Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (danman31 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 03:10 AM) Episode 1 of Season 1, Episodes 1 and 6 of season 2 = very good. Remaining episodes = terrible. Fixed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 07:39 AM) Right, I can't imagine that your constitutional rights to privacy are tied solely to direct economic harm. The Supreme Court isn't in the business of awarding damages. It might remand a case back to a level where a trier of fact would do that, but its role is to determine issues like, does this right exist under the constitution, is this protected under the constitution etc. i.e., issues of constitutionality. Those cases only establish that sexual orientation is private information that shouldn't be disclosed. Whether or not it's actionable in a given case is a different question, one ultimately held up to different standards (i.e., the elements of the tort of public disclosure of private information or invasion of privacy) to be decided by factual evidence.

Hopefully James takes Lucas' spot

QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 09:09 PM) It's funny to read those posts and then look at the free throw and fouls differential. I was referring to the botched shot clock and out of bound calls.

It flipped in the last ten, ever since Mike James came in. Bye bye Lucas

I think that's the third obvious miss by the officials too

Also, rondo is a b****

Turnovers and dumb fouls

Bulls playing like poop again

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) You know you guys could just totally Skype naked instead of arguing with each other in every thread. LOL

Sorry, I don't see it. I understand coming out is a big deal. I understand it should be on the terms of the person who's coming out. But if you're open about it at school, you should know that be it through a teacher, a student, or whatever, that other people are going to find out about it. You can't complain after the fact.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:45 PM) Well I couldn't disagree more. I think a rule that results in a person having to choose between expressing their sexuality or having everyone in the world know about it is unconscionable. They don't have to choose anything. Just don't expect to be able to sue and recover if you publicize that information and expect it to remain private.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Same here. I was only complaining about Tim Legler's comment, because it was blatantly false. I love the coverage I get on the best channel of all-time, NBA TV. It really is good. The NBA has by far the best national TV media coverage out of any of the sports IMO. The ESPN crew minus Broussard is pretty good, and the TNT/NBA crew is probably the best.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:38 PM) So ultimately what your saying is that because of the nature of her sexuality, she is not allowed to be a normal human teenager and STILL not tell this to her parents? Do you really think that was the intent of the second element of the tort? I don't think she should be afforded some greater protection if she's being completely open about it in other aspects of her life. Obviously it all comes down to who knows (how many people) and in what areas of her life those people know. But no, I don't think she has an actionable claim where all of her friends know she's gay but her mom doesn't, especially where the mother already suspects it, and especially once you consider the third element of damages, which would be lessened even more by the "public" nature of the information. Best case for what you're arguing is a student who is incredibly quiet about it, no one suspects anything, she tells a teacher in confidence with the promise it never gets out, and the teacher still tells her mother. But even then damages is gonna be a huge issue. You don't get emotional damages (unless you suffer medical issues as a result) or you can prove a proximate damage of some other kind (loss of a job/opportunity).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:34 PM) Yeah, I understand that. Except you're not allowing for the fact that you can't express your homosexuality without it becoming what you define as "public." Otherwise you'd just be sitting at home masturbating. I'm assuming in talking about this that she was open about her relationship (as that was the school's response) - hand holding, kissing etc. obviously if she's got a girlfriend or something and they're only seen together at their homes, then that's a different story.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) Maybe you could elaborate on what the second element means, exactly? Because we've gone through about 10 cases now and not one has interpreted the element the same way as you are. We're talking past each other here. You're looking at cases that hold that private information may (or does) include sexual orientation. Ok fine, let's accept that premise. I'm saying that any case brought for the release of that private information is going to be dead in the water where that private information isn't really private anymore. It's become public knowledge.

QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:29 PM) This is something I wanted to mention to Tex on the last page. "Right to privacy" is a vague legal concept that does not have defined contours especially at the Supreme Court level. The right truly exists only in state law cases involving economic damages. Beyond that, some would argue that the right to privacy doesn't exist at all. Right, i think i mentioned it before, there are two separate issues here - the right to privacy constitutionally, and a cause of action for disclosure of private information.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Well show me some law that states this. I'm not seeing this line of reasoning mentioned in any of the cases we've discussed in the thread or that I've read myself. Edit: It seems as though one's sexual orientation would fall into the limited consent to disclosure category, IMO. Not if you're doing it in public. I said before, if this were a case where no one but her and a select few people knew, then that's one thing. But if it was a known "fact" around the school, she doesn't have much of an argument. That's all factually dependent obviously, so we'll have to see what evidence is introduced at trial.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 01:17 PM) Well show me some law that states this. I'm not seeing this line of reasoning mentioned in any of the cases we've discussed in the thread or that I've read myself. It's the basic element of the tort: To state a cause of action for this tort, the plaintiff must plead and prove that (1) publicity was given to the disclosure of private facts; (2) the facts were private, and not public, facts; and (3) the matter made public was such as to be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) I don't think this accurate. The question seems to revolve around whether the character of the information was something of a private nature or not. Whether or not there are people aware of her sexuality is not the question, but rather, whether her sexuality is a private concern of hers and whether or not it was her constitutional right to protect that information from being disclosed against her wishes. Well it is accurate, or so says the law. By simple definition if information is disclosed publicly it is no longer private. The only exception is when you've given limited consent to the disclosure and then that information still gets out. You've stated publically that this private information is private, except in this limited circumstance (think medical records). Edit: And yes, if you're open about your homosexuality and you're making out with other girls in school, why would you expect that information to remain confidential?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 12:00 PM) So you're stating that if you do something outside of the confines of your own home, it is public behavior and therefore you have no expectation of privacy? I disagree and think this is the incorrect line of thinking when considering whether something is considered private and entitled to privacy. If you perform a public act or make the information known "to the public" how can you go back and later claim that it's private? As G&T put it, once it's out of the bag, it's out of the bag. I fail to see what societal interest is served by being able to claim that information is private in situation A, but not situation B (absent consent).

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 11:26 AM) So let me ask you this...say this was in a work setting. Say a man was a homosexual but considered the matter private and kept it secret from his co-workers. Then one night, a group of secretaries show up in a gay bar and happen to see him kissing another man. Do the secretaries have the right to now expose this fact about his sexual orientation to his coworkers or his boss? You cannot claim that something is private after making it public. Who has been informed is irrelevant.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 11:09 AM) Sean Miller recruited extremely well right off the bat at Arizona, Self's second class at Illinois was fantastic, Crean's second class at Indiana was very good, Matta's second class had Oden, Conley, Cook. Hell, Zook recruited really well right off the bat for Illinois and that was with what was a garbage football program. You are drastically overstating how difficult it is to fix recruiting. If you are a good recruiter you will be successful at it right away. Guess we'll see.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) So what? Put a brick on a string to hold down the pressure switch, run like hell, pull brick off once everyone is at a safe distance. Yeah that's what I was getting at. They could have safely detonated it. Pick it up, cut the wire and throw the thing into the ocean. My wife seems to think the defuser guy was just being cocky. But that's still pretty weak and unbelievable.

lol, i liked the very end, when someone asked about the last play with Paul. Weber's response: "I have no idea what he was thinking." You and everyone else, Bruce.