| General > General Technical Chat |
| Man fined for criticizing govt using science, without a license |
| << < (60/63) > >> |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: metrologist on March 02, 2020, 11:57:13 pm ---Ultimate vindication. https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-with-new-traffic-light-timing-formula/ --- End quote --- Like a BOSS! :-+ |
| DrG:
--- Quote from: MarkS on April 26, 2017, 09:40:06 am --- --- Quote from: RGB255_0_0 on April 26, 2017, 09:30:25 am ---I'd bet good money on if you called yourself a policeman or military personnel of standing you'd be breaking more serious laws than that of a civil fine. --- End quote --- I can call myself a police officer or even a four star general. It's only once I try to take actions as such that laws come into effect. The Supreme Court recently overturned a law that penalized someone for claiming to be a veteran. You are free to claim to be active duty or retired military, regardless if it is true or not, so long as you do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits (monetary, access to facilities, charity, etc.). It is only after the speech turns to actions that the free speech protections provided by the Constitution cease. --- End quote --- I think that you are probably referring to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2005 and you are absolutely right that the SCOTUS found it to be unconstitutional in 2012. It is an interesting story I think because it illustrates the evolution of the right idea ( prevent people from falsely claiming to have earned the medal in an attempt to protect the valor of legitimate recipients) to conform to accepted principles (freedom of speech). In response, two things happened that were worthy of note. 1) A publicly accessible registry of award recipients was instituted https://valor.defense.gov/ although it is currently somewhat limited. 2) The Stolen Valor Act of 2013 was passed into law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Valor_Act_of_2013. That law, which is in effect today, addressed the intent (i.e., "do not use this as a ruse to collect benefits", as you have said) without the infringement on Freedom of Speech. If I recall from my reading (just now) one of the Justices said basically (re:2005 act) - what's next, imprisonment for lying about your age? (well, it was said with a bit more gravitas :) ) I am filling in some of the details (not even mentioning the lower court decisions) because I think the process (come out with it - test it - revise it or dump it and figure out another way) is relevant to the original topic. Hopefully, the evolution will be a little quicker. |
| james_s:
If the camera takes a picture when triggered and a police officer later reviews the pictures and makes the accusation, does that not enable one to face their accuser? I don't understand why the officer would have to physically see the offense with his or her own eyes, video and photographic evidence is admissible in many other circumstances. I think if each photo were reviewed by an officer that would break the loop of autonomous machine issuing tickets without accounting for nuances in the situation that a human police officer would. |
| rsjsouza:
It is usually a not so popular opinion but I have no quarrel about cameras. This is mostly due to the fact that, in my hometown, traffic accidents killed and maimed a lot of people. It is a result of very weak enforcement, very low traffic (outside of the short rush hour) and very wide streets and avenues with good pavement. The introduction of speed and traffic light cameras in the 1990s brought the accidents to fraction of what it once was - they still have the cameras to this day, despite the constant arguments and lawsuits from the general population. If done properly, they can be a good thing. |
| james_s:
But is the camera accusing anyone of the system relies on a human police officer to review the photos? The camera in that case is a passive observer. I'm not against the concept of red light cameras however I am against the way they are frequently implemented not to improve safety but as a source of revenue. I'm some areas rear end collisions increased sharply as people slam on their brakes to avoid a trigger happy camera that is automated to the point that it's difficult and risky to fight the ticket. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |