Supreme Court Justices Reveal Profound Ignorance About Text Messaging and Email

[SirJosephPorter]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case about texting in work place. During the hearing, they asked a lot of silly questions, which a ten year old would be able to answer. Here are some samples:

Chief Justice Roberts: What is the difference between texting and E Mail?

At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

Justice Scalia seemed surprised that the text message goes to the server, and not directly to the phone.

“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.

These guys are obviously computer illiterate. Are they really capable of rendering an expert judgment on the issue? I would say they should recuse themselves, but who is going to replace them?

Many of them are septuagenarians, they are clearly out of touch with today’s technology. I suppose they will render some kind of decision in the case, but Supreme Court will probably become the laughing stock as a result of this case.

Americas already don’t hold the presidency or the Congress in high regard, it looks like it is the Supreme Court’s turn next. Why do these justices keep serving until they have to be literally dragged away? Perhaps there should be an upper age limit for Supreme Court justices (like there is in Canada).

Supreme Court justices reveal profound ignorance of ask important questions about text messaging and email - Boing Boing

 

[DaSleeper]

Somehow I don't see why a judge would have to know the intricacies of the internet or be computer literate to judge a case involving text messages..
whether it is a privacy case or freedom of speech case, the media,oral, print or text, should not make a difference.....
A judge wouldn't need to be a mechanical engineer to judge a Toyota case for example....
Interesting post and I agree.....reluctantly

There should be an age limit

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Mechanical engineering is a very specialized profession and justices are not expected to know the intricacies of how a car engine works.

However, when it comes to E Mail and texting, literally hundreds of millions of people in USA know how the thing works. Knowing that text message or E Mail goes to the server, not to the computer or the phone is not a specialized knowledge, like Mechanical Engineering.

If justices don’t know anything about Mechanical Engineering, that does not make them more ignorant than a ten year old. Not knowing how E Mail or texting operates does.

When a ten or 15 year old sees that Justices are more ignorant than he is, he is going to lose all respect for the Supreme Court. It has a potential of doing serious damage to the reputation of the Supreme Court as a learned body, a repository of constitution of civil rights.

Justices are not expected to have knowledge of specialized subjects like Mechanical Engineering or Botany. However, when they show their ignorance, about a subject which tens of millions of Americans are familiar with, they leave themselves open to ridicule. E Mail or Texting are hardly specialized subjects.

 

[lone wolf]

Most 10 or 15 year-olds think they invented the PC


...but yes, there should be an age limit.

 

[DaSleeper]

Most 10 or 15 year-olds think they invented the PC


...but yes, there should be an age limit.

Didn't you know.....Al Gore invented the internet:lol:

 

[gerryh]

I doubt very much that the majority of people know that phone text messages or emails go to a server first and not directly to their cell phones.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I doubt very much that the majority of people know that phone text messages or emails go to a server first and not directly to their cell phones.

I'll admit that I didn't know that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'll admit that I didn't know that.

Perhaps the older generation may not know that, but I think most of younger generation would. In fact many of the older generation would sympathize with the justices, many of the older generation don't feel comfortable with the computers.

I remember a couple of years ago my wife asked me to send an E Mail to somebody she knows (she still hasn’t learned how to read or send E Mail). I did that, and told her that I sent him the E Mail.

Her response was, did I send it to his Montréal address or Toronto address? He had just recently moved from Montreal to Toronto. Her point was that if I sent E Mail to his Montreal E Mail address, he won’t get it in Toronto. I had a great deal of difficulty convincing her that there is no such thing as Montreal E Mail and Toronto E Mail, but just E Mail.

So older generation probably would be as ignorant as the Justices. But the younger generation is much more knowledgeable and probably is laughing is head off.

 

[DaSleeper]

Young people think they know everything anyway...
When I was young I thought I knew better than my parent including my dad who couldn't read or write...
After I reached my 20's I soon realized that knowledge and wisdom doesn't come in books, and to this day I use in my life what he taught me..
All kids have a low opinion of older people....they just don't show it when you're around.....

 

[AnnaG]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case about texting in work place. During the hearing, they asked a lot of silly questions, which a ten year old would be able to answer. Here are some samples:

Chief Justice Roberts: What is the difference between texting and E Mail?

At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

Justice Scalia seemed surprised that the text message goes to the server, and not directly to the phone.

“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.

