Jump to content

Talk:Log Cabin Republicans v. United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lawrence Quotation

[edit]

It's unlikely anyone is going to comment on this, so I'll just vent. The text in the ruling section originally said:

Phillips further ruled that DADT violates the substantive due process rights of LGBT personnel as it violates the fundamental right to "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct." (quoting Lawrence v. Texas)

Another editor changed it to read:

Phillips further ruled that DADT violates the substantive due process rights of LGBT personnel as it violates the fundamental right, articulated in Lawrence v. Texas, to "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct."

I reverted the change because the earlier version was more accurate and because the "articulated" phrase breaks up the sentence.

The editor reverted my reversion with the following comment in the edit summary:

articulating and quoting are the same when the ACTUAL QUOTE is present. tacking a parenthetical onto a sentence is not in compliance with MoS

First, the reference to the quote is the district court opinion, so without reading the opinion, a reader wouldn't know that the district court is quoting Lawrence. Saying "articulated in Lawrence" doesn't resolve that issue. Second, I couldn't find anything in the manual of style that forbids a parenthetical at the end of a sentence. Anyway, I'm not going to revert the reversion because it's not worth warring over, but I thought I would at least clarify my position.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply as a matter of style I hate the use of parentheses in this way, seeming both to minimize and underscore the importance of the text within parentheses. The parentheses themselves minimize while the placement implies that without this information we would fail to understand something of importance.
That said, "articulated" leaves us uncertain whether the quotation is from LCR v. USA or Lawrence. And the repetition of "violates" should be avoided.
How about: Phillips further ruled that DADT violates the substantive due process rights of LGBT personnel, namely those rights the decision in Lawrence v. Texas found to be associated with "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct."

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Cow of Pain, that helps. I've changed it to say quoting in the reference and I've added interior quotation marks to the body because it's a quote within a quote.
To Bmclaughlin9, I agree about the repetition of "violates".
Another option, tweaking your suggested change, is:
Phillips further ruled that DADT violates the substantive due process rights of LGBT personnel, a fundamental right Lawrence v. Texas found to be associated with "an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct."
But I find that sentence a bit awkward.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentence to eliminate the second "violates" and incorporate more of Bmclaughlin9's wording, while retaining Cow of Pain's reference to Lawrence in the middle. Hopefully, everyone will be okay with the change. If not, I guess I'll hear about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the rewording is okay, but User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. For me, that explains a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I will not comment on the content of this article, but the picture at the top (the logo/seal) looks pretty bad. I don't have any vector graphic-creating software, so I can't fix it. The JPG is only worsened by being enlarged. dogman15 (talk) 07:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Almy

[edit]

A small addition regarding Major Almy. The emails were discovered on a government computer. Of all the people who should have known that such emails were discoverable, Almy was such a person. In this sense he was a closet gay who left the door ajar. This is a small point, but let's be clear that the government was not out there digging around for gays in the closets. But once the commanding officer received information about Almy, the commander was obligated to investigate. With this in mind, please WP:TPG before editing. --S. Rich (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your edits for a few reasons. First, the newspaper source doesn't bear out what you said. Second, even the opinion doesn't bear out what you said. Third, your reference isn't really a reference - it's a long explanation. Finally, even if we were to accurately reflect the judge's findings about the search of Almy's computer, it would be too much detail for too little notability. Hence, it doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the decision: Using the "same computer Almy had used while deployed" someone searched his "private electronic mail message ('e-mail') files without his knowledge or permission." "Almy [had] separated the personal e-mail he received in his government e-mail account into a folder titled 'Friends.' (Trial Tr. 769:20-770:15, July 16, 2010.)" [Footnote 7] Case 2:04-cv-08425-VAP-E Document 232 Filed 09/09/10 Page 23 of 86 Page ID #:6713 --S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote highlights the problem with the material you want to add to the article. It's incomplete and misleading. This is what the opinion says (without citations to the transcript):

After Almy completed his third deployment to Iraq in January 2005, someone began using the same computer Almy had used while deployed; that person searched Major Almy's private electronic mail message ("e-mail") files without his knowledge or permission. The search included a folder of Major Almy's personal e-mail messages,FN7 sent to his friends and family members, and read messages, including at least one message to a man discussing homosexual conduct. Almy thought the privacy of his messages was protected; he was very knowledgeable about the military's policy regarding the privacy of e-mail accounts because of his responsibility for information systems. He knew, for example, that according to Air Force policy, e-mail accounts could not be searched unless authorized by proper legal authority or a squadron commander or higher in the military chain of command.

