Slashdot Mirror
US Customs and Border Protection Wants To Know Who You Are On Twitter (eff.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electronic Frontier Foundation: U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world. But this flawed plan would violate travelers' privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression -- all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism. A proposal has been issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection to collect social media handles from visitors to the United States from visa waiver countries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes the proposal and has commented on it individually and as part of a larger coalition. "CBP specifically seeks 'information associated with your online presence -- Provider/Platform -- Social media identifier' in order to provider DHS 'greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections' for 'vetting purposes,'" reports EFF. "In our comments, we argue that would-be terrorists are unlikely to disclose social media identifiers that reveal publicly available posts expressing support for terrorism." They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers" to "engage in self-censorship, cutting back on their online activity out of fear of being wrongly judged by the U.S. government," and would lead to a "slippery slope, where CBP would require U.S. citizens and residents returning home to disclose their social media handles, or subject both foreign visitors and U.S. persons to invasive device searches at ports of entry with the intent of easily accessing any and all cloud data."
that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?
Be or ben't
If you're anywhere within 100 miles of a US border, the constitution doesn't apply, and any US customs agent can do anything they want to you, at any time, for whatever reason.
If you're still in the US, you should move inland > 100 miles, so at least whatever remains of the constitution still applies to you under specific conditions.
I like how the summary says that it's acceptable to demand the Twitter and Facebook handles from foreigners but that it's unacceptable to do the same to US citizens and residents.
They say this plan "would unfairly violate the privacy of innocent travelers," would cause "innocent travelers"...
I'd say that is EXACTLY the point of the idea if indeed they are actually doing this. Our government is most likely not quite that stupid even though sometimes they make a strong effort to prove me wrong. The vast majority of the time they invoke "terrorists" what they are really doing is finding ways to put their boot on the throats of normal citizens. The more subjugated the citizens are the easier it is for them to get what they want. Crime investigators see the constitution and civil rights as obstacles to be brushed aside instead of valuable protections.
that it's possible that someone doesn't have twitter and/or facebook?
Probably they would regard it as proof that such a person (like me) is a terrorist looking to hide something...
Obviously only braindead idiots use Twitter.
Fixed that for you.
I have been reliably informed that any Citizen who does not cheerfully pay for their personal spy-on-me telescreen, and cheerfully app apps like Uber, anyone who prefers to hail taxis via telephone-call or in person, or who uses only free software on open hardware, is a luddite who is holding back progress, so yes you would be a terrorist. You must welcome your big-corporation overlords.
- Custom officer : Do you have a github account? ... And that is how I found myself in Guantanamo, thinking I was going to visit my aunt in New York.
- Me: Sure, it's x x x
- Custom officer (takes one look at the github page, does a double-take): right this way sir.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
even Slashdot qualifies as 'social media'. Given the propensity for over-reach that's been displayed by CBP and associated agencies, visitors to the US might soon be required to supply ALL of their usernames and pseudonyms to border agents. After that, I'm sure the passwords will be demanded too.
BTW, this seems to be a dupe of a story first posted here in June: https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I don't even have a twitter account and you know they aren't going to believe that. I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about roommates and pretty much everyone on the radioshow said they wouldn't trust anyone who they couldn't find on Twitter because not having an account is somehow suspicious to them. What the hell is this world coming to?
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
Facebook is one thing but twitter really is shit(ter)
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Why do people still travel to the US? I haven't visited the country since they started treating visitors like criminals and I refuse any business travel towards the US. Sure, it may not always be avoidable for everyone, but if tourists simply stop coming, they will have to start treating their guests more normally at some point.
I'm planning to visit US in August 2017 to watch the total solar eclipse that pretty much is visible in lots of the states (path of totality goes from Pacific northwest to South Carolina). If this ruling gets implemented, I wonder what's would be more problematic: Leaving the field empty since I don't have any (well, I guess I could give my nick on IRCNet) or creating a throwaway account on Facebook without any content if they decide to look it up?
Not that I really expect any true problems at the border, have visited US many times in the past due to business although not in last 5 years. Some agents have been more friendly than others...but no real problems whatsoever.
How would they prevent people from using sanitized "fake" accounts? Seems a pretty obvious work-around.
The point would be that if you lied about it and they find out later they have extra ammunition to prosecute you with. Basically either you give up private information or they charge you with perjury if they catch you hiding information. Either way you lose.
i dont have a facebook account, (I HATE facebook)
i do have a twitter account, but i never tweat to anybody ever, i only have a twitter account so i can read tweats from things that interest me, i just flag the spammers is about the only interaction i do
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I put my phone number on goods I'm having shipped to America illegally so customs can call me for an explanation if they so desire. Yes, I'm trafficking things across the border that I'm not allowed to traffick across the border; and yes, customs inspects the package and decides it's fine.
