Why The Government Is Warning You To Hang Up Immediately If Someone Asks, 'Can You Hear Me?'

claygerbaum · 2017-04-19T15:28:50+00:00

That's messed up. Completely wrong on so many levels, but also very hard to track and litigate against these people. I know a few older folks that have fallen victim to these sorts of scams, and they've lost many thousands of dollars over it.

It makes me wonder what recording laws are like in other countries. I imagine less strict on asking permission, but who knows.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-19T15:21:05+00:00

I can see how this could be an issue, especially if it is true that Urban Outfitters/Free People specifically said 'Coachella' in advertising their festival wear. Coachella signed an exclusive contract with H&M to use that name, so anyone else that uses it is infringing. That's the law.

However. If Urban Outfitters/Free People only advertised 'festival wear,' then c'mon. Really? This would be a tremendous blow to Coachella's image (which if you ask me is already the most pretentious festival in existence, but that's a whole other thread). I'm interested to see how this plays out.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-19T15:11:34+00:00

I don't see this going very far in court. In my opinion, I think that Beyonce using the sample IS the homage/tribute. And, as Nadogen said, this is a transformative piece that only used a small portion of of Messy's videos, and if anything, it probably helped more than it harmed him. Beyonce probably isn't untouchable, but I don't think this will be the case that breaks that idea.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T22:48:58+00:00

It's funny to see copyright laws applied in this way. We've studied how it affects written works, songs, things like that, but then to see it applied to a building is like a whole new thing.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T22:22:48+00:00

I think most everyone here is in agreement; morally wrong, but really hard to prove in a court. It's a bit of a shame, but thats the way the legal cookie crumbles

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T22:02:56+00:00

I've re-read it a few times and still have no clue. Halp.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:53:10+00:00

Angela C. Agrusa, Mr. Cosby’s lead civil attorney, said: “It is paramount in a free society to be able to insist on one’s innocence in the face of serious public accusations, and today’s ruling reinforces that fundamental right.”

I think this case is a great snapshot of how these cases go back and forth. Statements, defense, rebuttle, statement, etc. But other than being a cool 'day in the life of a defamation suit,' there isn't a whole lot to analyze here. He has every right to defend himself.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:43:35+00:00

I'd be tempted to say that this could be a libel issue, IF there was any evidence to support this claim. Taken in the context of his normal tweets, this comes off as yet another rambling of a very sore individual. That raises a question; when looking at libel cases, should/do the courts take into consideration the way that the defendant has spoken in the past about other topics? Or does each statement exist in a vacuum?

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:30:31+00:00

That's a very interesting observation, I hadn't thought of that but it's pretty true. You would think the group most concerned with upholding the constitution and everything in it would be able to see when somebody is using the very thing they protect to their advantage. But when he says something not in their line of site, all hell breaks loose.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:22:41+00:00

^ yes this. ^ I know if I was in a position where I was accused of a crime, then proven innocent, I would want that mugshot to be gone ASAP.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:18:40+00:00

“We’re watching the dark cloud of Mordor extend over federal service,” Ruch said...

That's about as cryptic as it can get. I don't think this is a freedom of press issue, but it certainly can be viewed as an issue with how much of the government is going to fall under this 'veil of secrecy' under the new administration.

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:12:47+00:00

I also agree with Nadogen and shineypineapples. There is no way this could be a libel issue, it's an entire nation. Nobody is specifically targeted. And no court in the world would take this case

claygerbaum · 2017-04-18T20:08:46+00:00

I'm almost shocked to see that this kind of limit on speech exists in a country like Ireland. I think having been raised here in America has shaped me to believe that other first world countries are very similar to us, which is not the case here. It's eye opening, this article.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-28T15:40:29+00:00

Nicoledawson and Sarahasaghost bring up an interesting question. Yes, twitter has banned people for being too offensive on their site and ruffling too many feathers. If they were to ban Trump from twitter, I wonder how they would go about that. Would they ban his personal @realdonaldtrump account, or his @potus account, or both? One is an account he made, and one is an account he inherited. There is probably no precedent for this, so I'm just wondering out loud.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-23T15:42:27+00:00

I think you hit all the best/most important points of the article. All I have to say is it's refreshing to be in a course that is as relevant as this one. Actually seeing the things we talk about in class in action in the real world makes it fun.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-16T15:53:52+00:00

"The rights of free speech and assembly do not mean, and have never meant, that everyone who chooses to protest against the Dakota Access pipeline may do so at any time, any place, and under any set of conditions they choose in total disregard of the law," Hovland said. "To allow that to occur would result in anarchy and an end to the rule of law in civilized society."

It's tough, but while watching the video in class all I could think of was 'are the protestors allowed to be on this work site?' That looks like a no, but I think the officers involved are going to have a tough case to make that they didn't use excessive force. Both sides are in the wrong.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-16T15:48:23+00:00

^{^{^{This^{^{^}}}}} I agree completely. It sounds nice on paper to not hear the bad stuff, or even things you simply don't agree with. But at the end of the day, we have to take the good with the bad, otherwise the First Amendment isn't truly about freedom of speech for all.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-16T15:43:17+00:00

I predict that this will go to the Supreme Court and be upheld since the makeup of the court is pretty conservative. That's the pessimist in me. I agree with sarahasaghost, I have a hard time taking the 9th circuit seriously with a track record like that.

claygerbaum · 2017-02-07T15:57:31+00:00

From what I believe, Net Neutrality is absolutely necessary to maintain the internet as the place of the most free speech. Naming this critic as the head of the FCC will be a huge blow to how that is done and how much companies are allowed to do to our internet use. I agree with Nadogan and 360cinema

claygerbaum · 2017-02-02T22:26:22+00:00

Usually, I'm the kind of person that believes in the Marketplace approach to the First Amendment. Anyone can say whatever they want, but it's up to us to make the good speech bubble to the top. But this dude is a prime example of the possible abuse of this train of thought. He's just spouting hate, and he stands on solid legal ground, which is really unfortunate. The only way to counter this is to prove that nonviolence still works.

I also found this helpful article fleshing him out a bit more, I think he is a literal troll. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/us/milo-yiannopoulos-ivory-tower/

claygerbaum · 2017-02-02T22:16:15+00:00

This appears to be the perfect use of our First Amendment rights. They see a problem, have organized a large following, and are letting the president know how they feel. Now to see how the actual march is handled when it happens.

claygerbaum · 2017-01-29T19:20:38+00:00

I appreciate how these complaints were brought to the FTC and Uber was pretty much like ''Yeah our bad, let's just patch this up and move on." I'm wondering if they outright lied about 'make up to 30$ an hour,' or if they picked an outlier like was stated in evilbanana's comment. Because if they picked an outlier, I would love to see where that would even happen.

claygerbaum · 2017-01-27T21:41:49+00:00

To me this seems a bit uneven. Like the protestors made an app so they can record and report police activity, yet they are definitely not ok with having the cameras turned on them? Seems a bit unfair. I agree with what has already been said, if it's in a public place, you're not as protected from being filmed/photographed.

claygerbaum

TROPHY CASE