SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the founding-fathers-didn't-have-tazers dept.
Massachusetts' ban on the private possession of stun guns—an "electrical weapon" under the statute—does not violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms, the state's top court has ruled.
The decision says ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/stungunMA-ruling.pdf ) (PDF) that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern stun-gun device, first patented in 1972. The top court said stun guns are not suitable for military use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the possession of handguns outside the home.The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with stun gun, said the stun gun is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the Second Amendment, although handguns are protected.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:57PM
The decision says that the US Constitution's framers never envisioned the modern Internet, first activated in 1969. The top court said the Internet is not suitable for journalistic use, and that it did not matter whether state lawmakers have approved the use of the Internet for journalism.
The court, ruling in the case of a Massachusetts woman caught with a blog, said the blog is a "thoroughly modern invention" not protected by the First Amendment, although newspapers are protected.
Is that really the way you want to go with that analogy? More often than not, it seems like the lawmakers and judges look at the internet as a special entity that has no protections under the Constitution or existing law. Wiretapping law doesn't apply because internet; warrants don't matter because internet; bloggers can't be journalists because internet; etc. It's like a nastier version of the "on the internet!" patent trolling: if an old law ensures a person has rights and you find it inconvenient, that's okay, because it no longer applies if you do that thing on the internet.
If anything, many judges and lawmakers would likely read your revised quote and nod in agreement, rather than see a problem with the logic in the new context. The last line especially sounds like something that would actually come out of a US court. You probably would have done better with a racism analogy.
---
Out of curiosity, and only tangentially related to the article or your comment, I did a brief search for "bloggers not journalists" and it turned up three trials on one blogger's case, two of which came to the same sort of conclusion as your quote. It took three years and two "you are not a journalist" verdicts before a court declared that a blogger is protected by the first amendment, [theatlantic.com] and even then it still reads like "you aren't a newspaper so you don't really count". Another hit on the search led to another case [nj.com] in NJ that decided that bloggers aren't protected by journalist shield law.