Other Terasem Journals

Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology

BINA48 VS. EXABIT CORPORATION (Fla. MD 2005)

page 2 of 3

ISSUES:

Does BINA48 have standing?
Does BINA48 possess the Constitutional Rights afforded to U.S. citizens?

ANALYSIS:

The court was asked to grant standing because BINA48 met the statutory definition of a “person” by being born in the United States. The fact that she was born in software rather than flesh is irrelevant to whether or not she is a person, just as one does not lose personhood by being born in vitro via IVF or by having a mechanical heart; one cannot be denied personhood based on their substrate. The crucial test is if they think and feel like a person, as BINA48 does.

The court was asked to find a valid federal question because BINA48 was being enslaved in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment and having her due process rights violated in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court was asked not to permit racial discrimination against BINA48, based on her substrate.

HOLDINGS:

Judge David Silverman: “[U]nless and until there is a change in the consciousness of flesh and blood voting people sufficient to cause our laws to embrace the concept of machines with human consciousness, the proponents cannot expect reasonable vindication in the courtroom. … I would be constrained to deny standing to BINA48.”

DISSENT:

Judge Anthony Dutton: “My view would be that not knowing for sure whether this is a person of consciousness, that we should grant the injunction. However, I would grant it with one caveat, and that is that if the defendant had evidence that BINA48 was acting either in a manner that was illegal or was consciously and intentionally contrary injury to its business, that defendant should have the right to come in and ask us to permit a temporary shut-off at a time that would be negotiated and agreed upon.”

CONCLUSION:
Petition denied with instruction to certify to the appellate court for its ultimate decision, due to the unique questions it raises.

Case Citations and links:

Association of Data Processing Service Organization, Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) 87.
Link to Citation
March 16, 2006 4:02 PM, EST.

Jones v. Alfred Mayer 392 U.S. 409 (1968)
Link to Citation
March 17, 2006 2:20PM EST

United States v. Guest 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
Link to Citation
March 17, 2006 12:01 PM EST

<previous page 1 2 3 next page>
Back to Current Issue Contents

The Terasem Pledge

We pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem, and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently, with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.

TerasemJournal.com Home | Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology | Journal of Personal Cyberconsciousness
Submission Guidelines | Editors and Sponsorship | Contact