I still don't want them digging through my Facebook and shit. My Facebook is online and exposes a ton of shit to everyone; there is no expectation of privacy, and they're welcome to go looking, and I still don't want to hand over a compendium of all the leads they should use to investigate me at their leisure. It's just a hassle to keep myself that well-documented.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It might help if you knew how to spell "horde". It would lend a bit of credence to your screed about morons.
I deal with it by not going to a country that treats its visitors like this.
Really? It's not even funny anymore, the fascists are winning, it's out of control....
This initiative sounds like it was paid for by Twitter and Facebook to boost the creation of extra accounts that people can give the SS at the border while being themselves on another account...
No problem, officer. My Twitter handle is @TheConstitutionAppliesToEveryInteractionOfThe USGovernmentWithUSCitizensAnywhereInTheWorld.
This is not supposed to achieve anything - except for making them look like they are "doing all they can". Last time I went to the Statets, I was required to fill in form that asked me"Are you coming to America to carry out terrorist offences?" or something like that. The things they come up with; I still haven't figured out how anybody can even ask such a question.
The fourth amendment actually uses the word 'people' and not 'citizens'. In cases where the lawmakers or framers intended the rights to be extended only to 'citizens', they make that explicit (i.e., for voting).
http://scholarship.law.georget...
So, no. Your assertion probably isn't true. But I'm not a lawyer--or even an American!--so my cursory search around the internet isn't worth much. Then again, it appears to be more than you've done...
the terms of your plea bargain require you to stay away from all social media sites.
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?
Not trying to troll... this is a serious question.
Barring the situation where one is living under an actual oppressive regime wherein the government surreptitiously "silences" anyone who expresses disagreement with them, I don't see how that is an issue. The USA still definitely has its problems, but it is one of the furthest places I can think of in the world from having such a regime.
I am not an advocate of the notion that "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong. Some things are kept secret or hidden not because there is anything wrong with them, but simply because they are private. Using social media, however, isn't exactly private, so I'm not sure what the issue is with anonymity in such forums.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time. As a small government guy one of the few things our government is supposed to be doing according to the preamble is providing for the common defense. .
Congrats. You've just moved into totalitarian nightmare. What happens to US travelers when other countries reciprocate these travel restriction ? Part of why there are countries that can enter the USA more easily than others is to ensure easier travel for Americans. International business will be affected. Tourism will be affected. You've just started to treat your closest allies badly, and will suffer those consequences.
Also, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of having the hundreds of millions of international travelers - the vast majority are from countries that do not need visas to travel to the US currently - submit applications and have them processed by the US? how much actual safety will be gained?
as a "small government guy" you've just increased the size of the NSA enormously for no reason. You're certainly not going to reduce the protections at this border with these new pre-flight checks. In fact, you may actually increase the amount of staff required to deal with on the borders as well.
and once you've secured this full pre-approval for entry for non-Americans, how long until the security apparatus decides that it should be pre-approval for international travel for Americans ?
and spend your vacation in a better country. Let the U.S. know just how badly they need that tourist income, and they'll be more respectful towards you.
is not "I don't have a facebook|twitter" account.
It is "Huh? Whats a facebook?"
That might get you a free flight to Cuba.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothin', but, ah... it says on your chart that you're fucked up. Ah, you talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded. - Idiocracy(2006)
The moron uprising is shifting into high gear.
Intelligent people, or even less intelligent people capable of critical thinking, are being drowned out by drooling morons. The only salvation appears to be wealth and even the wealthy are under siege by the moron hoard. I'm really not sure how much longer they will be able to stave off the tide.
You should spend more time with rich people. You may find they are just as benighted as the common folk, perhaps more so. The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
This is what happens when you DO have full documentation going to the UK.
https://medium.com/@rachelnabo...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
What if say, someone like me who does not have a Twitter or Facebook account wanted to visit America would that now make me a terrorist?
Would it be deemed that I am refusing to cooperate by telling them I do not have such?
No, but they will likely note it down, and if a search later finds out that you really had one, you can at least expect to have your phone/PC confiscated, be tossed out at your own expense, and automatically be refused future admission to the US or on flights that relay through US controlled territories.
