Minnesota clarifies: Free online ed is OK(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Minnesota clarifies: Free online ed is OK
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minnesota-clarifies-free-online-ed-is-ok/2012/10/19/456a0a3e-1a37-11e2-aa6f-3b636fecb829_blog.html
7 comments
“Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,” said Larry Pogemiller, director of the office. “No Minnesotan should hesitate to take advantage of free, online offerings from Coursera.”
Larry Pogemiller needs to go. Earlier today, he said Coursera-affiliated universities needed to register (and, pay up) "to prevent people from wasting their time." Riiiight. /s
Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up. Words fail me for how out-of-touch this guy is. He should be nowhere near the wheels of government.
Minnesota, do the right thing and reprimand Larry Pogemiller. A very public firing would not be a step too far.
UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you?
UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one.
This wasn't an innocent mistake, a clerical error, a misunderstanding of the law, etc. He literally saw nothing wrong with his office's actions until confronted by the press. How many other times has he misused the long arm of the law that didn't get picked up by the press? People in positions of power like Larry Pogemiller must be reprimanded when they abuse their position. Every. Time. The public vests power in these people, and they must, MUST be publicly held accountable when they abuse that trust.
If someone doesn't want the responsibility of maintaining the public's trust, they need to find work in the private sector.
Larry Pogemiller needs to go. Earlier today, he said Coursera-affiliated universities needed to register (and, pay up) "to prevent people from wasting their time." Riiiight. /s
Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up. Words fail me for how out-of-touch this guy is. He should be nowhere near the wheels of government.
Minnesota, do the right thing and reprimand Larry Pogemiller. A very public firing would not be a step too far.
UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you?
UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one.
This wasn't an innocent mistake, a clerical error, a misunderstanding of the law, etc. He literally saw nothing wrong with his office's actions until confronted by the press. How many other times has he misused the long arm of the law that didn't get picked up by the press? People in positions of power like Larry Pogemiller must be reprimanded when they abuse their position. Every. Time. The public vests power in these people, and they must, MUST be publicly held accountable when they abuse that trust.
If someone doesn't want the responsibility of maintaining the public's trust, they need to find work in the private sector.
> Larry Pogemiller needs to go. Earlier today, he said Coursera-affiliated universities needed to register (and, pay up) "to prevent people from wasting their time."
I can find no such quote attributed to Pogemiller. The closest I see is in the Slate article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota...) where the reporter writes,
> The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler [George, a manager at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education] says. [...]
> The thing is, no one is wasting their money on Coursera courses, because they're free. (Yes, says Roedler, but they could still be wasting their time.)
Not by Larry Pogemiller. Not in quotes (reporter's paraphrase). Defending the law in general, not this specific application of it.
> Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up.
No evidence of any of this.
There are plenty of abuses of power in government, but your outrage here seems misplaced at best.
I can find no such quote attributed to Pogemiller. The closest I see is in the Slate article (http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/10/18/minnesota...) where the reporter writes,
> The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler [George, a manager at the Minnesota Office of Higher Education] says. [...]
> The thing is, no one is wasting their money on Coursera courses, because they're free. (Yes, says Roedler, but they could still be wasting their time.)
Not by Larry Pogemiller. Not in quotes (reporter's paraphrase). Defending the law in general, not this specific application of it.
> Pogemiller only backed down from being a Government-sponsored bully when the press picked it up, and when asked, was surprised that Coursera didn't just roll over and pay up.
No evidence of any of this.
There are plenty of abuses of power in government, but your outrage here seems misplaced at best.
Your comment is angry, lashes out with extreme responses, and is generally not helpful for discussion or for governance.
I have not seen the "wasting their time" quote anywhere, where did that come from? What, precisely, were his actions before this blew up in the press? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in your reading of Pogemiller's state of mind. How did you come to your conclusions?
The internet does outrage really well, but outrage is not conducive to accuracy.
I have not seen the "wasting their time" quote anywhere, where did that come from? What, precisely, were his actions before this blew up in the press? You seem to be placing a lot of faith in your reading of Pogemiller's state of mind. How did you come to your conclusions?
The internet does outrage really well, but outrage is not conducive to accuracy.
> UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you?
You are being down voted (rightly so) because it was George Roedler who said the things you are complaining about. Larry Pogemiller is the guy higher up who stepped in to correct that.
You are being down voted (rightly so) because it was George Roedler who said the things you are complaining about. Larry Pogemiller is the guy higher up who stepped in to correct that.
Here's the paragraph immediately following the part I quoted above[1]:
But [Larry Pogemiller's] office was talking tough earlier on Friday, saying it would tell Coursera-affiliated schools that they were out of compliance with state law -- and possibly even take up the matter with the schools' accreditation bodies and the federal government.
Are you suggesting his office is out of control, that it's "gone rogue", and thus Larry Pogemiller is (somehow) not responsible? Who do you think is responsible?
[1] http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21813203/minnesota-e...
But [Larry Pogemiller's] office was talking tough earlier on Friday, saying it would tell Coursera-affiliated schools that they were out of compliance with state law -- and possibly even take up the matter with the schools' accreditation bodies and the federal government.
Are you suggesting his office is out of control, that it's "gone rogue", and thus Larry Pogemiller is (somehow) not responsible? Who do you think is responsible?
[1] http://www.twincities.com/technology/ci_21813203/minnesota-e...
It's very simple. Coursera appears to be required to register, according to the law as written. The department within the Minnesota Office of Higher Education that handles registration and licensing informed them of this.
When people inquired, the manager of that department, George Roedler, responded, restating what the law says and the rationale behind the law.
Later, the person at the top of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, Larry Pogemiller, decided that this was a case where the law should not be applied as written, due to changing circumstances, and so stopped enforcement and said he would work to get the law modified.
No one has "gone rogue" or is out of control. They all appear to have done their jobs correctly. Roedler applied the law, as written and as interpreted by the OHE, as is his job. Pogemiller changed OHE policy, as is his job.
When people inquired, the manager of that department, George Roedler, responded, restating what the law says and the rationale behind the law.
Later, the person at the top of the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, Larry Pogemiller, decided that this was a case where the law should not be applied as written, due to changing circumstances, and so stopped enforcement and said he would work to get the law modified.
No one has "gone rogue" or is out of control. They all appear to have done their jobs correctly. Roedler applied the law, as written and as interpreted by the OHE, as is his job. Pogemiller changed OHE policy, as is his job.
Roedler is responsible for his talk (and following the law just a tad too closely for this crowd's taste). Pogemiller is responsible for setting things straight (and risks taking the heat by Coursera's for-pay competitors).
The situation right now is that they interpret law in a way that isn't exactly typical to the US legal system, with the intent to fix up any shortcomings of the law in 3 months (+ whatever the lawmakers need to get to a conclusion). I wouldn't expect some subordinate in any office to take such a (rather bold) step on their own.
As long as they revise their internal policies, so matters relating to new developments are escalated to Pogemiller earlier, the handling seems fine to me.
It's not like they sent people to the death row, the worst that happened is two days of media drama.
The situation right now is that they interpret law in a way that isn't exactly typical to the US legal system, with the intent to fix up any shortcomings of the law in 3 months (+ whatever the lawmakers need to get to a conclusion). I wouldn't expect some subordinate in any office to take such a (rather bold) step on their own.
As long as they revise their internal policies, so matters relating to new developments are escalated to Pogemiller earlier, the handling seems fine to me.
It's not like they sent people to the death row, the worst that happened is two days of media drama.
This is a good example where downvoting, provided this is the rationale, is a poor decision. Why not just comment? Even if it is a simple note. Honest question. Not trying to weigh in on this partcular subject per-se, but this comment makes it seem like its normal course practice on HN. (disclosure: & I just upovoted TZS, for raising his hand on this).
I too find most down votes distasteful. In fact, I use a custom style sheet to color down voted comments red so I can see them, and unless I can find no redeeming value whatsoever in the comment I give it an up vote to counter the down votes.
In this particular case, however, I think the down votes were fine, because the comment:
1. grossly misstated facts, by attributing George Roedler's statements to Larry Pogemiller,
2. is essentially just a rant calling for Pogemiller's head.
