Karaoke Forums

I'm not removing mine but working on changing them to this

Hey, KaraokeGog73, Mr. Harrington is going to name you in a suit now for messing with the SC logo!!! You're Screwed, Dude!!!

_________________
I am the ONLY SANE 1 HERE

I wouldn't even post that as a joke right now. Way too much going on.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Why? Would you for some reason be afraid of retaliation by Sound Choice?

That's evidence of paranoia & fear Chris.

Now, if you're a gem lessee, there's a whole different problem. They are not allowed to do anything that SC could deem to be "disparaging" to the mark or the name.... Another way of saying; "Pay us and only say good things - or we'll sue you."

Chip - I find it interesting when other people tell me how I must be feeling. It just doesn't seem wise to post something like that given that SC suits deal with Trademarks.

-Chris

_________________
-Chris

Not telling what you're feeling at all, only you can do that. I can only tell you what it looks like from this side.

You should be free to speak out against even a vendor here in America without fear.

@ Chip: You can say any thing you want......except IF YOU HAVE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION, then the SS have the legal right to charge you with a felony and up to 1 year in prison. Obama just quietly passed this law within the last 2 weeks.

Right. He just snuck it in and nobody noticed. He is so stealthy!

Wow I hadn't heard about that. Can't believe this didn't get more publicity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg&feature=player_embedded

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.

I knew there was a catch somewhere...... But you can do it if you're in central or south america because the SS guys will be too busy frisking the locals to notice....

That's pretty funny.

Offered without political viewpoint:



Probably because (a) it was already the law, and (b) the bill Obama signed just modified the language of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 a bit to make it more clear.

It's usually a good idea in these cases to look at the actual statute. The actual text of the new § 1752 reads:

§ 1752. Restricted building or grounds.
(a) Whoever--
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) In this section--
(1) the term `restricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
(2) the term `other person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.

Draw your own conclusions.

Mrmarog quote: "You can say any thing you want......except IF YOU HAVE SECRET SERVICE PROTECTION, then the SS have the legal right to charge you with a felony and up to 1 year in prison. Obama just quietly passed this law within the last 2 weeks.

@ Bazza:Bazza quote "Right. He just snuck it in and nobody noticed. He is so stealthy!"

You don't find a restriction of your 1st ammendment rights to be something noteworthy, or don't you believe he really did this?

I would have changed it to "Sue Choice."
X

_________________
Birdofsong

Knowing the Republican Party, I do not believe Obama can fart without them knowing and complaining about it. Therefor I do not believe "Obama quietly passed" anything. In fact, because they did not fight it and were silent, I believe the Republicans must have been all for it.

I certainly don't want to speak for Bazza, but it's pretty clear that the law in question does not do what you suggested that it does.

You are assuming people actually read the law! Don't you know? They don't need to read. Talk radio tells them what to believe.

@ Harrington: Maybe not exactly as I imply but, given just a little more "legal clarification" down the road it could be, couldn't it? Lawyers are forever trying to figure out what someone really meant when they wrote something (a hundred + years ago)....say for instance the Constitution. Lawyers are somehow given an extraordinary ability to communicate with the spirits of our forefathers. Darndest thing I ever I ever did see/hear.

@ Bazza: Bazza quote "You are assuming people actually read the law! Don't you know? They don't need to read. Talk radio tells them what to believe."

Sort of like Pelozi said about the health care bill. "you'll have to pass it to see what is in it". Maybe not an exact quote but close. That bill is about 2200 pages long and I'm sure no one read it from cover to cover, but they should have been required to.

In mrmarog's post there was no actual law quoted and that was the first thing I found. Since HL's post I have gone back and read it.

It's no big deal though right? "willfully and knowingly" is pretty much the same thing as "knowingly", right?

_________________
My statements, opinions and conclusions are based on my own personal experiences, observations, research and/or just my own $.02. I'm not a "cheerleader", but that doesn't make me a Pirate.