Judge uses 1st Amendment on Pokemon Go park ban. It's super effective! Milwaukee County's rules to keep its parks from being overrun by augmented reality gamers have been suspended by a judge over concerns that they violate the First Amendment. US District Court Judge JP Stadtmueller on Thursday granted plaintiff Candy Labs' request for a preliminary injunction, preventing the rules from being …
In general, a flash mob gathering also would be protected by the first amendment. Some, or even all, of the participants might act in ways that violate the law or local ordinances, but that is an entirely different matter. The mob gathering place might have an effect, too: those in a flash mob that collected in the middle of a busy street or highway might well be arrested, perhaps for jaywalking or blocking the flow of traffic. (A content-neutral prohibition of that probably would pass a reasonable first-amendment examination).
Consider a band that wants to hold a concert at that park. They would need a permit, which obligates them in certain ways to the city. Such permits are pretty universal and for good reasons.
But now, a company far away can easily appropriate that park for their own uses with no permit at all. The result might be a very large crowd (just like with the concert) making heavy use of the park, interfering with local's use of said park, and if something bad happens, no liability for the 'organizers.'
In an ideal world, Pokemon Go would not be a problem, nor would concerts. But that's not how it really is. Large crowds of like-minded people suddenly appearing at the local park are at the very least quite intimidating, and potentially scary too if that crowd's mood turns ugly for any reason. This is why some are viewing the phenomenon as a threat. At least with permits there is some oversight.
back in the 60's the Ventures used to sit out on a beach [one with somewhat limited access, but still publically accessible] and practice with acoustic instruments (including bongo drums). I was 5 or 6 years old at the time, and we'd sit somewhat nearby on the beach. Then one day they had an actual concert out there, but I expect the concert required a permit.
I doubt they had permits for practicing (with acoustic instruments) on the beach. So maybe the scale of the activity is what is in question. I suspect that random pokemon-go-ers aren't quite the same as a concert or a flash mob.
Perhaps the State should create an AR package that earns the players points for going to Candy Crush (what a dumb arse name) office/bear pit or even better the self serving money grubbing lawyer's office and his residential area, on certain Saturdays and Sundays to ensure a good size flash mob.
"...or even better the self serving money grubbing lawyer's office and his residential area, on certain Saturdays and Sundays..."
Precisely! What maxim number is it, that says "If it can be weaponized it will be."?
Clearly no state can tolerate private companies that are able to direct large masses of trampling zombies ..ahem.. people, towards that company's 'shiza-listers,' no? (that's the goverment's job!)
But gee.. will players let themselves be manipulated like a "zombie fleet," but in the flesh!?
Okay, that does sound pretty cool...
I agree with big John;
Imagine that part of a park is rented for a private gathering such as a wedding...
Then someone in an AR game company plops down a 'Legendary Pokemon' with 'Perfect' fighting stats there...
Even if none of the Zmombies drop a single candywrapper while on their way to their goal, they'll most likely ruin someone's very expensive day.
Many places that are 'open to the public' can be rented for events. In fact, many of them need that extra income to pay for the upkeep. If events gets disturbed by AR gamers, it will 'get known' and less events will be held at those ventures.
There definitely needs to be permits.
Consider a band that wants to hold a concert at that park. They would need a permit
This is nothing like that. If a band want to hold a concert in the park and sell tickets then they want to be able to exclude people from an area of the park, it's obvious that you shouldn't be able to do that without a permit. Even if it's a free concert then you at least want to be able to exclude people from your stage. Also, you're going to be making a lot of noise which is going to affect everyone around you.
There's none of that with Pokemon Go or similar. The only effect you have is that a bunch of people go to the park but that's pretty much the point of public parks.
This looks to me like a case of "Go for the deep pockets". Some guy dropped some litter on your park. You could fine him for it but that requires some work. Maybe he was playing an AR game, or maybe he was using an exercise app which requires a bit of open space. Lets go for those companies because they are rich, even though they had absolutely nothing to do with the litter dropping.
"But now, a company far away can easily appropriate that park for their own uses with no permit at all. The result might be a very large crowd (just like with the concert) making heavy use of the park, interfering with local's use of said park, and if something bad happens, no liability for the 'organizers.'"
That scenario has been around for decades - see the old 90s illegal raves in the UK. Laws were passed in the UK to address that, and I'd expect the USA to have similar laws already in place.
An amendment cannot be entirely repealed. There's no provision for that. Once it's on, it stays on. The 18th was not repealed - it is just countered by a later amendment, the 21st, which states that the 18th is repealed. The 18th is now a vestigial growth on the constitution - a no-longer-active bit of text, legally irrelevant, but stuck there as an eternal reminder that the US tried to ban alcohol and the attempt did not turn out very well.
It's worth noting that when the time came to ban all manner of other recreational drugs, there was no need for an amendment to the constitution, as by that time the supreme court had ruled that such affairs were within the jurisdiction of the federal government under the commerce clause - even if an individual trade was not inter-state, the economic ties of supply and demand mean that all commerce is inter-state commerce, even if indirectly.
... though on the recreartion drugs issue I think the key point in your explanation is that Federal government have jurisdiction over "commerce" with the result that I think the current situation is that states can pass laws to legalize their use but any purchases have, I think, to be done via cash only as banks (which have federal oversight) can't process payments. Hence, I remember a radio item on results of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado from a couple of years ago explained that one of the effects was the large number of armoured vans driving around to move all the cash that was being taken at shiops.
The Constitution and its amendments were intended to define the limits of federal government action (and, with the fourteenth amendment, state and local government action as well). The SJWs who at present (since Citizens United) so hot to rewrite the first amendment need to be extremely careful that any reformulation does not come back to bite them.