Dear US customs,
from past experience visiting the (now no longer existing German Democratic Republic (Democratic as is Congo)) you could do so much more to make your country save. First, do not use Facebook or Twitter to find out anything about people. These services are used to project your public image. Second, in the old GDR no filthy foreigner could simple visit (except for those from West Berlin to East Berlin). You required an invitation. Third, everyone required a visa and you had to exchange some money on a per day basis into local currency on a one-to-one ratio. Fourth, as people must be invited you know the motivation for the trip and can in addition assess the visited family or group to make sure they are not terrorists.
Hope that helps.
Kind regards
prefec2 (yes this is also my twitter account, I think, maybe I changed it I forgot, ask my phone if you really need to know)
"U.S. border control agents want to gather Facebook and Twitter identities from visitors from around the world."
That would assume I have a Facebook or Twitter account, which I do not.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
First, there is something called human rights which apply everywhere (the US signed them, they even created them). Second, the 4th amendment applies to people in the US. You are already on US soil when you stand in the queue before customs.
As somebody from the US, I strongly disagree with you. I quite like going to Europe without having to get a visa. I personally feel that all Europeans should be treated with the same respect they treat me with and they should be let into our country with an equivalent amount of hassle as I have going into theirs (read almost none). Fact is I go through more hassle re-entering my own country then I do entering Europe as a visitor. It's ridiculous.
That's those evil, civil-liberty and privacy hating Republicans. It's time we elect a Democrat who will fix all this! Vote Hillary! She knows how to keep her E-mail private!
We're all @Snowden on Twitter, right?
I would argue there should be no visa waiver countries in the first place. We really ought to require everyone entering the USA notify the state department a head of time.
What about countries you share a land border with, like Canada? An estimated 75% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US-Canada border, and "Canada accounts for about 20 per cent of America’s US$2.3-trillion export sector, making it the single biggest destination for Made in America products in the world." Requiring pre-visit visa applications would seriously dampen the enormous day-trip cross-border shopping industry. As of a few years ago, all visitors to the US require a valid passport (previously Canadians could enter with a birth certificate and two other forms of ID.) Since you already have full details on visitors from their passports, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis; what other details would a visa capture and would that information be worth the potential costs (ie: to the economy in lost sales)?
The intent behind is likely to identify low-risk people, rather than identify terrorists. Think of the algorithm they employ as a series of checks and decisions, and after each check, they can decide the accept, reject, or keep looking. After some preliminary checks, if you have a social media account, that's several years old, has a lot of American friends, and looks otherwise innocuous, they will consider that as strong evidence for an accept decision. Otherwise, they will likely go on to the next check.
Having said that, it's still a dumb idea. The potential for them to accidentally find something somewhere in your social graph, or to misinterpret an online posting of yours, is just too high. Given the current political climate, merely supporting the wrong presidential candidate, the NRA, or BLM might rub some bureaucrat the wrong way. They will certainly keep that data, download and keep your social graph, and use that for retrospective data mining as well, in particular if someone a few edges away from you ends up running afoul of the law.
Note also that the EFF gets the constituional issues wrong again: there is no First or Fourth Amendment protection for non-citizens at the border. One can argue about whether it should be so, but immigration and border control can legally discriminate against non-citizens on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, national origin, speech, political views, and religion; it can also search personal effects as much as the administration tells it to. And the US works the same in this regard as other countries.
If push came to shove I'd set up dummy Facebook and Twitter accounts and let CBP see them. No good way to tell which of the several hundred Laura Hallidays on Facebook is me. Post some pictures of cats, a few likes, done.
I already engage in some self-censorship. There are a few CDs (mainly Russian and Israeli acts) I leave at home when I cross the border.
...laura
Wow, we're turning into Super Sad True Love Story, and few people are noticing. Make sure to have a social media presence when you come back to the United States, or you might get detained.
Oh, well, then it's ok.
Come to think about it, I might actually have an empty FB account that I created so nobody can create one in my name. But I really hope you don't expect me to remember the account name or even the password.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dear Fred,
First, nobody here is gay. Second, we're not into microdicks. And finally, we've seen what kind of stuff you're looking at when you're wanking and in the odd chance you ever had a chance to actually do that, we wouldn't wanna suck your dick even if you washed it with chlorine in between.
Yours
You know who
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The correlation between wealth following intelligence is over. Much of the wealth that is accumulated today is inherited rather than earned. Think old aristocracy and its decadence, just with less inbreeding.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Tell them you believe Facebook is just a fad that will go away any time now. Then offer them your MySpace credentials.
Who is the "they" doing the believing? EFF?
A lot of people, including the EFF, are mentioning Facebook and Twitter for some reason. Those sites are said to be fairly popular, so they might be good examples if you're trying to explain the issue to the mainstream.