FN7 says (without citations to the transcript):

According to Major Almy's uncontradicted testimony on this point, the Air Force, "for morale purposes," allows servicemembers deployed in combat zones to use their government e-mail account for personal e-mail. Almy separated the personal e-mail he received in his government e-mail account into a folder titled "Friends."

In other words, it was a government computer, but the government allowed service members to use it for personal e-mail. Almy segregated his work and personal e-mail. The service member who searched his e-mail could not have done so without authorization from someone higher up. Yet, you wanted to summarize the judge's findings in the following sentence:

Mike Almy, a former United States Air Force officer discharged after another service member searched his emails in his government e-mail account.

You don't say that the e-mails were personal. You don't say the search was done without permission. You don't say that Almy was permitted to use his government account for personal e-mail. You don't say that the search could only have been performed without authorization from higher up.

This is what the article said before your changes and what it says now:

Mike Almy, a former United States Air Force officer discharged after another service member searched his private emails without permission.

Although that sentence also omits details, it is more accurate because it says the e-mails were private and the search was done without permission. And, as I said in my original comment, to expand the sentence and include more detail is unwarranted. The sentence is one in a list of brief descriptions of the witnesses at trial.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon -- I did say "private" and "without permission" as these come from Philips' decision. (I quoted it correctly and fairly.) And I want to make it clear that the government did not initiate the search of this government computer. Bbb23, on the one hand you say I omit details and on the other hand you say too many details are added. In any event, the question of "permission" for a search is a red herring. The government did not initiate the search. A fellow service member received the computer that Almy had used and read the e-mails. (Didn't Almy know enough to go and delete the "friends" folder before he turned over the computer to his replacement!?) Perhaps that service member was simply seeking to make sure that no vital information was in the emails before s/he deleted them. We do not know the motivations behind that person so characterizing the "look-see" as a search is misleading. My point remains -- the Air Force was not actively seeking to find out who was in the closet. Almy left the door open and someone peeked inside. Let's not get to wrapped up in this. The more important point in Judge Philips' decision is (going to be) what Constitutional authority Congress has "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces." and what level of review the courts have to examine those rules.--S. Rich (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you said in the body of the article (you put it in your footnote) precisely what I said. In fact, you removed the word "private" and the phrase "without permission". Here is your edit. As for details, I said you omit details, and to be 100% accurate, too many details would have to be added -- not the same thing. Your speculation about what Almy should have done or what the other service member might have been doing is irrelevant. As you correctly say, we (you and I) don't know the motivations behind any of these people. However, Phillips made certain findings based on Almy's testimony, and one of those findings was that the service member would not have been able to perform the search without authorization from higher up. Her findings are important - your speculation (or mine) is not. Your statement that the military was "not actively seeking to find out who was in the closet" is not borne out by the opinion, only apparently by your belief. I agree with you that we should not get too wrapped up in this. So, let's leave the sentence as it is now (and was before your changes).
(As an aside, the reason I didn't indent was because with the block quotes, I would have had to do all sorts of conniptions to keep all my comments indented. You'll notice that by changing my lack of indent, the remainder is now off (I left it alone). I did however change your indent from my last paragraph so your comment (and now mine) aren't so far to the right.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9th Circuit stay decision & Supreme Court application

[edit]

The article is a bit misleading in referring to "the 2-1 decision to keep the stay in place". Readers would infer that the dissenting judge wanted to lift the stay entirely. In fact, all three judges wanted at least a partial stay.

Also, this article could use some coverage of the respective arguments in the United States Supreme Court on the application to vacate the stay. Lyle Denniston has been covering it for Scotusblog; his posts, along with links to the written arguments, can be found here:

—Mathew5000 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the first point, Fletcher's dissent was not a partial dissent, even though he said he would stay the injunction "in all respects but one." If Fletcher had written the majority opinion, the main thing the plaintiffs were seeking would have been obtained. Therefore, I don't see why it needs to be elaborated on. As for Denniston's opinions, they're not notable in my view, particularly with respect to the emergency motion itself. The Court denied it. The stay is in place. I think we just wait for what the Ninth Circuit does. Generally, we needn't cover arguments made in briefs. If there's something in particular you think is noteworthy, maybe you can pull it out and present it here for consideration.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Log Cabin Republicans v. United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Log_Cabin_Republicans_v._United_States&oldid=1208556162"