|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 09:14 AM EST |
Not read the report.
I can see at least one line of logic that would lead to that:
Essentially filesharing convictions are convictions for people talking to each
other. (As sending information over the internet is just a modern, efficient
form of talking.) And there is a rather famous quote about "technology
marches on, if you can't adapt, that's your problem" which seems relevent
yet again.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RichardB on Thursday, February 07 2013 @ 02:00 PM EST |
Rulings from the European Court of Human Rights are often based on the idea of
proportionality. The US system takes, what appears to me at least, a more
Manichaean view: either speech is protected by the First Amendment or it's not.
A couple of recentish examples: the ECHR ruled that keeping DNA samples
indefinitely of everyone arrested was a breach of their rights. It didn't say
that it was necessary to destroy the samples of everyone acquitted at trial, or
not charged. It also ruled that depriving every prisoner of their right to vote
was unreasonable, but depriving some would be OK.
So, one needs to be a little careful about over-interpreting the ruling. Rather
than, "this isn't allowed", ECHR judgements are more, "go back
and think about it a bit more carefully."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|