Page 1 of 151 1234561151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 3371

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159

    SCOTUS decisions

    ABC v. Aereo - SCOTUS essentially shuts down Aereo, saying that rebroadcasting television stations over the internet is "public performance" and therefore a violation of the content owner's copyright.

    Riley v. California - The police generally may not without a warrant search digital information on the cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested. "Cell phones differ in both a quantitative and qualitative sense from other objects that might be carried on an arrestee's person" that can be searches without a warrant. Big win for digital privacy.

    Hobby Lobby still pending.

  2. #2
    I don't disagree with either of those.

  3. #3
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by bym051d View Post
    I don't disagree with either of those.
    Agreed. Really hoping SCOTUS tells Hobby Lobby to suck it.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    Agreed. Really hoping SCOTUS tells Hobby Lobby to suck it.
    Me too!

  5. #5
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    Agreed. Really hoping SCOTUS tells Hobby Lobby to suck it.
    Hobby Lobby is a very, very dangerous precedent for American life.

  6. #6
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Hobby Lobby is a very, very dangerous precedent for American life.
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Mitchell View Post

    Hobby Lobby still pending.
    Which part of the Supreme Court's unannounced decision do you find most dangerous for American life?

  7. #7
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Which part of the Supreme Court's unannounced decision do you find most dangerous for American life?
    It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

    How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

    What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy.

    Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bym051d View Post
    I don't disagree with either of those.
    I do. The Aero decision was a bad one. Rather than asking for reasonable protections, copyright holders want to retain complete control even after selling content or broadcasting it to the public. As Aero's counsel put it, "the issue in the case was whether consumers who have always had a right to have an antenna and a DVR in their home and make copies of local over-the-air broadcast television, if that right should be infringed at all simply by moving the antenna and DVR to the cloud."

    The broadcasters' strategy was to keep Aero tied up in legal battles even after the broadcasters lost several times in lower level courts. Hate to see this strategy pay off in the end.

  9. #9
    The Riley case should have a relatively large impact on the day-to-day practices of law enforcement I would think. Read a handful of articles about the case and it seems to be a pretty pervasive practice for cops to look at cell phones.

  10. #10
    Sheikh of Smoke
    tsywake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Grassy Knoll, NC
    Posts
    26,180
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    The Riley case should have a relatively large impact on the day-to-day practices of law enforcement I would think. Read a handful of articles about the case and it seems to be a pretty pervasive practice for cops to look at cell phones.
    Many of the State Troopers that we work with would routinely check patient's phones after accidents to see if they were texting or playing a game on the phone at the time of the accident. It was pretty much a common policy, even if unwritten.

  11. #11
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by tsywake View Post
    Many of the State Troopers that we work with would routinely check patient's phones after accidents to see if they were texting or playing a game on the phone at the time of the accident. It was pretty much a common policy, even if unwritten.
    Though I hope that first responders can still check phones for ICE information. Might be hard to do that without seeing texts(etc.) coming in, but that could just be inadmissible in court.

  12. #12
    Sheikh of Smoke
    tsywake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Grassy Knoll, NC
    Posts
    26,180
    Quote Originally Posted by RevDeac06 View Post
    Though I hope that first responders can still check phones for ICE information. Might be hard to do that without seeing texts(etc.) coming in, but that could just be inadmissible in court.
    Most people tend to have smartphones nowadays that are password protected, but often times if the pt is conscious, we will call a family member for them. Luckily, wrecks that involve multiple people in the same vehicle, there is typically someone from the car that can call for us. The worst are when its a single driver and they arent able to communicate with us at all. It ends up with a cop going to the home address to give them the news.

  13. #13
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    It hasn't been decided yet.

  14. #14
    Then how is there a precedent set already?

  15. #15
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Hobby Lobby is a very, very dangerous precedent for American life.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

    How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

    What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy.

    Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    It hasn't been decided yet.
    ....

  16. #16
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Maybe we should hold off on the fear-mongering until we get the actual opinion.

  17. #17
    oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread

  18. #18
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    46,099
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread
    seriously

  19. #19
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    seriously
    Thanks for trying- Blessed be the peacemakers.

    Nothing would make me happier than for you and BDD to succeed. I wish I could still be that much of an optimist.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    oh jesus christ. it's really clear he meant Hobby Lobby's side would set a bad precedent. God damn some of y'all are way too obsessed with poking RJ to the point that he will ruin a thread
    Correct

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •