Steve Jobs...Godfather to the Internet?

[Limey]

To save it being lost in another thread, I thought I'd pull out this nugget from the coverage of Jobs today, regarding his collaboration with Stephen Wolfram:

Jobs and Wolfram continued their relationship, with Mathematica eventually being included with every NeXT computer, several of which made their way to Switzerland where Tim Berners-Lee used them to develop and launch the World Wide Web.

[Mr. Happy]

To save it being lost in another thread, I thought I'd pull out this nugget from the coverage of Jobs today, regarding his collaboration with Stephen Wolfram:

Wait, I thought that was Al Gore...

[Noe]

Wait, I thought that was Al Gore...

No, Al Gore invented Global Warming!

[Mr. Happy]

No, Al Gore invented Global Warming!

He claimed to have something to do with the invention of the internet and that he and his erstwhile spouse were the subjects of some book. Both specious claims in my view.

[Noe]

He claimed to have something to do with the invention of the internet and that he and his erstwhile spouse were the subjects of some book. Both specious claims in my view.

Don't make me put a smiley on my replies Mr. Happy.  You won't like me with smileys on my replies.

[Limey]

He claimed to have something to do with the invention of the internet and that he and his erstwhile spouse were the subjects of some book. Both specious claims in my view.

Al Gore co-sponsored the legislation that allowed the internet, as we know it, to come into being in the US.  He never claimed to have invented it.

[EasTexAstro]

Al Gore co-sponsored the legislation that allowed the internet, as we know it, to come into being in the US.  He never claimed to have invented it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=BnFJ8cHAlco#t=49s


Easy to misunderstand.

[Mr. Happy]

Al Gore co-sponsored the legislation that allowed the internet, as we know it, to come into being in the US.  He never claimed to have invented it.

"I took the initiative in creating the internet."  Al Gore

[Ty in Tampa]

"I took the initiative in creating the internet."  Al Gore

That's all you need to know. Thus, Al Gore invented the internet.

[Bench]

"I took the initiative in creating the internet."  Al Gore

"I took a time when somebody misspoke in the middle of an interview and continued to beat a dead horse and a tired joke for decades."  Mr. Happy.

[geezerdonk]

What's Al go these days - about three and a half bills?

[Guinness]

"I took the initiative in creating the internet."  Al Gore

 "Vint Cerf (often referred to as the "father of the Internet") notes "that as a Senator and now as Vice President, Gore has made it a point to be as well-informed as possible on technology and issues that surround it," although many of the components of today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in  1977.
It is true, though, that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf."


http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

[Lurch]

What's Al go these days - about three and a half bills?

He's just banking carbon credits

[subnuclear]

NeXT machines were pretty cool at the time and I was happy when Apple used the OS as the basis for OS X. Pretty sure Lee could have done his work on a Sun, though.

[Mr. Happy]

"I took a time when somebody misspoke in the middle of an interview and continued to beat a dead horse and a tired joke for decades."  Mr. Happy.

I'm trying hard to take some of the heat off of Rebel Jew and Noe.

[Guinness]

NeXT machines were pretty cool at the time and I was happy when Apple used the OS as the basis for OS X. Pretty sure Lee could have done his work on a Sun, though.

A Sun vs Apple argument would be pretty esoteric. 

[Noe]

I'm trying hard to take some of the heat off of Rebel Jew and Noe.

Really?  I have heat on me? Ahhhhhhhhhhh.....

[subnuclear]

A Sun vs Apple argument would be pretty esoteric. 

I was programming on a VAX in 1991, so let's throw that in there.

[EasTexAstro]

I was programming on a VAX in 1991, so let's throw that in there.

I was chatting with coworkers in Germany in 1988. I'm not sure how that fits in the timeline.

[Limey]

BTW, those assholes from the Westboro Baptist Church are going to picket Jobs' funeral.  Margie Phelps tweeted thusly from her iPhone:

Westboro will picket his funeral. He had a huge platform; gave God no glory & taught sin.

Upon being accused of hypocrisy for using an Apple product to broadcast her message, she responded:

Rebels mad cuz I used iPhone to tell you Steve Jobs is in hell. God created iPhone for that purpose!

People like this give freedom of speech a bad name.

[Noe]

People like this give freedom of speech a bad name.

So they picket Steven Jobs and Rick Perry and anyone else for that matter.  Pretty serious picketing addiction it seems.

[Ty in Tampa]

People like this give freedom of speech the human race a bad name.

[Ebby Calvin]

BTW, those assholes from the Westboro Baptist Church are going to picket Jobs' funeral.  Margie Phelps tweeted thusly from her iPhone:

Upon being accused of hypocrisy for using an Apple product to broadcast her message, she responded:


People like this give freedom of speech a bad name.

This is someone whose website URL is godhatesfags.com

[Limey]

So they picket Steven Jobs and Rick Perry and anyone else for that matter.  Pretty serious picketing addition it seems.

They're picketing Steve Jobs' funeral.  They picket soldiers' funerals.

Picketing Rick Perry (or Obama or anyone else alive) is reasonable in context, and that person can talk back.  Their picketing of funerals of people unrelated to their cause may be protected by the Constitution, but so is my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

[Bench]

They're picketing Steve Jobs' funeral.  They picket soldiers' funerals.

Picketing Rick Perry (or Obama or anyone else alive) is reasonable in context, and that person can talk back.  Their picketing of funerals of people unrelated to their cause may be protected by the Constitution, but so is my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

I find their honesty refreshing.


Oh shiiiiiittttttttttt.

[Ebby Calvin]

my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

People like this give heartless, attention-seeking cunts a bad name.

[BizidyDizidy]

I find their honesty refreshing.


Oh shiiiiiittttttttttt.

Well done.

[Noe]

I find their honesty refreshing.


Oh shiiiiiittttttttttt.

Watch it, in here it means you *agree* with them!

[Noe]

They're picketing Steve Jobs' funeral.  They picket soldiers' funerals.

Picketing Rick Perry (or Obama or anyone else alive) is reasonable in context, and that person can talk back.  Their picketing of funerals of people unrelated to their cause may be protected by the Constitution, but so is my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

They say the same thing either way and in either situation.  In any case, they don't discriminate much (which was my point), they just want a platform in which to espouse their warp sense of decency.  If I were in a jury box and a man was being tried for beating the crap out of one of them during a picketing.... knowing what I know about Westboro.... I wouldn't be so fine as to ask if it were a funeral or not.

INNOCENT!  Let the man walk!

[BizidyDizidy]

They say the same thing either way and in either situation.  In any case, they don't discriminate much (which was my point), they just want a platform in which to espouse their warp sense of decency.  If I were in a jury box and a man was being tried for beating the crap out of one of them during a picketing.... knowing what I know about Westboro.... I wouldn't be so fine as to ask if it were a funeral or not.

INNOCENT!  Let the man walk!

And then I would picket the funeral.

[Noe]

And then I would picket the funeral.

GodHatesYou!

[Limey]

They say the same thing either way and in either situation.  In any case, they don't discriminate much (which was my point), they just want a platform in which to espouse their warp sense of decency.  If I were in a jury box and a man was being tried for beating the crap out of one of them during a picketing.... knowing what I know about Westboro.... I wouldn't be so fine as to ask if it were a funeral or not.

INNOCENT!  Let the man walk!

Agreed!

[OregonStrosFan]

They're picketing Steve Jobs' funeral.  They picket soldiers' funerals.

Picketing Rick Perry (or Obama or anyone else alive) is reasonable in context, and that person can talk back.  Their picketing of funerals of people unrelated to their cause may be protected by the Constitution, but so is my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

Every time I read about these "heartless, attention-seeking cunts" (a description which I am in complete agreement with btw), I wonder what could possibly be done to stop them.  The first thought that pops up is having them all beaten to bloody pulps, but that would ultimately end poorly (as in they'd get more even more attention, which is the last thing they need. As for the beatings themselves, as a matter of principal, I'd have no issue with them in this instance). 

So really, what's left?  All I could think is that you find a way to cut off their money supply.  How do you do that though?  Set the tables for an IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) civil claim or something?  After all, it'd surely (and appropriately, and deservedly so) be there for the pickings. 