In this particular case, however, I think the down votes were fine, because the comment:
1. grossly misstated facts, by attributing George Roedler's statements to Larry Pogemiller,
2. is essentially just a rant calling for Pogemiller's head.
>UPDATE: Downvoted? Larry, is that you?
>UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one.
Please don't do this. A good rule of thumb is that, if it will annoy people on reddit, it's probably not appropriate for HN.
>UPDATE 2: Wow, I've never had a post that goes up and down in votes like this one.
Please don't do this. A good rule of thumb is that, if it will annoy people on reddit, it's probably not appropriate for HN.
This kind of thing annoys me too but when I have a post that gets downvoted without being responded to it can help spur a response. Maybe there ought to be a better mechanism to solicit a response from your downvoters.
You should be able to see who downvotes you and have the option to individually block them from seeing any of your comments in the future.
This is exactly right. Bureaucrats in general have lifetime employment, so the only check on their power is the press. In this case, they made the colossal mistake of attacking Coursera without thinking through the optics. Most of the people the Minnesota Office of Higher Ed intimidates are not Stanford professors who run internet businesses with millions of visitors and have friends at the New York Times. Usually even a state government has a bigger megaphone than their target; this time they didn't.
It's going to be more interesting when the federal Department of Education gets involved. Federal bureaucrats aren't super smart, but they do have smarter people than state government; when DoE attacks, maybe a few quarters down the road, it will probably approach via the angle of "widespread plagiarism" or "unaccredited institution" or something that would at least win some supporters in a comment thread. Humanities professors are the big losers in a Coursera world, as they teach classes that are less practically useful and therefore less likely to attract visitors/monetization. They are also more politically connected than their science/engineering peers, and more likely to resort to government when they realize the extent of the threat that online ed poses to their sinecures.
I give 50/50 odds of some kind of federal showdown of this nature between Coursera and DoE as the tuition bubble pops and universities start to go bust over the next 5-10 year time frame. The government has a great deal invested in the higher ed system (and vice versa) via Sallie Mae, NIH, and dozens of other vehicles and will strenuously resist disruption.
It's going to be more interesting when the federal Department of Education gets involved. Federal bureaucrats aren't super smart, but they do have smarter people than state government; when DoE attacks, maybe a few quarters down the road, it will probably approach via the angle of "widespread plagiarism" or "unaccredited institution" or something that would at least win some supporters in a comment thread. Humanities professors are the big losers in a Coursera world, as they teach classes that are less practically useful and therefore less likely to attract visitors/monetization. They are also more politically connected than their science/engineering peers, and more likely to resort to government when they realize the extent of the threat that online ed poses to their sinecures.
I give 50/50 odds of some kind of federal showdown of this nature between Coursera and DoE as the tuition bubble pops and universities start to go bust over the next 5-10 year time frame. The government has a great deal invested in the higher ed system (and vice versa) via Sallie Mae, NIH, and dozens of other vehicles and will strenuously resist disruption.
This is how government works everywhere in the United States -- ram as much greedy crap through legislation hoping nobody would notice. Why innovate when you can legislate?
It's not the status quo but it happens far too often, and without repercussions.
I am not anti-government or anti-American but it's hard not to have a very sour taste in your mouth when you hear it happening every day.
It's not the status quo but it happens far too often, and without repercussions.
I am not anti-government or anti-American but it's hard not to have a very sour taste in your mouth when you hear it happening every day.
> He should be nowhere near the wheels of government.
Old lawyer joke.
Old lawyer joke.
Q: What do you call a lawyer who can't make it in private practice?
A: Your honour.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Doesn't that suggest the state can ban online courses if there is profit involved? That the state's power to "protect consumers" extends as far as their exposure to pure speech?
The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minneso...
The law's intent is to protect Minnesota students from wasting their money on degrees from substandard institutions, Roedler says.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/minneso...
Speech for money is not pure speech, obviously.
Obvious to whom? It's an ideological division whether money changes anything. The progressive left says yes, the classical liberal thinks no.
An analogy is publishing for profit. Is there any discussion of "regulating" books and newspapers, using the profit "issue" as a wedge to insert censorship? The free press has been indisputably "pure speech" for centuries, yet money was always involved (before the internet). MN argues control over educational courses to "protect consumers" from "wasting money"; by identical reasoning, they could protect readers from wasting money on the wrong books.
An analogy is publishing for profit. Is there any discussion of "regulating" books and newspapers, using the profit "issue" as a wedge to insert censorship? The free press has been indisputably "pure speech" for centuries, yet money was always involved (before the internet). MN argues control over educational courses to "protect consumers" from "wasting money"; by identical reasoning, they could protect readers from wasting money on the wrong books.
Thanks for the submission of the blog post hosted by a major newspaper. I hope this gets as many eyeballs as the two less carefully edited blog posts that mistakenly said "Minnesota Gives Coursera the Boot" or, worse still, "Free Online Education Is Now Illegal in Minnesota." So many of these tempests in teapots arise overnight in the relevant time zones, without enough taking time to check facts and verify conditions on the ground. As I look at the active stories view of HN
http://news.ycombinator.com/active
much attention is being devoted to ideas about Minnesota that are obsolete. Cooler local heads have prevailed, and the Legislature will clarify the law, if need be, after the general election as state legislators begin new terms of office. Have a good night, everyone.
http://news.ycombinator.com/active
much attention is being devoted to ideas about Minnesota that are obsolete. Cooler local heads have prevailed, and the Legislature will clarify the law, if need be, after the general election as state legislators begin new terms of office. Have a good night, everyone.
Oh, so Minnesota doesn't want to repudiate the entirety of the 1st amendment to the constitution? Thanks, we weren't sure of that before.
I disliked the apparent banning of free online education, and think that would be wrong. But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute. In practice they're violated all the time, strictly speaking. But they're allowed legally when the courts and legislatures feel there is some other greater concern, especialy in exceptional or edge cases. Can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, can't own a machine gun, not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure), "separation of Church and State" principle but they'll cite the Judeo-Christian God in government documents and speeches and subsidize the income of state-approved religions (via income tax exemption), etc. "What the big print giveth the fine print taketh away."
But yeah they may have backed down because they sensed either a political backlash brewing or a legal challenge coming their way, either of which would be painful.
But yeah they may have backed down because they sensed either a political backlash brewing or a legal challenge coming their way, either of which would be painful.
not allowed to practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals (but farms allowed to do it, go figure)
Citation please. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._... suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.
Citation please. Note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Lukumi_Babalu_Aye_v._... suggests that animal sacrifice is protected under the Constitution.
I know for a fact there are animal cruelty laws on the books in many jurisdictions. If you go to the cops and courts and say, "but it's part of my religion, we do animal sacrifice" you then are at the mercy of the courts to decide which law takes precedence. the Constititional law saying the government shall not interfere with the establishment of any religion, or, the ability of states and local jurisdictions to enact laws regulating what citizens can and cannot do. If any given Constitutional clause or amendment was somehow always and without exception enforced, US society would be very different because individuals could make excuses left and right to excuse otherwise illegal behaviors as being protected by the Constitution. That doesn't happen. Therefore no provision (or most of them anyway) is absolute, either in a literal sense or in spirit. Heck look at the clause that says Congress must declare war -- yet the government has engaged in hundreds of military adventures across the world, without a declaration of war ever being made or even requested, by the Executive branch. The Constitution is truly "just words on paper" and the government effectively just does whatever it can get away with. That's what the historical record suggests anyway.
I am not debating the fact that the Constitution as interpreted is not the Constitution as written.
However you made a very specific claim that flies in the face of what I understand the interpretation to be. I would be interested in a citation. (I've already given a citation of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of animal sacrifice on grounds of religious freedom.)
However you made a very specific claim that flies in the face of what I understand the interpretation to be. I would be interested in a citation. (I've already given a citation of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of animal sacrifice on grounds of religious freedom.)
> I know for a fact there are animal cruelty laws on the books in many jurisdictions.
If there are, they are a matter of public record and probably even online. You could provide citations.
If there are, they are a matter of public record and probably even online. You could provide citations.
"Separation of church and state" is not in the constitution, and (more or less) any non-profit can be tax-exempt.
That phrasing is not, agreed. But it's pretty well known among serious historical scholars that it was a principle held in esteem by the Framers.
