we're talking about where the victim can also be the perpetrator?

    As in: Which month in which year will see it changed?

    No clue. I don't think enough people care about those victims (of the law) to risk their reputations or their political careers by trying to alter laws to let anyone off for producing child porn, even in the cases of "teen talking selfies meant only for his/her boyfriend/girlfriend", where there's no victim until the law makes one by ruining their lives.

    And there are still people whose position amounts to "well it's too bad, but they should be punished just like anyone else would, because even though they only meant the pictures to be for their boyfriend's/girlfriend's eyes once the pictures are taken there's the risk that they end up getting onto the web and some pedophile might whack off to them". And we certainly can't have that.

    So, in essence, your proposed "solution" isn't one because there isn't the political impetus for it. And people will continue to be fucked over by laws like these because they forgot (or never knew) for example that sexting with a minor is a crime - even if they themselves are minors.

    I like our version of this better. Because our version actually forces the politicians to do something. You want to pass unconstitutional laws? Fine. But don't be butthurt if the constitutional court then promptly cashiers those same laws again.



  • @rhywden you apparently missed the part where I said that our version works the same way. However, while this is true, in theory: (and will work that way, for some issues)

    You want to pass unconstitutional laws? Fine. But don't be butthurt if the constitutional court then promptly cashiers those same laws again.

    ...the reality is that our judges aren't keen on being painted as pedophile-enablers, either, any more than our legislators are. So it doesn't really force the politicians to do anything, in this particular case.

    Also, if the law against child porn was declared unconstitutional, every pedophile who'd ever been convicted of breaking that law would be legally entitled to file petitions to be released from incarceration and/or have their convictions expunged. Basically like this:

    0_1505677718169_2085c50d-6b5d-4831-ba11-0d88450c51b9-image.png
    [source]


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @anotherusername said in In other news today...:

    @rhywden you apparently missed the part where I said that our version works the same way. However, while this is true, in theory: (and will work that way, for some issues)

    You want to pass unconstitutional laws? Fine. But don't be butthurt if the constitutional court then promptly cashiers those same laws again.

    ...the reality is that our judges aren't keen on being painted as pedophile-enablers, either, any more than our legislators are. So it doesn't really force the politicians to do anything, in this particular case.

    Also, if the law against child porn was declared unconstitutional, every pedophile who'd ever been convicted of breaking that law would be legally entitled to file petitions to be released from incarceration and/or have their convictions expunged. Basically like this:

    0_1505677718169_2085c50d-6b5d-4831-ba11-0d88450c51b9-image.png
    [source]

    SCOTUS could probably strike it in part somehow. They have lots of practice stretching the interpretation to fit a desired result. Although my opinion is that if they'd take a level in spine and look around, they could do a lot of things more directly. The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution could provide a lot of wiggle room without having to make abuses like finding a right to privacy in some other unrelated amendments. (Although as long as they think they have to do it that way, I'd rather have it than not.)



  • @scholrlea said in In other news today...:

    It's basically Inspirobot for Reddit

    And unlike inspirobot, where most of the “quotes” are grammatical and often even make some sense, this one produces mostly incoherent gibberish.



  • Ed Stetzer, a pastor and executive director of Wheaton College’s Billy Graham Center, first took issue with how Meade is described in some media articles.

    “There’s no such thing as a Christian numerologist,” he told The Post. “You basically got a made-up expert in a made-up field talking about a made-up event.

    Hmmm.



  • @coldandtired said in In other news today...:

    You basically got a made-up expert in a made-up field talking about a made-up event.

    The Christianity thread is undefined

    🐠




  • SockDev

    The Verge said:

    CCleaner antivirus

    CCleaner isn't an antivirus: it's a tool used to clean up temporary files and free disk space. It can also spring-clean the Registry.


  • :belt_onion:

    There is a God and he listens to my prayers.



  • @anotherusername So, basically, everyone's just fine with minors being charged as pedophiles because they sexted their equally minor girl-/boyfriend.

    You guys really have a problem with this whole sex stuff.



  • @boner said in In other news today...:

    Linked in the comments (from today) on El Reg when they posted it:

    And from 3 years ago:



  • Release Date: September 13, 2017

    For Immediate Release
    Office of the Press Secretary
    Contact: 202-282-8010

    WASHINGTON – After careful consideration of available information and consultation with interagency partners, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke today issued a Binding Operational Directive (BOD) directing Federal Executive Branch departments and agencies to take actions related to the use or presence of information security products, solutions, and services supplied directly or indirectly by AO Kaspersky Lab or related entities.

    The BOD calls on departments and agencies to identify any use or presence of Kaspersky products on their information systems in the next 30 days, to develop detailed plans to remove and discontinue present and future use of the products in the next 60 days, and at 90 days from the date of this directive, unless directed otherwise by DHS based on new information, to begin to implement the agency plans to discontinue use and remove the products from information systems.

    This action is based on the information security risks presented by the use of Kaspersky products on federal information systems. ...


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.