I dunno, just that these "heartless, attention-seeking cunts" piss me the heck off, and I sometimes wonder about how they could appropriately be shut the hell up... 

Random enough post for y'all? 

[EasTexAstro]

First link I could find, but you may enjoy it:

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.
Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.
Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.
A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.

[JimR]

They're picketing Steve Jobs' funeral.  They picket soldiers' funerals.

Picketing Rick Perry (or Obama or anyone else alive) is reasonable in context, and that person can talk back.  Their picketing of funerals of people unrelated to their cause may be protected by the Constitution, but so is my right to say that I believe them to be heartless, attention-seeking cunts.

the first amendment does not have a "reasonable in context" criterion, unfortunately. the KKK has the same right you do.

[OregonStrosFan]

First link I could find, but you may enjoy it:

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

Not sure whether you were responding to my post or not, but appreciate the link nevertheless... 

[Ty in Tampa]

Every time I read about these "heartless, attention-seeking cunts" (a description which I am in complete agreement with btw), I wonder what could possibly be done to stop them.  The first thought that pops up is having them all beaten to bloody pulps, but that would ultimately end poorly (as in they'd get more even more attention, which is the last thing they need. As for the beatings themselves, as a matter of principal, I'd have no issue with them in this instance). 

So really, what's left?  All I could think is that you find a way to cut off their money supply.  How do you do that though?  Set the tables for an IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) civil claim or something?  After all, it'd surely (and appropriately, and deservedly so) be there for the pickings. 

I dunno, just that these "heartless, attention-seeking cunts" piss me the heck off, and I sometimes wonder about how they could appropriately be shut the hell up... 

Random enough post for y'all? 

Take away their ability to get attention. If people wouldn't report, post, tweet about their doings, they'd have no recourse. That's about all that can be done. Except of course, beating them all to shitty pulps.

[BizidyDizidy]

First link I could find, but you may enjoy it:

http://thehayride.com/2011/04/westboro-baptist-church-goes-to-mississippi-and-loses/

As much as I support that in practice, could imagine reading the exact same thing being done to an equal rights protest, or similar.

[Limey]

the first amendment does not have a "reasonable in context" criterion, unfortunately. the KKK has the same right you do.

I do understand (and support) this.  T'is not true in my old country, for example ("hate" speech is outlawed in certain cases - "hate" being defined by the State, which is not cool even if they're not wrong in their current definition).

As an aside, what infuriates me is when people claim to be having their 1st amendment rights violated when someone calls them out for saying something hateful or stupid.  In fact, the opposition voices are exercising their 1st amendment rights, so it's really all about everyone having the freedom of speech...which is great!

I just wish those Westboro assholes would crawl back under the rock from whence they came.

[EasTexAstro]

As much as I support that in practice, could imagine reading the exact same thing being done to an equal rights protest, or similar.

You are absolutely correct.

I will say, reading the full story I had read before (sorry, couldn't find it), it brought a happy tear to my eye. Maybe more than one tear.

[Lurch]

As much as I support that in practice, could imagine reading the exact same thing being done to an equal rights protest, or similar.

This.

They are ugly, despicable people, but there is something to be said that we truly defend our freedoms, even when they are embarrassingly exploited to an extreme.  One day, you may find something you stand for is despised and viewed as disgusting by 99.9% of the population, but you will have the right to your speech, regardless.  That's something to be proud of, not torn down.

[Limey]

As much as I support that in practice, could imagine reading the exact same thing being done to an equal rights protest, or similar.

Occupy Wall Street Arrests; Fox 5 Crew and Protesters Hit by Pepper Spray, Batons

While covering the Occupy Wall Street protests on Wednesday night, Fox 5 photographer Roy Isen was hit in the eyes by  pepper spray from a police officer and Fox 5 reporter Dick Brennan was hit by an officer's baton.

[BizidyDizidy]

This.

They are ugly, despicable people, but there is something to be said that we truly defend our freedoms, even when they are embarrassingly exploited to an extreme.  One day, you may find something you stand for is despised and viewed as disgusting by 99.9% of the population, but you will have the right to your speech, regardless.  That's something to be proud of, not torn down.

It's not like history hasn't given us plenty of examples of this exact thing. Maybe in 100 years, we will all be spitting on soldiers graves.

[JimR]

It's not like history hasn't given us plenty of examples of this exact thing. Maybe in 100 years, we will all be spitting on soldiers graves.

i feel reasonably confident in saying that 166-year old Jim Raup will not.

[OregonStrosFan]

i feel reasonably confident in saying that 166-year old Jim Raup will not.

Don't you mean a 266-year old Jim Raup?!?!?

[Limey]

It's not like history hasn't given us plenty of examples of this exact thing. Maybe in 100 years, we will all be spitting on soldiers graves.

In 100 years, spitting anywhere except into your personal saliva recycler will be punishable by death, and all your water will be taken and redistributed.

[Limey]

Don't you mean a 266-year old Jim Raup?!?!?

*Rimshot*

[Bench]

Set the tables for an IIED (intentional infliction of emotional distress) civil claim or something?  After all, it'd surely (and appropriately, and deservedly so) be there for the pickings.  

Didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this very issue at the end of last term?  It was an IIED claim against Westboro for picketing somebody's funeral and the Court said the First Amendment barred recovery.

[Limey]

Didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this very issue at the end of last term?  It was an IIED claim against Westboro for picketing somebody's funeral and the Court said the First Amendment barred recovery.

If an IIED won't work, an IED might...

[Noe]

the first amendment does not have a "reasonable in context" criterion, unfortunately. the KKK has the same right you do.

Skokie (sp?) Illinois comes to mind.

[EasTexAstro]

In 100 years, spitting anywhere except into your personal saliva recycler will be punishable by death, and all your water will be taken and redistributed.

You will only get my saliva when you pry it from my cold, dead spit cup....

[OregonStrosFan]

In 100 years, spitting anywhere except into your personal saliva recycler will be punishable by death, and all your water will be taken and distributed.

In 100 years? If this idea gets any traction, it'll be on the next ballot in Oregon. And though defeated throughout much of the state, it'd be widely supported in Portland and Euguene, and thus be easily passed into law...  In other words, shut the heck up...

[Noe]

Except of course, beating them all to shitty pulps.

Your honor sir, we the jury find Ty in Tampa innocent of all charges and would like to buy him a beer... sir.

[OregonStrosFan]

Didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this very issue at the end of last term?  It was an IIED claim against Westboro for picketing somebody's funeral and the Court said the First Amendment barred recovery.

Damn.  I'd look it up and read it, but'd be too disheartened to see that it was true.

[Bench]

Damn.  I'd look it up and read it, but'd be too disheartened to see that it was true.

It was an 8-1 decision.

Writing the majority opinion that the church's speech is protected, Chief Justice John Roberts said the case "turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern."

Because most of the church's protesters hold up signs that address the state of the country as a whole, Roberts wrote, "The 'content' of Westboro's signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of 'purely private concern.'"

Roberts also noted that the church had kept its protesters on public land near the site of Snyder's funeral.

[Noe]

Damn.  I'd look it up and read it, but'd be too disheartened to see that it was true.

It is. Sued by the father of a soldier who was being buried the day those... ahum... picketters came out.  The ruling was that they did cause harm (emotional) but that they could not ask for monetary compensation for it.  At least that is my memory of it.

[OregonStrosFan]

It was an 8-1 decision.

Writing the majority opinion that the church's speech is protected, Chief Justice John Roberts said the case "turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern."

Because most of the church's protesters hold up signs that address the state of the country as a whole, Roberts wrote, "The 'content' of Westboro's signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of 'purely private concern.'"

Roberts also noted that the church had kept its protesters on public land near the site of Snyder's funeral.

So I guess we're back to option 1 then - beating them all to bloody pulps...  What the heck, it was worth a shot...

[EasTexAstro]

http://www.patriotguard.org/

These guys have the same rights.

I'm glad we have freedom of speech.


ETA: this is what they do: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14893623/supporters-block-protestors-at-local-marines-funeral

[OregonStrosFan]

It is.

Fortunately for me then, I remain blissfully ignorant of the law...  -OregonStrosFan, JD.

[MRaup]

So I guess we're back to option 1 then - beating them all to bloody pulps...  What the heck, it was worth a shot...

My rates are surprisingly reasonable.

[Noe]

http://www.patriotguard.org/

These guys have the same rights.

I'm glad we have freedom of speech.


ETA: this is what they do: http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14893623/supporters-block-protestors-at-local-marines-funeral

I saw those guys do that.  Westboro stands in public property and tries to shout out stuff.... bikers rev the engines loudly and with somewhat toothy grins wave at people passing by.  The stuff Westboro shouts is summarily drowned out by the other freedom of speech expressions.  This, by the way, was not a funeral.  I dunno if the bikers would go to a funeral or not.

[Noe]

My rates are surprisingly reasonable.

If VY were with you, I'd find both of you innocent and take Ty's beer(s) and give them to you!

[EasTexAstro]

I saw those guys do that.  Westboro stands in public property and tries to shout out stuff.... bikers rev the engines loudly and with somewhat toothy grins wave at people passing by.  The stuff Westboro shouts is summarily drowned out by the other freedom of speech expressions.  This, by the way, was not a funeral.  I dunno if the bikers would go to a funeral or not.

They do.

I'm not sure about for Steve Jobs. That is something completely different. Not out of disrespect, just a completely different situation.

[Limey]

I saw those guys do that.  Westboro stands in public property and tries to shout out stuff.... bikers rev the engines loudly and with somewhat toothy grins wave at people passing by.  The stuff Westboro shouts is summarily drowned out by the other freedom of speech expressions.  This, by the way, was not a funeral.  I dunno if the bikers would go to a funeral or not.

ETA's link was about them policing a funeral.

[Bench]

ETA's link was about them policing a funeral.

You seriously expect Noe to start actually reading the links he comments about?

[Noe]

I do understand (and support) this.  T'is not true in my old country, for example ("hate" speech is outlawed in certain cases - "hate" being defined by the State, which is not cool even if they're not wrong in their current definition).

As an aside, what infuriates me is when people claim to be having their 1st amendment rights violated when someone calls them out for saying something hateful or stupid.  In fact, the opposition voices are exercising their 1st amendment rights, so it's really all about everyone having the freedom of speech...which is great!

I just wish those Westboro assholes would crawl back under the rock from whence they came.

There is a case in England last year where a couple who owns an Inn were shut down by the Government because of a hate crime.  The case: The couple refused to rent a room to a gay couple visiting the area.  It was against their moral views and the Government pounced on them using the "hate crime/speech" rules.  This left the couple devastated and they soon were out of business.  Read the story in World Magazine last year and did not know that the British Government had such powers before.  I do now.

[Bench]

There is a case in England last year where a couple who owns an Inn were shut down by the Government because of a hate crime.  The case: The couple refused to rent a room to a gay couple visiting the area.  It was against their moral views and the Government pounced on them using the "hate crime/speech" rules.  This left the couple devastated and they soon were out of business.  Read the story in World Magazine last year and did not know that the British Government had such powers before.  I do now.

The Bill of Rights is a wonderful thing (so is the rest of the Constitution, with the exception of that whole 3/5 thing and the 18th amendment, but, fixed!)

[Guinness]

So really, what's left?  All I could think is that you find a way to cut off their money supply.  How do you do that though? 

I didn't finish reading this thread beyond this (yet), but I can tell you how you cut off the supply:  take away the tax exemption for churches.

[Noe]

You seriously expect Noe to start actually reading the links he comments about?

Well, I should do better at posting and running.  I meant just the bikers.  ETA link was about bikers and others counter protesting.  I just saw bikers rev'ing engines and thus I was sparred the vitrol from the Westboro bunch and of course almost caught a good picture of "Tiny" on his bike grinning from ear to ear.

[BizidyDizidy]

There is a case in England last year where a couple who owns an Inn were shut down by the Government because of a hate crime.  The case: The couple refused to rent a room to a gay couple visiting the area.  It was against their moral views and the Government pounced on them using the "hate crime/speech" rules.  This left the couple devastated and they soon were out of business.  Read the story in World Magazine last year and did not know that the British Government had such powers before.  I do now.

