1/4 million dollar fine for bootlegging d+d books?

[totoro]

Eh. I guess Sigil is right. I'll stop posting politics on this non-political site. Even though it will be hard to resist...

 

[Greatwyrm]

Last year, I think it was, the US Supreme Court upheld the legality of an arrest made by a police officer of a woman who was not wearing a seat belt. She was not arrested for freaking out and attacking the officer or any such thing. She was arrested specifically for not wearing a seat belt.

Naturally, she felt this constituted a blatant violation of the constitution, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizure of our property or persons. The supreme court disagreed.

This sets a *very dangerous* precedent. Since when is the Bill of Rights in the Consitution merely optional?

I'm getting off topic here, but...

How does this even relate to the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure?

1. Apparently, it's legally required to wear a seatbelt while in a moving vehicle wherever this woman was (as is the case here in Illinois).

2. She apparently wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

3. Since most cars have transparent windows, the officer probably saw she was not wearing her seatbelt.

Any time you break a law in public, you shouldn't be surprised if a law enforcement officer is there to arrest or ticket you for it. As I mentioned earlier, not wearing your seatbelt in Illinois is a crime with a standard $50 fine. If a state trooper is looking at me as I drive by and sees I'm not wearing a seatbelt, he can pull me over and give me a ticket, because he witnessed me breaking the law. If a cop sees you shoot someone as he happens to glance in your living room window, would that in any way count as an unreasonable search?

Turning wildly back on topic, my thanks to Sigil. I had completely missed the point that being a potential criminal made you guilty in this draft of the law.

 

[Emiricol]

I'm getting off topic here, but...

How does this even relate to the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure?

1. Apparently, it's legally required to wear a seatbelt while in a moving vehicle wherever this woman was (as is the case here in Illinois).

2. She apparently wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

3. Since most cars have transparent windows, the officer probably saw she was not wearing her seatbelt.

Any time you break a law in public, you shouldn't be surprised if a law enforcement officer is there to arrest or ticket you for it. As I mentioned earlier, not wearing your seatbelt in Illinois is a crime with a standard $50 fine. If a state trooper is looking at me as I drive by and sees I'm not wearing a seatbelt, he can pull me over and give me a ticket, because he witnessed me breaking the law. If a cop sees you shoot someone as he happens to glance in your living room window, would that in any way count as an unreasonable search?

Turning wildly back on topic, my thanks to Sigil. I had completely missed the point that being a potential criminal made you guilty in this draft of the law.

First of all, it has nothing to do with the topic. Someone said you couldn't get arrested for speeding. I pointed out that's no longer true.

Second, the woman wasn't given a ticket, she was *arrested*. That is a slightly different matter. Your comment about looking through the window is irrelevant to that.

 

[kenjib]

You are misreading the 8th. 'Excessive' refers to arbitrary, i.e. there being no compelling public interest. Precedence notes that there is a public interest in intellectual property.

Historical precedent has been the act of almost consistently whittling away our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Supreme Court often ignores constitutional rights when it serves what they perceive to be the prurient interests of the State. I understand that this is controversial though, so I won't pursue it any further here.

And you still don't get this; you are punishing someone not based upon someone's actions, but based on what will deter individuals. It is very much unlikely that that individual will get caught on any INDIVIDUAL download; future and past offences don't factor in. This has nothing to do with what others are doing.

You are ignoring causality. Other people will commit the crime, thus in order to deter them you increase the crime on an individual. A = B. B = C. Therefore A = C. You are increasing the crime on an individual because of what other people will do if you don't. It has nothing to do with the crime actually committed. It has everything to do with what others are doing. If others weren't doing it, the deterrent would not be needed.

Anyways, I see your point and I can agree to disagree. There are many ways to interpret the same thing. Very rarely is any one of them objectively correct.

 

[hellbender]

I agree with the y2k as a letdown comment. I had the guns and the bullets to help out with the mayhem. Now, people will bicker endlessly over internet piracy. If sick freaks still trade in child pronography, then piracy can take a back seat until all those perverts are caught. This is not a 'moral' or 'ethical' dilemna, it is all about money and lawyers, and you know what Shakespeare suggested.

hellbender

 

[Umbran]

If sick freaks still trade in child pronography, then piracy can take a back seat until all those perverts are caught.

Sorry, hellbender, but that's not the way the world operates, nor would it be good if it did.

We have two problems, X and Y. X is somehow a worse problem, and so you'd like us to ignore Y until X is completely settled. This simply isn't practical - you cannot let Y run rampant. Murder is worse than theft, so we should not worry about theft while there are still murders taking place? The thieves would simply love that!

While some problems are worse, and should get more attention, that does not mean you can ignore other problems.

 

[totoro]

The case of which you refer was in Texas. A woman was arrested for not wearing a seatbelt. Then, for no other reason than her arrest (in other words, the court assumes there was no other reason), the cop was allowed to search her car. He found a little pot and busted her for it.

No further comment. (It's so hard.)

I'm getting off topic here, but...

How does this even relate to the 4th amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure?

1. Apparently, it's legally required to wear a seatbelt while in a moving vehicle wherever this woman was (as is the case here in Illinois).

2. She apparently wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

3. Since most cars have transparent windows, the officer probably saw she was not wearing her seatbelt.

Any time you break a law in public, you shouldn't be surprised if a law enforcement officer is there to arrest or ticket you for it. As I mentioned earlier, not wearing your seatbelt in Illinois is a crime with a standard $50 fine. If a state trooper is looking at me as I drive by and sees I'm not wearing a seatbelt, he can pull me over and give me a ticket, because he witnessed me breaking the law. If a cop sees you shoot someone as he happens to glance in your living room window, would that in any way count as an unreasonable search?

Turning wildly back on topic, my thanks to Sigil. I had completely missed the point that being a potential criminal made you guilty in this draft of the law.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

While some problems are worse, and should get more attention, that does not mean you can ignore other problems.

It does mean, though, that we should punish the worse problems more, and that we should put more energy in punishing those worse problems.

 

[hellbender]

Sorry, hellbender, but that's not the way the world operates, nor would it be good if it did.

We have two problems, X and Y. X is somehow a worse problem, and so you'd like us to ignore Y until X is completely settled. This simply isn't practical - you cannot let Y run rampant. Murder is worse than theft, so we should not worry about theft while there are still murders taking place? The thieves would simply love that!

While some problems are worse, and should get more attention, that does not mean you can ignore other problems.

Oh, I know it isn't the way things work in most places. There are way too many political implications in the entire argument, anyway. Who owns the internet? Who decides what law is appropriate where? I guess I have just been online too long. The internet used to be a neat place, now it is becoming like the real world. I am not advocating piracy, although it is silly to enforce book copyright when nobody respects image copyright. Why are musicians and writers more important that artists and illustrators? Talk about lawsuits!

hellbender (When I rule the world......)

 

[BOZ]

i just hope it doesn't become a FELONY. i mean, that's just crazy.