[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: _DVDCCA v. Bunner_ - free speech loses!
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Re: _DVDCCA v. Bunner_ - free speech loses!
- From: "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(at)lumbercartel.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:05:38 -0700
- In-reply-to: <3F4A6B76.9050.7A1671@localhost>
- References: <20030825171314.GA8397@sethf.com> <3F4A6B76.9050.7A1671@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030727
> They punted again....throughout the decision the word "assumed" pops up often
> enough that it's deliberate. Moreno pretty much called the majority on that in
> his concurring decision. He stated he concurred with their decision but not
> their reasons. He doesn't assume the facts of the lower courts and comes to a
> different conclusion and so assumes nothing but concludes the court was wrong.
I read the emphasis on "relying on the findings of the lower Court" to
be a rather heavy-handed hint that the CSC was /very/ likely to
reverse if that finding landed on them again.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?