tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post719866510207587926..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Nesson 'unaware' of Mass. anti-taping law; calls statute 'gobbledygook' and 'outrageously unconstitutional'Ben Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-36927079340019613682009-11-12T08:23:04.564-08:002009-11-12T08:23:04.564-08:00ok get a grip. We cannot even record 911 calls in...ok get a grip. We cannot even record 911 calls in MA without waying "this line is being recorded'. If the EMT is in the Ambulance working on a paitent and calling a designated line from the ambulance to the ER they still have to hear 'this line is being recorded'. That's been MA law for a long time. If we are not overriding it to save seconds that could save lives, I doubt we'd overide it for anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-28598653052830229242009-07-09T17:30:52.102-07:002009-07-09T17:30:52.102-07:00The case against Nesson's client might be civi...The case against Nesson's client might be civil, but a putative case against Nesson himself for violating the MGL would be a criminal one. As I read the MGL, it might however lead to civil damages against Nesson ... except that as the law is written he might escape its ambit altogether, for a variety of reasons.Terry Colenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-30690279732556639702009-07-09T11:59:39.422-07:002009-07-09T11:59:39.422-07:00I think that Nesson has done is just brilliant. Ba...I think that Nesson has done is just brilliant. Basically his behaviour allows him to appear to the uneducated masses on the net as a victim of persecution by "the man" while simuiltaneously deflecting attention from the vacuity of his substantive arguments in the main case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-3870621995321088662009-07-07T10:16:55.835-07:002009-07-07T10:16:55.835-07:00Bartnicki v Vopper. The only difference is that M...Bartnicki v Vopper. The only difference is that MA appears to be a 2-party consent law, rather than the 1-party required under federal law. Perhaps that makes a 1A difference; haven't thought it through. However, if it doesn't make a difference, counsel has 'splainin to do. I'd be willing to bet, though, that it's going to be hard to find two (or five) federal judges to hold that the 1A requires every individual to be taped either unknowingly or knowingly but without their consent.<br /><br />I have to say I'm not seeing the 6A position. The confrontation clause is criminal, not civil. It states: in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him.<br /><br />Nesson may think this is a criminal prosecution. I may think pigs can fly, but that don't make it so...rumpolenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-74275095354502671632009-07-07T09:17:00.397-07:002009-07-07T09:17:00.397-07:00Ben, my initial is S, so I'm not sure that'...Ben, my initial is S, so I'm not sure that'd help. I'll make it a point to sign my posts. I don't know how to make my full name appear in the header.<br /><br />In any case, anonymous, I wasn't suggesting that Nesson is right. His position is clearly out there, but if you look back to his comments on the internet broadcast of the trial he's made several claims that were based on his clients right to a public trial.<br /><br />I think there is a reasonable argument that the sixth amendment should apply though. While this is a "civil" case, that may well be an end run around a whole bunch of rules by the Congress. As a practical matter this isn't a civil dispute over rights, it's a contention of theft by copyright infringement. If you steal my car, I don't sue you to get you punished. But in the intellectual property arena that is how it works.<br /><br />I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor a historian so I don't know the answer to this, but I find it hard to believe that it was actually by intent that in a civil suit you can be constitutionally denied a quick trial, a public trial, not be informed as to the nature of the charge, not be able to compel witnesses, nor be able to engage legal counsel. I suspect that rather, they didn't anticipate the pseudo-civil criminal proceedings of our day.<br /><br />--Ben SauerBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347088817900263283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-16348233291291787872009-07-06T21:16:07.171-07:002009-07-06T21:16:07.171-07:00Just to be clear: the "Ben" of 2:15 and ...Just to be clear: the "Ben" of 2:15 and 3:49 is NOT Ben Sheffner, the author of this blog. In fact, if "Ben" comments again (which he is welcome to do), I'd appreciate if he could add an initial to avoid confusion. Thanks.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-75034627323556729322009-07-06T21:12:29.288-07:002009-07-06T21:12:29.288-07:00Ben 2:15 -
I absolutely HAVE to hear this: How ...Ben 2:15 - <br /><br />I absolutely HAVE to hear this: How do you assume the 6th Amendment (which only applies in criminal cases) renders this local stature prohibiting recording unconstitutional?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-36335093770418902802009-07-06T15:49:08.764-07:002009-07-06T15:49:08.764-07:00On re-reading that comment, I wanted to clarify th...On re-reading that comment, I wanted to clarify that I don't mean to suggest a true analogy in that I'm not suggesting that Judge Gertner is corrupt. She has in every way that an unqualified man such as I can tell seemed incredibly patient and professional.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347088817900263283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-17560027898292107362009-07-06T14:15:30.796-07:002009-07-06T14:15:30.796-07:00He's almost certainly arguing 6th amendment un...He's almost certainly arguing 6th amendment unconsitutionality of the statute. The machinery of the status quo seems intent on grinding him down. Whether rightly so or not is a question you've completely avoided answering by focusing in on accepted norms. It probably is rightly so, but it'd make an interesting discussion. Sort of like the coach who intentionally commits a technical foul because of the corrupt way a basketball game is being called, it's not exactly a clear moral question.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347088817900263283noreply@blogger.com