Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Binary compound

2007-08-15T04:10:15Z

LD: context, wikilinks

In [[chemistry]], a '''binary compound''' is [[compound]] composed of only two [[elements]].
[[category:chemistry]]

Wikipedia copyright

2007-08-15T03:52:18Z

LD: clarify position on exceptions for teaching use, copy of GFDL text usually required, examples not particularly complex

All contributions to [[Wikipedia]] must be licensed by the author under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights Wikipedia Copyrights] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> While it guarantees a number of freedoms to reuse and modify the work, this license also imposes obligations that can make this reuse burdensome. Authors always remain free to copy their own work, but cannot copy work that has been edited by others unless they comply fully with the requirements of the 3,289-word GFDL.

The requirements of the Wikipedia license include:<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License Text of the GNU Free Documentation License] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>
* any derivative work must be licensed under the same conditions
* there must be attribution of principal authors
* the lengthy text of the GFDL must usually be included
* 15 conditions with respect to distributing modified copies

As with Conservapedia's terms, no special exceptions are made for teaching or other non-profit uses, but in both cases the [[fair use]] provisions of [[copyright law]] apply.

Conservapedia's copyright conditions are generally less restrictive and easier-to-use, but may be revoked "in very rare instances of self-defense" and do not allow for entire sections of the site to be copied or mirrored, unlike the GFDL. For details, see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[category:wikipedia]]

Drugs

2007-08-13T16:17:25Z

LD: /* Illegal drugs in Britain */ remove statement sourced from WP, formatting

A '''drug''' is a substance which has an effect on the body or mind. This may be a positive effect in the case of medicines or negative as is the case with most illegal drugs.

==Medicinal drugs==

Since time immemorial mankind has noticed that certain herbs, extracts and other natural substances have positive effects on certain maladies. With the advent of modern science, these have been better identified and tested, and many of the active chemicals involved have been synthesized. A great example of this is aspirin (salicylic acid), which was isolated from the source for which it is named, the willow tree (Salix spp.), and then synthesized in the lab.

There have been many steps along the way which have revolutionized medicine, like the discovery that certain fungi have an antibiotic effect, killing harmful bacteria. The first identified member of this mow large family of drugs was penicillin.

In the last few decades there have been tremendous advances in the invention and manufacture of wholly synthetic substances designed for specific pharmacological effects. Two well known groups of these are the synthetic painkillers and anti-depression drugs (SSRIs). As the details and mechanisms of various ailments become better known, drugs that are more and more specific (having less side effects) can be engineered.

==Illegal drugs==
Illegal drugs are drugs that the government has declared to be illegal. This is often based on a perception, true or otherwise, that such substances can potentially cause damage to a person's [[brain]] and other organs. Equally there is concern about the fact that most drugs cause [[addiction]]. There is much debate over the legalization of drugs, people on both ends of the political spectrum are advocating for some drugs to be legalized while others on both ends are advocating for tougher penalties for possession of drugs. Some new age [[hippies]] believe drugs can separate one's body from one's soul, and native Americans believe drugs allow one to talk to trees; current research <ref>http://www.psych.uiuc.edu/~bhidalgo/litreview.htm</ref> in neuroscience has shown that psychedelic drugs can be used to induce religious experiences <ref>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1171389.ece</ref>.

Those in favor of legalizing drugs often argue that the negative social consequences, including gang warfare and the permeation of dangerously impure substances, are more to do with their prohibition than the drugs themselves. Indeed, before the criminalization of heroin in the UK it was no more than a trivial medical problem <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4647018.stm</ref>. Opponents of criminalization also point to the [[Prohibition]] experiment in the USA, where the illegality of alcohol caused problems of gang warfare and unsupervised distilleries that made worse the very problem that prohibition was intended to solve.

Further difficulties arise when various drugs are made illegal for political reasons; the most prominent of which being the outlawing of [[hemp]] to make way for the tree pulp industry. <ref>http://www.ylana.com/hempartc.htm</ref>

===Illegal drugs in Britain===

There are numerous kind of drugs on the streets of [[Britain]]: "Not even the dealers know them all". Popular drugs on the streets of [[London]] include ''Triple-sods'', ''Yellow Bentines'' and ''Clarky Cat''.

David Amess MP, the [[Conservative]] [[Member of Parliament]] for Basildon, warned against the dangers of an Eastern European drug called Cake, and went so far as to ask a question about it in Parliament. The drug affects an area of the brain called "Shatner's Bassoon" and is frequently referred to as "a made-up drug" (made up from [[chemical]]s rather than derived from [[plant]]s).