But let's go directly to the Constitution itself. To wit, the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Any reasonable person just can't believe this Amendment is truly and effectively the law of the land, as practiced, if you see all the references to the Judeo-Christian God in government documents, ceremonies, speeches and buildings. Also there are any number of religions, both actual and possible, whose free expression is prohibited by one or more other laws enforced by the government. The counter-argument is to say, well, the government honors this amendment by not explicitly forcing anyone to be Christian, and by not explicitly respecting Judaism/Christianity over others, and not explicitly and directly forbidding any given religion in particular, etc. But in effect, it clearly does these things, in effect, if not at a superficial level.
A better argument you could make is to say that the principle of the separation of Church and State, taken literally, is honored by the government. And taken very literally, it is. Because the government is not a religion and does not operate any churches. But the counter-argument there of course is that the US national government is a religion (there are hymns, myths, icons, rituals, blind obediance to external authority lest you be punished, patronization, you're forced to tithe, etc.) and that the government does operate churches (buildings you visit regularly, or feel obligated too out of moral/civic duty, with anachronistic architectural styling, icon imagery, rituals, tithing, authority submission, explainers of exotic and sometimes seemingly anachronistic and overly detailed codes of morality and punishment and how they apply to your life, etc.) Just because something isn't called a church, doesn't mean it isn't, goes this kind of argument. And I think it's a pretty enlightening one.
Any non-profit, that otherwise follows the rules, and is approved, can be tax-exempt. But you can't just create any arbitrary religion and have it recognized by the legal system and approved. The State has to approve your religion, else you don't get the tax exemption. And I'm not speaking as someone who personally wants to do that. The point of fact is important for understanding the relationship of the US government to religion, in actual reality. Not in theory, not in some ideal world of words. But in reality.
But let's go directly to the Constitution itself. To wit, the 1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Any reasonable person just can't believe this Amendment is truly and effectively the law of the land, as practiced, if you see all the references to the Judeo-Christian God in government documents, ceremonies, speeches and buildings. Also there are any number of religions, both actual and possible, whose free expression is prohibited by one or more other laws enforced by the government. The counter-argument is to say, well, the government honors this amendment by not explicitly forcing anyone to be Christian, and by not explicitly respecting Judaism/Christianity over others, and not explicitly and directly forbidding any given religion in particular, etc. But in effect, it clearly does these things, in effect, if not at a superficial level.
A better argument you could make is to say that the principle of the separation of Church and State, taken literally, is honored by the government. And taken very literally, it is. Because the government is not a religion and does not operate any churches. But the counter-argument there of course is that the US national government is a religion (there are hymns, myths, icons, rituals, blind obediance to external authority lest you be punished, patronization, you're forced to tithe, etc.) and that the government does operate churches (buildings you visit regularly, or feel obligated too out of moral/civic duty, with anachronistic architectural styling, icon imagery, rituals, tithing, authority submission, explainers of exotic and sometimes seemingly anachronistic and overly detailed codes of morality and punishment and how they apply to your life, etc.) Just because something isn't called a church, doesn't mean it isn't, goes this kind of argument. And I think it's a pretty enlightening one.
Any non-profit, that otherwise follows the rules, and is approved, can be tax-exempt. But you can't just create any arbitrary religion and have it recognized by the legal system and approved. The State has to approve your religion, else you don't get the tax exemption. And I'm not speaking as someone who personally wants to do that. The point of fact is important for understanding the relationship of the US government to religion, in actual reality. Not in theory, not in some ideal world of words. But in reality.
> But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute.
What does "absolute" mean?
The Constitutional guarantees are probably absolute, depending on what your idea of it is. What they aren't is comprehensively understood. You don't really seem to understand how the government works. This is what happens.
A law is written. This is the first gate; someone has to actually care enough to put it down on paper. This law can have arbitrary text and mandate arbitrary terms. It needs to be agreed upon by a good 500 people who are at least nominally looking out for the best interests of the full 310-million-person population. In the specific case of the OP, the Minnesota Legislature is about 200 persons representing 5 million. That's the second gate; a court of mild scrutiny. Then it has to be plausible enough for the elected president or governor to agree to enact it and actually do it. That's the third gate. At this point, and only at this point, does something like this have the opportunity to happen. This is the point at which something like owning a machine gun becomes illegal, and the police are allowed to arrest people who do.