These guys are obviously computer illiterate. Are they really capable of rendering an expert judgment on the issue? I would say they should recuse themselves, but who is going to replace them?

Many of them are septuagenarians, they are clearly out of touch with today’s technology. I suppose they will render some kind of decision in the case, but Supreme Court will probably become the laughing stock as a result of this case.

Americas already don’t hold the presidency or the Congress in high regard, it looks like it is the Supreme Court’s turn next. Why do these justices keep serving until they have to be literally dragged away? Perhaps there should be an upper age limit for Supreme Court justices (like there is in Canada).

Supreme Court justices reveal profound ignorance of ask important questions about text messaging and email - Boing Boing

So judges are supposed to understand the workings of the human body and mind in medical litigations? They're supposed to understand how combustion engines work to understand and make judgements in DUI cases? They should have to understand the chemistry involved in firearms homicides? Or computer science because of internet porn cases?
aaaaaahahahahahhahaahhahahaa

I bet most kids don't know emails and text messages go through a server let alone give a crap. They'd be more interested in the messages.
Tell me, smartass, as a user do you know all the intricacies of whichever Windows you use, including its weak areas?

 

[Kreskin]

This is understandable. I'm sure they've spent most of their lives studying law . Same with doctors, most don't know which end of a mouse to hold.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

This is understandable. I'm sure they've spent most of their lives studying law . Same with doctors, most don't know which end of a mouse to hold.

Indeed. But doctors don't have to rule on matters they know nothing about, Supreme Court Justices have to rule on every subject under the sun. It is incumbent upon them to acquire at least elementary knowledge about the subject they are considering.

And again, if they don't know much about obscure, technical matters, nobody thinks anything of it. But if they don't know basic stuff about E Mail and texting, they may very well become the laughing stock.

 

[Kreskin]

Judges rule on law, and they always rely on expert testimony. Like you said previously, they know nothing about mechanical engineering yet rule on law relating to it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Judges rule on law, and they always rely on expert testimony. Like you said previously, they know nothing about mechanical engineering yet rule on law relating to it.

Oh absolutely. They have to rely on expert testimony. But they should have elementary, fundamental knowledge of the subject to rule on the subject. When people find out that they don't know the basic stuff about computers, that doesn't help the reputation of Supreme Court any.

Reminds me of the time a few years ago, when Supreme Court had to decide whether tomato is a fruit or vegetable. I am sure they relied on a lot of expert advice, and that would be expected. However, if they had asked what is a tomato, they would have become the laughing stock. In my opinion asking what is the difference between testing and E Mail is equivalent to asking what is a tomato.

 

[Kreskin]

So what is the difference between texting and email?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

As I understand it, there are two major differences. Texting is a short message (the size limit is rather small), E Mail has no limit (or has a rather large size limit, more than what most of us would use). Originally, texting was just that, a short text message. But these days it can include sound and video as well.

The other big difference is that texting is confined to portable devices such as cell phones, Blackberries etc. E Mail can be sent to computers as well as mobile devices.

 

[Kreskin]

Technically there isn't much of a difference.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Technically there isn't much of a difference.

Not much, One could say that Texting is a special case of E Mail. Another difference may be (I don't Text, so I am only guessing) that you have to pay for the use of the cell phone per minute. So you may have to pay for each Text message. Internet charges a flat fee per month. So Texting may be much more expensive than E Mail.

In the old days, teenagers would talk over the phone for hours and run up huge phone bill for the parents (in places like Britain, where you are charged per minute). These days I can see teenagers texting hundreds of messages and running up huge bill on their cell phone for parents to pay.

 

[gerryh]

anybody want to tell sjp how far behind he is with the times?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

These guys are obviously computer illiterate.

They're likely to be illiterate about a whole lot of things, that's why they call expert witnesses. I've no idea what the specific case is that they've been asked to rule on, but it seems highly unlikely to me that they'd need to know the technical details of how text messaging and email work (and I'd bet very few people do, even very few 10-year olds), because the case wouldn't be about the technical details. It'd be about appropriate use or privacy or something like that, unless the issue is some technological patent infringement. Probably very few people know that their land line phone calls pass through several switching centres where they can be tapped, blocked, or rerouted. Most drivers don't know the technical details of how their vehicle works, people who look at a clock don't know the technical details of how it works... and so what? I just don't see an issue here.