But if you actually click through to the .gov site's proposal, they don't say anything specifically about those two sites. They say "social media identifier." The page's only mention of Facebook is that the page has a Facebook-sharing widget.
So: "social media identifier." For people who use Facebook, their facebook id would, indeed, happen to be something the government would be interested in. But if you don't use Facebook, then that's not what they're asking for. The presumption is that you socialize (to at least some degree) somehow. That may or may not be correct, but for 100.0% of the people who are reading this comment, it happens to be an accurate assumption.
One good answer to their question might be: what's your Slashdot identifier? Well, if you log in, then it's your login name. Using that combined with some really large logs (presumably where the https was broken) they can see all the pages you requestedwhich uses that cookie, and infer what kinds of things you're interested in. And Slashdot already helpfully shows your posts, so they'll know what you're often saying. And that will happen to work fairly well for you, sirber.
If you don't log in, then they might like to know your ISP accounts (home and mobile) so they can check logs to see your IP address at certain times, to either directly tie it to Slashdot activity, or indirectly through, say, Google Analytics cookies or something like that. At some point, this crosses the line into the impractical, but let's remember: if you don't login to Slashdot, then the value of whatever identifies you on Slashdot is significantly lessened, since you're probably not maintaining persistent communications anyway, so they're less likely to care. They'd ask you about some other site.
Other "site" presumes HTTP, though, and of course social media is far larger than just the web. Email might still possibly the biggest social media network of all, where your identifier would be your email address. IRC? Usenet? (Ok, we're sounding very old here. But maybe someone knows how to investigate old people.)
If there's really nothing, then you probably are somewhat unusual (no, not a "terrorist," just unusual), so they might need to talk to you instead of just read about you in the other room. The presumption isn't Facebook and Twitter: it's just something.
Something online. Maybe you spend all your time chatting people up in bars, in the real world, without a computer network. Then I suppose a photograph of your face is your social media identifier. No?
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
But this flawed plan would violate travelers' privacy, and would have a wide-ranging impact on freedom of expression -- all while doing little or nothing to protect Americans from terrorism.
So exactly the same as every other US Federal government "security" program... Seeing a pattern, here.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Well, no one is forcing me to travel to the US so it is not really a problem to deal with. There's plenty of other interesting places I can spend my vacation money.
There are quite a few people who already are opting out of visiting the US already because of all the crap implemented already.
You talk as though there was one government instead of a lot of somewhat disjointed agencies and departments.
Shorthand way of communicating the concept. Most people understand this just fine. It's a part of the government and they are trying to do something to make their life easier at the expense of civil liberties. If another part of the government fails to stop them (like Congress or the President or the Secretary of Homeland Security) then they are tacitly endorsing the actions of this agency.
And those are separate from Congress and the Judiciary.
Of course they are. US Customs is a part of the Dept of Homeland Security. But it IS a government agency and therefore referring to it as "the government" is entirely accurate if a tad sloppy. It is entirely within the power of Congress to stop these actions. If Congress fails to do so then Congress is endorsing these actions so in that sense the government is effectively a single entity.
Slashdot is a form of social media. So if you are posting with any handle other than "Anonymous Coward" you will need to provide that handle to your friendly neighborhood spy.
Which part of Data Treaty don't you get?
You signed a Treaty, not a suggestion.
You signed it with Canada and the EU.
Those countries are exempt from data collection.
Period.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
No Facebook, LinkedIn or any cloud accounts either.
All of my devices data was copied to an encrypted thumb drive and mailed to a dead drop address ahead of me.
Am I free to go?
Have gnu, will travel.
There are also "constitution free zones" that stretch about 100 miles inland from all borders. A good amount of the population lives permanently in those zones.
You have rights if they don't have any problems with you. If you're a problem, you don't have rights.
"Why should freedom of expression necessarily mean freedom of accountability for such expression?"
What exacly counts as accountability? Is it just "Did you say that?" "Yes I did" (end of story)? Because under any other circumstances, like if there are repercussions to your free speech, then your speech isn't really free now is it?
What is there difference between "free speech with repercussions" and "no free speech"?
'"if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" either, because I do believe that everyone has something to hide, even if they haven't done anything wrong.'
No, everyone has done something illegal, even if they don't know it.
And then use your real one for everything else.
Normally, you don't want to deport bad actors that are here. You just arrest them. The anti-terrorism rules are flexible enough to hold anyone for an extended time. And this is before the Gitmo options. Any bad actor worth their salt will provide doctored items that would just add noise to the analysis. It really isn't that hard to get valid but misleading social media accounts.
But the cost of this is pretty high. We are going to collect tons of point less data that will add noise to the set we have. We will invade the privacy of tons of people. We will become adversarial to our visitors. And this new information will certainly be abused with innocents hurt at the behest of those in power.
