>> ^Yogi:

How is this not illegal? They're killing people...that's legal?


Since corporations are considered people in most cases, you have to prove murder, negligence, etc, just like you'd have to prove it against an individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Problem is, who are you putting on trial? Obviously the entire company's worth of people isn't responsible for any deaths. Who had the malice, who was negligent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Hence...controversy and awfulness.

How is this not illegal? They're killing people...that's legal?

(just commenting here so I don't continue to clutter the post)

What you say makes sense.
I don't know when they use a secure channel because they say an awful lot on the unsecured channels
- but then I wouldn't know would I, because it's encrypted

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
>> ^Sagemind:

Also...,
I know tons of people who own police scanners - you can buy them anywhere. They can be set to scan for any chatter at all or just emergency frequencies. The people I know have them on in the evening partially for entertainment value and partly so they know what's going on as far as crime in their area - the police channels are never scrambled, an we've spent hours listening to them while we play cards or what ever...
The laws may be different in different areas - but I don't believe for a minute it's illegal here.


It's not illegal to listen to the airwaves. It's illegal to decode encrypted communications. I don't know if you were inferring an opinion, but I never said it was illegal to listen to airwaves.

>> ^Sagemind:

Also...,
I know tons of people who own police scanners - you can buy them anywhere. They can be set to scan for any chatter at all or just emergency frequencies. The people I know have them on in the evening partially for entertainment value and partly so they know what's going on as far as crime in their area - the police channels are never scrambled, an we've spent hours listening to them while we play cards or what ever...
The laws may be different in different areas - but I don't believe for a minute it's illegal here.


It's not illegal to listen to the airwaves. It's illegal to decode encrypted communications. I don't know if you were inferring an opinion, but I never said it was illegal to listen to airwaves.

They're not illegal, just immoral. Here in Canada, a company recently got some bad press when it was revealed they were selling these kinds of books - catalogues of available government grants and low-interest loans. The kicker was, all of the information they packaged in the catalogs was publicly available for free.>> ^NordlichReiter:

Looks like bullshit.
A scam. Something about this seems illegal.

>> ^littledragon_79:

You know what, I think we've all been had. This is just footage from the latest asshat convention and it's been taken out of context. You see, it's really just a gathering of juvenile douchebags that haven't evolved enough to know how to cooperate.
Isn't there something about not recording people without their consent? Although I'd worry what the cops/security guys would do w/o the camera...and no one should. That sucks.


I'm afraid you don't know jack shit about shit. Trolololololo, the previous sentence was because of your "asshat" remark. I thought you were trollin'.

As far as I understand it if a person is in the public domain you do not have to have consent to film them, or picture them; provided it does not constitute harassment or assault and any number of sexual offenses.

The general consensus that I've seen on Google is that if the video footage is for profit or inappropriate use (see my paragraph above) then it is a violation of law.

To video tape the amoral acts of police, and the assault of a citizen is not illegal. It is morally acceptable, and legal.

>> ^Dr_Q:

>> ^Enzoblue:
If you're wondering why the ramps and air things are suspiciously lacking in adverts, it's because Red Bull is illegal in France. I wonder if his helmet got him in trouble.

It's not illegal. It was in the middle of a small controversy for a few months, that's all.


Just read Reuters and they said france did ban Red Bull for 12 years and lifted the ban in 2008. I still think it's illegal to advertise it though, I remember a problem with the Red Bull team in F1 there recently.

>> ^Enzoblue:

If you're wondering why the ramps and air things are suspiciously lacking in adverts, it's because Red Bull is illegal in France. I wonder if his helmet got him in trouble.


It's not illegal. It was in the middle of a small controversy for a few months, that's all.

>> ^blankfist:

We want a lot of the same things, but your list isn't exactly accurate from my perspective, @NetRunner.

By my eye you ultimately agreed to everything I said. You'd probably have arguments with me about how to accomplish some of them (helping the poor would probably be our most striking divergence), but not very many arguments with me on most of them.

The environment is a broad category, but generally speaking the idea behind things like cap & trade is to bring the market externality of environmental damage into the market.