Government would do the same thing in the US if they refused service to a black couple? Whether it's the same or not is certainly not a settled issue.

[Noe]

I didn't finish reading this thread beyond this (yet), but I can tell you how you cut off the supply:  take away the tax exemption for churches.

Why would protesting be considered "for profit"?

[Bench]

Government would do the same thing in the US if they refused service to a black couple? Whether it's the same or not is certainly not a settled issue.

It is in my mind.

[Guinness]

Why would protesting be considered "for profit"?

It's political speech, no matter how the dress it.

[BizidyDizidy]

It is in my mind.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class for housing in the US are they? If not, definitely not "settled" regardless of what you or I may believe. Just pointing out that Noe's story isn't that different from USA.

[Noe]

Government would do the same thing in the US if they refused service to a black couple? Whether it's the same or not is certainly not a settled issue.

Civil Rights Act.  The British application was not Civil Rights, it was Hate Crime.  And there is application for Hate Crimes in the USA, but the Civil Rights Act signed by Lyndon Johnson is much more stronger and fairly applied in discriminatory actions against race, color, and ethnicity.  The application can work for not renting to an Irish couple as easily (which was a common practice in the Northern territories in the USA).  What caught my eye was the application of hate crime as the foundation for the government to act on a couple who were holding firm to their convictions.

[Noe]

It's political speech, no matter how the dress it.

You lost me.  I thought you wanted to remove their (and every church's) non-profit status and make them pay taxes. How are their actions "for profit" actions like McDonald's selling hamburgers?

[Noe]

Homosexuals aren't a protected class for housing in the US are they? If not, definitely not "settled" regardless of what you or I may believe. Just pointing out that Noe's story isn't that different from USA.

I have not heard of "hate crime" being used as the foundation for discrimination lawsuits (only criminal convictions).  Limey brought up the broad use of hate speech in England to stop such behavior from citizens who wish to act out their convictions.

[BizidyDizidy]

I have not heard of "hate crime" being used as the foundation for discrimination.  Limey brought up the broad use of hate speech in England to stop such behavior from citizens who wish to act out their convictions.

I agree that the mechanism is slightly different, but the result is about the same. If you have strong convictions that black people are subhuman and so won't rent your apartment to them, the US government won't protect that as "speech".

[Noe]

I agree that the mechanism is slightly different, but the result is about the same. If you have strong convictions that black people are subhuman and so won't rent your apartment to them, the US government won't protect that as "speech".

Yes because the Civil Rights Act is there to protect (or trump) "speech" claims by anyone when it comes to discriminatory practices.  But say you had a business and you decide to hire well qualified candidates for jobs you needed performed.  Would the Government decide that you are practicing "hate crime" or "speech" because the candidates turned out to be all male (for instance)?  I can see other types of applications in the rules in our country but "hate"?  I dunno about that.  But in England they can use it as a far reaching arm of the law to protect citizens who decide they are being discriminated against.  So what if I decided Westboro was discriminatory against me with hate speech because I am Hispanic.  Would it fly under the civil rights act? I don't think so, but in England it may stand a much better chance due to the application of the law (as I understand it).

[EasTexAstro]

I agree that the mechanism is slightly different, but the result is about the same. If you have strong convictions that black people are subhuman and so won't rent your apartment to them, the US government won't protect that as "speech".

This is a tough call for someone like me. I would sell to/rent to/service anyone who would pay me more than what it costs me to provide that service, etc. If the person down the road is unwilling to do that, it means more of a profit to me /capitalist explanation.

I would hate to tell someone that they must change their opinions and policies because I believe differently then they do. /libertarian explanation.

I would still hate people for their prejudices. /ETA rant

If tax dollars are being spent, there should be total restrictions on discrimination. If there is a private business that wants to limit their clients, I think they will end up hurting themselves. If I think they should be restricted according to my beliefs, then I allow that I should be restricted according to their beliefs.

[EasTexAstro]

and, BTW....


RIP, Steve Jobs. Thank you for Pixar. You were a great person.

[Limey]

There is a case in England last year where a couple who owns an Inn were shut down by the Government because of a hate crime.  The case: The couple refused to rent a room to a gay couple visiting the area.  It was against their moral views and the Government pounced on them using the "hate crime/speech" rules.  This left the couple devastated and they soon were out of business.  Read the story in World Magazine last year and did not know that the British Government had such powers before.  I do now.

It's the difference between having a written constitution (the US version of which I believe is a singular work of spectacular genius), and a set of laws derived entirely from common law and government legislation.  Parliament could outlaw sneezing if they wanted to, and the only way to overturn it would be to change the make up of Parliament enough at the next election such there were enough votes to repeal.

[HudsonHawk]

It's the difference between having a written constitution (the US version of which I believe is a singular work of spectacular genius), and a set of laws derived entirely from common law and government legislation.  Parliament could outlaw sneezing if they wanted to, and the only way to overturn it would be to change the make up of Parliament enough at the next election such there were enough votes to repeal.

So is there no equivalent of the Supreme Court in Limeyland that rules on the legitimacy of the laws enacted by Parliament? 

[Limey]

So is there no equivalent of the Supreme Court in Limeyland that rules on the legitimacy of the laws enacted by Parliament? 

Correct.  There is no overriding constitution, so there is no other law with which an act of Parliament has to comply.

[Bench]

Correct.  There is no overriding constitution, so there is no other law with which an act of Parliament has to comply.

Well, there is a Supreme Court.  Just limited judicial review of Parliament.

[HudsonHawk]

Correct.  There is no overriding constitution, so there is no other law with which an act of Parliament has to comply.

Can individuals challenge the validity of acts of Paliament?  For example, can someone appeal to a higher court arguing that a particular act violates common law or another law?

[Limey]

Can individuals challenge the validity of acts of Paliament?  For example, can someone appeal to a higher court arguing that a particular act violates common law or another law?

I don't think so (but my expertise on English law is rudimentary at best and mostly related to pub licensing hours).  From what I remember, law is made by common law - judges ruling on cases before them and thus creating legal precedent (which can be appealed up a Supreme Court whose decisions backfill precedent for all lower courts) - and by Acts of Parliament.  The latter can be used to overturn the former, so an Act of Parliament can drive a bus through a common law decision with no avenue of challenge other than through the ballot box at the next election.

From Wikipedia:

The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them. A decision of the highest appeal court in England and Wales, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, is binding on every other court in the hierarchy, and they will follow its directions. For example, there is no statute making murder illegal.[citation needed] It is a common law crime - so although there is no written Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today, but had previously allowed the death penalty.

The above is complicated by the existence of the European Union, who can, in certain circumstances, overrule an Act of Parliament if it violates the written European Constitution.

[HudsonHawk]

I don't think so (but my expertise on English law is rudimentary at best and mostly related to pub licensing hours).  From what I remember, law is made by common law - judges ruling on cases before them and thus creating legal precedent (which can be appealed up a Supreme Court whose decisions backfill precedent for all lower courts) - and by Acts of Parliament.  The latter can be used to overturn the former, so an Act of Parliament can drive a bus through a common law decision with no avenue of challenge other than through the ballot box at the next election.

So essentially there is no inherent "checks and balances" between the legislature and the courts.  That sorta sucks.

[Limey]

So essentially there is no inherent "checks and balances" between the legislature and the courts.  That sorta sucks.

It's the difference between a system that evolved over time and one that a few blokes sat down and drafted.  Not sure that is "sucks" per se, it's just different.

[Shhhh.  Nobody mention that the Queen, in theory, has total veto power over Parliament as well as the power to dissolve it.  Eh?  Oh.]

[HudsonHawk]

It's the difference between a system that evolved over time and one that a few blokes sat down and drafted.  Not sure that is "sucks" per se, it's just different.

It's different in that your system sucks balls and ours doesn't?

[Limey]

It's different in that your system sucks balls and ours doesn't?

Your system doesn't exist without my system, in the same way that Windows doesn't exist with Apple*.


* And Apple doesn't exist without Xerox.