Because a few states demanded the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments) to ratify the Constitution. The rest were added to clarify Presidential succession, extend and protect the right to vote, eliminate slavery and protect ex-slaves, and few important but more or less administrative issues (direct election of Senators and income tax).
It's an English idea. Blame William Penn. His Frame of Government for Pennsylvania incorporated a provision for his constitution to be amended as circumstances changed. It was just after the English Civil War and having a way to alter things without executing (e.g.) the king was pretty novel. The Founding Fathers, ~100 years later thought it was a neat idea. The rest is history.
the story of the ammendments...
Back when the U.S. Constitution was created, Jefferson and a few others realized that it limited and defined the scope of government, but it didn't specify what rights the people had that couldn't someday be violated. So they used the 'ammendment' process that they just invented to craft the 'Bill of Rights' which the states then ratified. They knew that gummint would eventually find a way to curb people's basic rights (despite the new Constitution), and wanted to protect them. Otherwise you'd end up with a Vlad Putin type president, and a willing congress, who'd want to go back to 'the way things were' (USSR in his case), and legislate censorship, blanket "fishing expedition" search warrants, and things like that. Obviously they didn't want THAT to happen to the new nation, so ammendment #1 was about freedom of speech, press, and religion. And the 2nd was about self-defense and a citizen militia [seeing the possibility they might have to defend the rest of them at a citizen level]. And at least 2 others were about legal rights for the accused. And so on.
</history>
OK not 'scientific content' just educational
They are not laws, they are changes to the constitution, and, being in effect, articles of the Constitution.
Read it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#United_States
@Destroy All Monsters
They are not laws, they are changes to the constitution, and, being in effect, articles of the Constitution.
They are laws. From Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
So, yes, amendments are changes to the Constitution and become, effectively, articles of the Constitution. And, being articles of the Constitution, they are the supreme law of the land.
They are laws.
Here's an idea, rather than trying to make money out of it, speak to the developers and supply them maps of the park so people don't go trampling where they shouldn't, secondly employ rangers to monitor the park and fine people that drop trash in the park, thirdly get your schools to educate kids about why it's important to respect the environment. (albeit that's a bit difficult with Trumps position on climate change, I can't resist a good dig at the orange one.)
"Here's an idea, rather than trying to make money out of it, speak to the developers and supply them maps of the park so people don't go trampling where they shouldn't"
Then they'll just target those areas. They're based out of state. How are they going to get prosecuted?
"secondly employ rangers to monitor the park and fine people that drop trash in the park"
A second app probably alerts those nearby of "bears" approaching ("Ranger's Coming!"), allowing them to wait until he passes.
"thirdly get your schools to educate kids about why it's important to respect the environment."
Kids these days are DEFIANT of authority. School is just another authority, and the parents either aren't present to stymie it or, worse, egg them on because they're just as defiant.
Every problem, indeed, can be solved with "Everything can magically work out with some more tax money" and "Everybody must support degenerate clones of Lysenko".
And if it somehow remains, this only means there's need for more other people's money and more cheerleading for quacks-of-the-season (or both at once: throwing more other people's money at quacks).
"educate kids about why it's important to respect the environment. (albeit that's a bit difficult with Trumps position on climate change ...)"
You had me agreeing with you, up until the 'climate change' part.
WHAT! PART! OF! NOT! THROWING! TRASH! ON! THE! GROUND! IS! IN! ANY! WAY! RELATED! TO! "climate change"???
I prefer "responsible environmentalism". That means you keep your cars tuned up, don't waste water, sweep the gutters once in a while to keep the crap out of the storm drains, dispose of yard waste properly, pick up trash when you see it laying the ground (especially in front of your house), etc. and ESPECIALLY, dispose of your OWN trash in proper receptacles when you're at a public park [including the recycle one for recyclables, if there is one available]. And if some kid misses the trash can and runs off, go ahead and put it in for him if you're close by (or notify his parents).
And how about THIS little factoid: Go to *ANY* left-wing gathering or demonstration, and look at the level of public littering it generates. Then, go to a Tea Party or Trump rally, and see how much THAT generates by comparison. i think you will find that CONSERVATIVES are more likely to pick up their trash and properly dispose of it than your typical LEFT WING or "Environmentalist" type.
The reason is simple: lefties *FEEL* as if it's "someone else's job" to throw the damn trash away! Conservatives, on the other hand, see it as a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (something lefties have trouble with, apparently).
Evidence "all over the place". I've seen MANY comparison photo montages pointing this out. Rush's web site might be a good start. The leftovers from 'occupy wall street' and the 'pussy hat protest' and the 'million man march' are good examples of what it looks like from "the left".
> "Oh and by the way they do exclude areas when asked."
Okay, say they do. What then happens when cities and even whole states start demanding Pokemon Go not use their areas of authority for these games? If that becomes the norm it will pretty much kill the game.
So their promise to exclude is predicated on the assumption that few will avail themselves of this option. Should too many do so (or should it appear likely to happen) then the new games companies will be forced to declare that such blanket exclusion requests will no longer be honoured.
"If that becomes the norm it will pretty much kill the game."
So the fuck what? Where is it written that my state/county/city exists to ensure that an out-of-state company can make a profit AT MY EXPENSE? Let 'em go under if they can't make a profit without including me as an asset ... especially without including me in the profit sharing!
What you, and some local governments, seem to have forgotten is that the people using the parks aren't the game makers, but the LOCAL TAXPAYERS who already pay for the parks upkeep.
The only thing that the game makers did was use public mapping data.
Your argument basically states that GPS manufacturers cannot include your town and the streets therein because you consider it "yours".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