There are a couple routes into the next stage, but this is the easiest to understand. The state decides to press charges against the offender under the aforementioned law. The lawyers involved may wish to ask the judge about the constitutionality of the law. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU watch for opportunities like this to step in on behalf of the defendant or plaintiff precisely in order to point out the unconstitutionality of certain laws and bring to bear the not-inconsiderable weight of their legal experience to prove it to the judge, who must make the final call. And, in case the judge makes a poor judgement (corruption, ineptness, etc.), there is a hierarchy of appeals that ends at the SCOTUS. It is usually through this mechanism that something like yelling "fire" is made illegal: Justice Holmes used it as a metaphor to establish a precedent, a test by which future judges could determine whether or not this was a reasonable exception to the broad stroke of the First Amendment.
Democracy is a lot more than a list of ten short paragraphs. Each of those rights have to be justified and defended and their nuance spelled out clearly based on actual events that occur in reality. What does free speech mean if, let's pretend, we had people who could reliably and provably enact mind control through speech? Is executing a heinous criminal without last rites a cruel and unusual punishment if we were certain there existed a Hell to which they'd be tortured for eternity? If everyone could be reasonably expected to own and effectively use a sniper rifle, is it self-defense to murder someone who threatens to shoot you? Upholding one's rights isn't easy, and it's made especially uneasy by the minor detail that we occasionally have no idea what they actually are in some specific case.
What does "absolute" mean?
The Constitutional guarantees are probably absolute, depending on what your idea of it is. What they aren't is comprehensively understood. You don't really seem to understand how the government works. This is what happens.
A law is written. This is the first gate; someone has to actually care enough to put it down on paper. This law can have arbitrary text and mandate arbitrary terms. It needs to be agreed upon by a good 500 people who are at least nominally looking out for the best interests of the full 310-million-person population. In the specific case of the OP, the Minnesota Legislature is about 200 persons representing 5 million. That's the second gate; a court of mild scrutiny. Then it has to be plausible enough for the elected president or governor to agree to enact it and actually do it. That's the third gate. At this point, and only at this point, does something like this have the opportunity to happen. This is the point at which something like owning a machine gun becomes illegal, and the police are allowed to arrest people who do.
There are a couple routes into the next stage, but this is the easiest to understand. The state decides to press charges against the offender under the aforementioned law. The lawyers involved may wish to ask the judge about the constitutionality of the law. Groups like the EFF and the ACLU watch for opportunities like this to step in on behalf of the defendant or plaintiff precisely in order to point out the unconstitutionality of certain laws and bring to bear the not-inconsiderable weight of their legal experience to prove it to the judge, who must make the final call. And, in case the judge makes a poor judgement (corruption, ineptness, etc.), there is a hierarchy of appeals that ends at the SCOTUS. It is usually through this mechanism that something like yelling "fire" is made illegal: Justice Holmes used it as a metaphor to establish a precedent, a test by which future judges could determine whether or not this was a reasonable exception to the broad stroke of the First Amendment.
Democracy is a lot more than a list of ten short paragraphs. Each of those rights have to be justified and defended and their nuance spelled out clearly based on actual events that occur in reality. What does free speech mean if, let's pretend, we had people who could reliably and provably enact mind control through speech? Is executing a heinous criminal without last rites a cruel and unusual punishment if we were certain there existed a Hell to which they'd be tortured for eternity? If everyone could be reasonably expected to own and effectively use a sniper rifle, is it self-defense to murder someone who threatens to shoot you? Upholding one's rights isn't easy, and it's made especially uneasy by the minor detail that we occasionally have no idea what they actually are in some specific case.
> What does "absolute" mean?
in this context, it means without exception
> You don't really seem to understand how the government works.
ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that. :) but yeah, I actually have picked up a thing or two about how the US government works over the last 35+ years of life and education.
in this context, it means without exception
> You don't really seem to understand how the government works.
ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that. :) but yeah, I actually have picked up a thing or two about how the US government works over the last 35+ years of life and education.
