|::| Tuesday, April 16, 2002
- |::| 4:44:57 PM
-
"A dictionary is just another kind of aggregator, and all aggregations have trouble keeping up with Google." -- Dave Winer
Funny -- I thought there was a little bit more to a dictionary than mere aggregation.
Arguing that a dictionary is "just another kind of aggregator" is a little bit like saying that saying that high Google page ranks are an inherent indicator of value. Which is kind of like saying that saying something often enough will make it true.
- |::| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 1:52:02 PM
-
By a 6:3 vote: It's not a crime to create images that depict people who look like children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.
The vote count isn't explicit from the early (Reuters) stories, but here's what it looks like:
- Assenting:
- Kennedy (opinion), Thomas (opinion!), Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer
- Dissenting:
- Rehnquist (opinion), Scalia, O'Connor
Hardly a surprising lineup, except for the defection of Thomas. Even more surprising, he actually has the beginning of a point, though he proceeds to draw inappropriate conclusions from it:
In my view,the Government’s most persuasive asserted interest in support of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA),18 U.S.C.§2251 et seq.,is the prose- cution rationale - that persons who possess and dissemi- nate pornographic images of real children may escape conviction by claiming that the images are computer- generated,thereby raising a reasonable doubt as to their guilt. See Brief for Petitioners 37. At this time,however, the Government asserts only that defendants raise such defenses,not that they have done so successfully. In fact, the Government points to no case in which a defendant has been acquitted based on a "computer-generated im- ages" defense.. See id., at 37-38, and n.8. While this speculative interest cannot support the broad reach of the CPPA, technology may evolve to the point where it becomes impossible to enforce actual child pornography laws because the Government cannot prove that certain pornographic images are of real children. In the event this occurs, the Government should not be foreclosed from enacting a regulation of virtual child pornography that contains an appropriate affirmative defense or some other narrowly drawn restriction.
While I think it's perceptive of him to recognize this possibility, I disagree with his conclusion. If (i.e., when) technology reaches the level he suggests, and if no smoking gun (negatives, victim-testimony, etc.), then I think it's perfectly appropriate to let the mofo off.
Put another way: What Thomas describes here is, precisely, a case where there's not enough evidence to convict. Where the justice system does its job. What took away the evidence is technology, not criminals; it's no use taking that out on people who had nothing to do with its creation.
But it's nice to see he at least started to think for himself.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition [pdf]
Yahoo: Supreme Court News
- |::| 8:16:26 AM
-
And no, I'm not afraid every time that I go to Safeway that someone will blow herself up next to me. But I'm also not afraid that an attack helicopter will rocket my neighborhood.
And if one did, as a white, middle-class American, I can have some confidence that somebody in Washington or Albany would do something about it.
Side question: Why have pro-Israeli American Jews suddenly started referring to suicide bombers using the feminine pronoun?
- |::| 8:06:16 AM
-
Headline for the morning: "Powell Sees Progress, Israeli Army Tightens Grip."
