Cuban may well have been selectively targeted here. Let's not forget that the SEC used its power to get back at Joe Nacchio for refusing to go along with the warrantless wiretapping. Not to say that Nacchio (or Cuban) wasn't guilty, but there could be more here than meets the eye.
IIRC prosecutors are not allowed to selectively enforce a law. For example, if Asians are forbidden from being within Boston city limits then the government can't prosecute only Yao Ming to keep him from beating up on their basketball team.
[According to SCOTUS] "A selective prosecution claim is not a defense on the merits to the criminal charge itself, but an independent assertion that the prosecutor has brought the charge for reasons forbidden by the Constitution."[1] The defense is rarely successful; some authorities claim, for example, that there are no reported cases in at least the past century in which a court dismissed a criminal prosecution because the defendant had been targeted based on race.
That's not a careful calibration, it's an unplanned equilibrium. Laws that most people don't violate will be elaborated and made stricter until the pushback creates equilibrium.
It doesn't really matter whether the situation is by design or simply an unintended consequence. That highway speed limits are often set below the speed at which the vast majority of drivers travel means in practice that police can stop whoever they want for any reason whatsoever. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for it to be tyranny.
Most speed laws are based on some semblance of science. Granted there is often that extra percentage, but it doesn't kill anyone to slow down a little.
"a review of available speed studies demonstrates that the posted speed limit is almost always set well below the 85th-percentile speed by as much as 8 to 12 mph"
Here's one related example. Jay-walking is done by basically everyone, but there have been studies showing that enforcement, at least in the south, has almost exclusively targeted blacks.
Are you suggesting that jaywalking laws exist to target blacks exclusively? Given that pretty much every jurisdiction on North America has these laws on the books, that's a stretch.
Remember, I'm responding to the allegation that laws are specifically designed so that everyone breaks them, not that there is selective targeting.
First, I don't agree that laws are "calibrated" (by design) such that most people are likely to break them.
However...
"I'm responding to the allegation that laws are specifically designed so that everyone breaks them, not that there is selective targeting."
Consider that the selective targeting aspect is far more important than whether the laws were designed so that they facilitate selective targeting, or just happen to facilitate selective targeting. Either way, selective targeting is something that should be avoided.
I think the secret law was that airlines couldn't tell you you were on the watch-list. Now they can, but can be fined for telling you that you're on the watch-list without you being on the watch-list.
Yes, this is a stupid law. I hope Obama shit-cans the TSA.
A question for the more financially minded around here: How much of an impact would Cuban's sale of the stock have made on the price? As in, had he waited until their announcement, then sold all of his (largest minority) share, how much of a price deflation could have been expected?
I imagine if that drop were large enough, he'd at least have an argument that he shouldn't need to pay all of the $750k back.
Cheers to Cuban for responding so quickly. I wish the media would stop hyping this (front page news at CNN, ESPN, Yahoo, etc) until he's proven innocent or guilty. Unfortunately they make their money on pageviews not in depth reporting.
If he's guilty, I wonder if sharesleuth.com will cover it.
You shouldn't report just headlines. This morning CNN literally just had an unclickable headline about Cuban. No article. No link. Nothing. Just more "breaking news" linkbait/trafficbait bullshit.
Readers depend on news websites to report breaking news in a timely manner. I'm sure CNN would love to have a full article about the charges as soon as they are announced, but even they need some time to read, digest, and write up their report.
I'm a bit puzzled. "Breaking" doesn't mean "important". In this context, "to break" means:
14. (v. tr.) To make known, as news: break a story.
15. (v. intr.) To become known or noticed: The big story broke on Friday.
(http://www.answers.com/topic/break)
So a "breaking news" story is one that is being made known or becoming known. In the morning when the story was becoming known, I think the label was perfectly appropriate.
Did cnn.com really "interrupt" any "scheduled" programming with the Cuban story? They usually just have that red bar over the top with the "breaking" headline.
Obviously the definition doesn't transfer perfectly to the internet.
Traditionally breaking news is reserved for news deemed important (see previous definition). The problem is, everyone uses it too much, and if too many things are deemed important, nothing is. And we're back to where we started :).
studies show the headline is the most read, influential, and remembered part.
you're not supposed to want to think, you're supposed to want to be able to convey to other people that you're part of the same cult they are by using key phrases while not putting in the effort to actually think, and be mesmerized by the ads while you are skimming well enough to bullshit your way through meaningless pseudo-conversation with other cult members about the headline along the paradigm of choices the puppet-masters create for you.
Of course they should just report headlines. You are the product they sell to their customers (advertisers). You think they care one little bit about informing you of the world as it is? It works out best for everyone except you if they don't. Go back to sleep, watch american gladiators, and don't think about it too much.
Wow! Those studies are very good at uncovering the obvious. Maybe that's what you want to do, but it's not what _I_ want to do. And it's one of the many reasons why old school publications & media companies are dying. Good. While the in depth, real reporting publications are doing well (e.g. The Economist).
I think you're the one that needs to go back to sleep; you've obviously given it more thought than me.
What's american gladiators? You're being factitious right?
see you don't want to think, you want me to give you an answer! You are starting to stir, but your next realization needs to be that your desire to read the economist instead of the CNN headlines, and the resultant feeling of superiority are themselves programming delivered the same way through the same mechanisms.
Picture Rupert Murdoch playing with puppet strings attached to education, political, and religious groups talking to an emperor palpatine figure who is the ghost of Edward Barney's, being told, "We'll control the rubes with Fox, and we'll control the slightly smarter rubes with the message 'Well the rubes watching fox are brainwashed, but the source I get my information from is more sophisticated.' which we can imprint on them the same ways. We'll just program them to think they are thinking, as a way to stop them fro actually thinking."
Go back to sleep, it's not as nice when you're always aware of it.
Wrong - it wasn't. Cute attempt though. Your answers sounds like it was from someone who watches American Gladiators, but you probably already knew that. Did Rupert help produce?
Unfortunately, voice tone doesn't carry over in written communication, and when someone writes with attitude dripping off theirs words it's hard to decipher what they mean.
Go back to sleep, maybe when you wake up you won't be as pretentious.
American gladitor is what the lowest rung rubes watch. More sophisticated rubes watch more sophisticated shows that program them the same way to think they are better then the other rubes.
If I can get you irritated at me by what I say, what makes you think your not being programmed along the same mechanism targeting other emotions, by your literature? The economist writes more words then me. They can hypnotize you and make you react more then I can. If I can change your emotion a little, so can they, and they control you at this point.
I'm the kind that's tricked himself into aspiring to represent the place incompleteness or relativity breaks down the structure of embedded systems of thought so new paradigms can emerge more continuous with 21st century scientific knowledge.
Yep, I'm sure Cuban would love to talk about it, but he could get in legal hot-water depending on what he says. (In fact, I'm surprised he said anything.)
It was a lawyer-vetted statement in response to media stories about him. Mark had to post something on his blog so he did not look like he was avoiding the issue, nor give the false impression that an elaborate explanation was coming.
There was a recent article that said the best way to stop a rumor was to directly address the allegations, regardless of how trivial a rumor was. If that is true, Cuban would have been more effectice if he simply stated that the prosecution would have to prove in court that he did anything wrong, and that he is glad to finally get the chance to settle the matter. Instead, he attacked the prosecutor's motives several times, and denied it only as a last remark. Therefore, it is not surprising that he is getting all this attention.