> in this context, it means without exception
That doesn't actually mean anything. Let me assume you're a seasoned programmer and ask you to postulate a society-modeling system and then define the First Amendment in terms of that system. What does "absolute" mean in that context?
> ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that.
I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding. Political philosophy is not a widely-studied subject; most people do not actually recall the details I offered when thinking about political matters. That's why they listen to Obama and Romney promising to do Congress's job and think that these are good reasons to vote for them.
That doesn't actually mean anything. Let me assume you're a seasoned programmer and ask you to postulate a society-modeling system and then define the First Amendment in terms of that system. What does "absolute" mean in that context?
> ouch. that comes off as rude. hopefully you didn't intend that.
I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding. Political philosophy is not a widely-studied subject; most people do not actually recall the details I offered when thinking about political matters. That's why they listen to Obama and Romney promising to do Congress's job and think that these are good reasons to vote for them.
me: "in this context, it means without exception"
you: "That doesn't actually mean anything."
me: It does mean something.
> I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding.
This is extremely rude.
To others:
The above is becoming all too common on HN. And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore. I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act. Almost, but not quite. I sometimes wish PG went through the site every once in a while and just banned anyone that made comments such as these. The level of discourse and friendliness of atmosphere would improve greatly. Is anyone with me on this?
Anyway, I'll be over in G+ where I can block or mute anyone the instant they behave out of line. (A great feature I'd love to see HN get as well.)
you: "That doesn't actually mean anything."
me: It does mean something.
> I intended it about as much as you intended to come off as ignorant. You made a large number of vacuous claims that demonstrated a lack of understanding.
This is extremely rude.
To others:
The above is becoming all too common on HN. And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore. I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act. Almost, but not quite. I sometimes wish PG went through the site every once in a while and just banned anyone that made comments such as these. The level of discourse and friendliness of atmosphere would improve greatly. Is anyone with me on this?
Anyway, I'll be over in G+ where I can block or mute anyone the instant they behave out of line. (A great feature I'd love to see HN get as well.)
> me: It does mean something.
Okay, fair. "Without exception" is what a tyrant says. It is an assertion of whim over reality; instead of caring about consequences to real people, it hand-waves and declares fiat. It is, in short, completely antithetical to the entire point of the Constitution itself. I had assumed you were explaining it inside the context of reality, but apparently that's wrong.
So nevermind that I proposed a route through which you could explain what it means. I suppose all it means is schoolyard rules.
> And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore.
You mean it's not because people seem to be participating on HN for no better reason than pandering to the lurkers? You're the second person in a week I've "discussed" things with only to see that they had no intention of engaging and were only reciting talking points for the voiceless masses.
> I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act.
The feeling is mutual. You've refused to actually back up any of your claims. Instead, your only recourse is character attacks that center around how you're being treated. I've offered you multiple opportunities to actually respond usefully. You've refused to. I've explained my viewpoint honestly; you've dismissed this as being rude. What possible respect do you expect me to have for you?
Okay, fair. "Without exception" is what a tyrant says. It is an assertion of whim over reality; instead of caring about consequences to real people, it hand-waves and declares fiat. It is, in short, completely antithetical to the entire point of the Constitution itself. I had assumed you were explaining it inside the context of reality, but apparently that's wrong.
So nevermind that I proposed a route through which you could explain what it means. I suppose all it means is schoolyard rules.
> And a big reason why I don't participate in the comment threads here much anymore.
You mean it's not because people seem to be participating on HN for no better reason than pandering to the lurkers? You're the second person in a week I've "discussed" things with only to see that they had no intention of engaging and were only reciting talking points for the voiceless masses.
> I almost feel sorry for some of you when you don't understand how rude you act.
The feeling is mutual. You've refused to actually back up any of your claims. Instead, your only recourse is character attacks that center around how you're being treated. I've offered you multiple opportunities to actually respond usefully. You've refused to. I've explained my viewpoint honestly; you've dismissed this as being rude. What possible respect do you expect me to have for you?