I'd much prefer creating a market for carbon credits to our current regime where we tell car companies what average MPG their vehicles have to achieve. I want to give people a market incentive to manage their emissions, rather than give them some arbitrary bar to hop over.

I've always thought that it's weird that conservatives and libertarians put up a fight with us on stuff like that. It seems like pure tribal animosity.

As for the drug thing, how can something be neither legal nor illegal? I'd say everything that's not illegal is by definition legal.

@Psychologic, I think if there's substantial and provable and reasonable risk involved on private property where human life is threatened, and creating a nuclear bomb would pose such a risk, then restrictions to personal freedom are reasonable.

I think the large distinction here is what the article above points out: that these restrictions should be "set by the consensus of juries, not legislatures, whose job in common law is to set guidelines."

I think what's important about the article above, which I haven't done any leg work to ensure any of it is accurate, is that creation of nuclear weapons currently is not illegal. And you don't see the what Libertarians term the "crazy evil Bill Gates" building an army of nukes or any nukes for that matter.

Well, there goes my dream of Baby Punchers 'R Us.
>> ^rottenseed:

I don't get the black and white proposed when discussing law of businesses vs people. I think it's a businesses right to refuse business to anybody based on any criteria they choose. If they want to be racist that's fine, it's not illegal for an individual to do that, it shouldn't be illegal for a business to do it. I DO think that if a business is doing something illegal though, such as illegal dumping, murdering people, punching babies in the face, etc., they need to be punished. I don't think the government enforcing a law for corporations is any different than the government enforcing laws for people. I can be racist, but I can't punch a Guadalajarian maid in the knee caps. I can't dump toxic waste into the water, neither should DOW chemicals. I don't see the problem here. There's an easily distinguishable line.

I don't get the black and white proposed when discussing law of businesses vs people. I think it's a businesses right to refuse business to anybody based on any criteria they choose. If they want to be racist that's fine, it's not illegal for an individual to do that, it shouldn't be illegal for a business to do it. I DO think that if a business is doing something illegal though, such as illegal dumping, murdering people, punching babies in the face, etc., they need to be punished. I don't think the government enforcing a law for corporations is any different than the government enforcing laws for people. I can be racist, but I can't punch a Guadalajarian maid in the knee caps. I can't dump toxic waste into the water, neither should DOW chemicals. I don't see the problem here. There's an easily distinguishable line.

This bill ignores the real problem. Not justly dealing with the illegal immigration problem that exists in the western states. Tijuana any one, or Nogales? What about the 100 mile inland search and identify checkpoints? I was stopped but never searched every time I went from Arizona to Texas; I was questioned as well.

That's the hardest thing about this bill is that it seems to be doing some good, when in reality it is not. It skirts the issues, and only tightens its grip around civil rights and the freedom of citizens to move from place to place; without fear of repercussion or because of their pigmentation. It also puts a heavy hammer over the police to force them to do their jobs; whatever that may be.

There is an illegal immigration issue, but it hardly requires racist, or unconstitutional laws to solve it. As stereotypical as this sounds, a large amount of people will think that if a bill is not in place then illegal immigrants will get a free ride. That does a disservice to all Naturalized Citizens(Some of which may be more informed of US history than any Naturally Born Citizen), and it disenfranchises the conservative right; hardly needed at the moment.

Whether it is liked or not; illegal immigration is Illegal and that will probably never change.

I can't understand why it's not illegal. BUT SERIOUSLY HOW IS THIS FUCKING LEGAL!? Can't they sue them for false representation or something?

Assorted thoughts...

I can understand the cop being startled and defensive if someone walks up to him with a camera and a gun. Not saying any action is justified, but it would have been stupid of him to not be on his toes.

Maybe the guy is being a little bit of a dick, but it's not illegal to be a dick.

I don't think you should expect to give the police a hard time and not get one back. If they had arrested him, that would have been inappropriate, but grilling him a little bit... not so much.

Just because you aren't required to present ID doesn't mean the cops can't ask for it. They also didn't do anything to prevent him from walking away.

If this guy hadn't instigated this I would feel negatively toward the cops, but he baited them. They inspected the bait but didn't bite.