==Legal recreational drugs==
A small number of drugs are legally tolerated in Western democracies. Examples include [[alcohol]], [[nicotine]] and [[caffeine]], whereas other drugs which have less adverse affect on the body, such as [[ecstasy]], are banned due to their social stigma.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:18 USC § 1470

2007-03-17T17:07:27Z

LD: Obscenity

There's some fun Commerce Clause jurisprudence on this statute, isn't there, I think one of the parties is X-Citement Video, but I can't find it in my briefs...--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 23:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Was that a pun? --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The statute says "knowingly transfer". I'm no lawyer but I think this means they have to intend the content be delivered directly to someone under the age of 16. Just posting it here, while wrong, probably doesn't meet the requirements of the code. Also, I'd consult with a criminal lawyer before posting threats of legal action. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 11:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: "Knowingly" imports a criminal ''mens rea'' requirement of recklessness or higher, so I don't know if posting here would support a conviction. Andy's the lawyer though, so I'd love to know if I'm wrong on the ''mens rea'' thing. It'd help me on exams ;-)--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: "Knowingly" should be satisfied by posting a notice. If a criminal defendant wants to try to persuade a jury that he didn't see the notice on the Main Page, didn't see it in the Rules, didn't read the FAQ about how this site was founded, didn't read the stories about, didn't know that minors do use internet sites like this, and yet knew how to register and post obscene material, then he can make that argument. I'd expect it to take only about 30 seconds for a jury to reject that argument.

:: An increasing percentage of federal prosecutions is for obscenity over the internet, by the way. It's amazing to me why people think it's OK to do things over the internet that they would not do over the radio or in person.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: P.S. to Jrssr5: I ''am'' a criminal lawyer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: He is, it's true. Asch, could you give me a cite for a similar case? I'm really curious... I'm taking Crim and I'd love to know how ''mens rea'' is constructed by a judge in a hypothetical case like this.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Obscene material is not profanity ==

It refers to using mail to send X-rated materials to minors, not posting bad words on a free-use website.

: You're wrong. 18 USC 1470 is applied to the internet, and whether the website is "free-use" or not is irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::So, can you sue people who disagree with the premise of this "encyclopedia?" or, is the purpose of this comment to point out that nothing X-rated ought to appear here? I am just wondering because it seems if you intend to create something comprehensive, open and fair you will have to entertain that which is not. In, say, an article on lesbianism, would it be acceptable to include other terms, perhaps pejorative in nature, that you deem offensive? Further, would those who use so-called obscene material in their argument against such content also be subject to your prosecution?

Another example of this might be the recent comment by Anne Coulter. She is a popular pundit, but should her Edwards debacle be quoted in its entirety or must we censor the word "f----t" from all mention? Another question I have is then do we link to the obscene material or just allude to it, like "Coulter used a term that means gay to describe edwards" or something? Strange to have a comment like this on the main page. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== I think your statute would be unconstitutional as applied to this site ==

Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Any more cases out there? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 20:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::"The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the "knowing" transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18; and also the knowing sending to a person under 18 of anything "that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs."" Okay, so if someone uses a foul word, what's the plan? How many lawsuits do you intend to begin? Doesn't this strike anyone as an abuse of the judicial system? Mostly, this description sounds like this is what you are hoping will happen. [[User:Menkatron|Menkatron]] 09:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Like I stated before, I think this would be a waste of the court's time. I personally think lawyers who bring pointless cases against people (ie hot coffee spilled in your lap) should face consqeuences for their reckless suing and charges. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Obscenity ==

No definition of [[obscene]] is given in 18 USC 1470, and there is no general list of definitions for Chapter 71: Obscenity either. In the context of [[CIPA]], [http://www.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm this web site] discusses the Miller Test for Obscenity, the [[case law]] definition which applies when a specific definition is not given. Believe me, we are not talking about 4 letter words here. Also of interest is 18 USC 1460, also devoid of definitions, which states ''"Whoever ... knowingly '''sells''' or possesses with intent to sell an '''obscene visual depiction''' shall be punished by a fine in accordance with the provisions of this title or imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both."'' So perhaps a workable definition of obscenity would be something which, if depicted visually, would be illegal to sell in the United States.

While you're reading 18 USC Chapter 71, why not take a look at [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001461----000-.html 1461] which bans the mailing of ''Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance; and— Every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and'' ... they're just getting started. It does on to deal with telling people where to get something thay can use for an indecent or immoral purpose, or even giving people ideas about an immoral use for something they already have. Seriously, folks could have a great time prosecuting half the population of the United States armed only with a few reasonably broad definitions and this law.

Finally, I know this site is intentionally "for Americans", but do consider that many users of this site are not in the United States, so threatening them with U.S. laws is unlikely to impress. Personally, I don't think having such things as a "welcome message" is going to impress anyone.

-- [[User:LD|LD]] 13:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)