> Okay, fair. "Without exception" is what a tyrant says.
wow. i'm speechless.
also, me saying that I think you're being rude is not a character attack. If we were talking about economics and then I suddenly declared you probably like to rape babies, that would be a character attack.
anyway, I'm done following up to your comments. I think we're fundamentally out of alignment communication-wise. good luck!
wow. i'm speechless.
also, me saying that I think you're being rude is not a character attack. If we were talking about economics and then I suddenly declared you probably like to rape babies, that would be a character attack.
anyway, I'm done following up to your comments. I think we're fundamentally out of alignment communication-wise. good luck!
But I don't think any of the so-called Constitutional guarantees are absolute.
-- A "Free" Education = precisely founder's intent
Whatever legal carve-outs there are from No 1, this seems more like a poster child on why the bill of rights exists. Smart guy A wants to talk to Smart guy B, with no money changing hands, no promises being made. On topics that are verifiably beneficial to society, and on terms in line with society norms (historically). This <whatever-you-want-to-call-it> should not need a permit, a lawyer, or a PR flack. Is the state to have this law amended or taken off the books? It should if it is written in such a way that this is a decision of descretion by a gov't official. But for that, someone will probably need to sue (and waste everyone else's $$). Ugh.
-- A "Free" Education = precisely founder's intent
Whatever legal carve-outs there are from No 1, this seems more like a poster child on why the bill of rights exists. Smart guy A wants to talk to Smart guy B, with no money changing hands, no promises being made. On topics that are verifiably beneficial to society, and on terms in line with society norms (historically). This <whatever-you-want-to-call-it> should not need a permit, a lawyer, or a PR flack. Is the state to have this law amended or taken off the books? It should if it is written in such a way that this is a decision of descretion by a gov't official. But for that, someone will probably need to sue (and waste everyone else's $$). Ugh.
Consumer protection is a right of the states (via state constitutions, courts, and local laws) and every clause of the Bill of Rights does not equally apply to the states.
I was hoping this would be the outcome. I could not believe that anyone would seriously try and enforce this statute.
As a Minnesotan I still suffer the shame of electing Jesse Ventura, but at least we're not the state that said "no" to free education - yet.
As a Minnesotan I still suffer the shame of electing Jesse Ventura, but at least we're not the state that said "no" to free education - yet.
Well, Jesse Ventura did exactly what he said he would. We just forgot to ask him about the other things he would do. His election does show how a once a year big money tax (vehicle registration) will irritate the heck out of people. It also goes to show that the big two parties are not invulnerable in state-wide elections.
I am actually more embarrassed we elected (I have moved since) Amy Klobuchar. Sen Amy Klobuchar seems to be a media company rep (check all the bills discussed on HN and who co-sponsored them).
I am actually more embarrassed we elected (I have moved since) Amy Klobuchar. Sen Amy Klobuchar seems to be a media company rep (check all the bills discussed on HN and who co-sponsored them).
Why? I thought Ventura was one of the most respected governers in the country.
Thank you everyone who invested so much time and energy creating this tempest in a teapot all over the Internet instead of waiting five minutes for the responsible parties to sort out the right thing to do in a novel situation.
Who's to say it would have gone this way without all the press attention? The statement I read was very vague:
> “Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,”
Nothing here is a denial that they did try to get Coursera to pay.
> “When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances,” said Pogemiller. “Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.”
I read this as: "We can't ask them to pay now, but will try to find a way in the future to change the law so it does apply"
> “Obviously, our office encourages lifelong learning and wants Minnesotans to take advantage of educational materials available on the Internet, particularly if they’re free,”
Nothing here is a denial that they did try to get Coursera to pay.
> “When the legislature convenes in January, my intent is to work with the Governor and Legislature to appropriately update the statute to meet modern-day circumstances,” said Pogemiller. “Until that time, I see no reason for our office to require registration of free, not-for-credit offerings.”
I read this as: "We can't ask them to pay now, but will try to find a way in the future to change the law so it does apply"
Really, why you don't read that as "we will update the statute so that it does not compel us to send a bill to Coursera"?
I don't want mid level bureaucrats ignoring laws because they don't care for them.
I don't want mid level bureaucrats ignoring laws because they don't care for them.
To be fair, this is probably all because some bureaucrat couldn't say "I don't know."
Props to the people in charge there for reacting swiftly. Nice to see.