Making law enforcement's job easier at the cost to civil liberties is never a good trade off.
I wasn't addresing the issue of breaking the law without knowing it when keeping things secret. If you don't know that you've broken the law by doing something, unless there was some aspect of privacy that was otherwise involved, you wouldn't generally have a reason to think you needed to hide that in the first place. My point is that people have things that are private even *IF* there was nothing wrong with what they want to keep hidden (to anyone who says otherwise, you could ask them why they are wearing clothes... is there something wrong with their body?) My point being that even if a person has done absolutely nothing illegal (ignoring the side-issue that you raised of everyone doing illegal stuff without knowing it), that person still has things to hide... again, not because they have necessarily done anything wrong, but because those things are simply private.
As for the issue of the consequences or possibly even undesirable repercussions to speech making that speech somehow less free, that might be the case if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy. Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Once you arrive at the US, you have to get past passport control and customs. That's what most people worry about, but it's less unpleasant than getting the visa. The problem is only that the personnel act overworked, surly and suspicious - very unwelcoming.
Far worse is the process of getting a visa, because this requires visiting the American embassy. The place is built like a prison, and that's pretty much the feeling you have when you are there: the personnel is behind thick glass windows with over-pressure against poison gas, talking to you through a crappy speaker. Even though you may "have an appointment" you often spend hours waiting. Sure, your appoint may begin on time, but then you wait again, then go to some other window, then wait some more, then go pay at the cashier, who may be on her lunch break...
And you aren't allowed to take anything in with you. Just your wallet and any paperwork you may have. No bags, not a phone, not a Kindle. I've learned that they let me take in a physical paperback, a pad of paper and a pencil - that's as far as you can stretch the rules.
The process of checking people to let them inside is slow, and the only place to wait is outside - if it's stormy, windy and raining, be sure to dress warmly. But not too warmly - you can't have a backpack or anything, because the embassy has no provision for your belongings. They don't want them on the premises, so you have to find someplace else to leave your stuff. The obvious spot is the train station, which is about a mile's walk away (there's no parking at the embassy, they're far too paranoid for that). This is really great for people who are visiting for the first time, because they naturally assume there will be lockers or some other provision for their belongings; they face a 40-minute walk to deposit their stuff elsewhere, missing their appointment. It is also great for families with babies or small children, since you can't bring in your kiddy bag to take care of them.
The whole setup is a truly unbelievable PITA - you have to see it to believe it.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
and don't use twitter. My wife is 45 and doesn't use facebook. My dad uses both, however.
so you're saying that if you act like an asshole I'm not allowed to tell you to bug off? Because that's a repercussion.
Which ironically, is pretty much what it's like visiting the USA.
Except that there, every foreigner gets fingerprinted, they don't even have to think of a reason. And there's none of this "records destroyed after 10 years" bullshit either, they're kept forever.
This is not true.
You imply laziness, but you didn't even read my comment completely. I said, "a non-citizen OUTSIDE the country." What you linked, and probably found on the internet, was for foreign nationals in the U.S.
All U.S. persons are entitled to Constitutional rights. A U.S. person, is a U.S. Citizen, a known permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association substantially composed of U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens, or a corporation if incorporated in the US and not directly controlled by a foreign government.
Generally, persons or organizations outside the U.S. are presumed not to be a U.S. person unless there is specific information to contrary.
Your countries probably already do this.
Good thing the US doesn't survive on tourism.
That's not a repercussion, that's you practicing your own free speech. A repercussion would be a loss of freedom, property or money.
"Freedom to do or say something can entail the responsibility to still be accountable for what you do or say, and still be freedom in nearly every other sense of the word."
I like how you quietly slipped 'to do' into the freedom of speech argument to try and make your point more valid. Freedom of speech says nothing about what you can do other than opening your gab and gurgling into the wind.
"...if you consider freedom synonymous only with anarchy" Wow, that argument is really clutching at straws. We already have defamation laws that protect individuals against slander and libel. Some may see these laws as being in contention with free speech rights, but they are there to protect other rights of the individuals being slandered. Apart from that there should be absolutely no consequences to free speech. Anything else is a false guise of free speech. End of story.
I want a (golden-egg laying) pony.
Requiem for the American Dream
The ability to amass wealth has no correlation with intellectual enlightenment or critical thinking.
Is that something you're basing on evidence or logic, or just something you tell yourself until you believe it?
Certainly, my job requires critical thinking, and permits me to amass wealth.
It's based on my personal experience. I said critical thinking and wealth are not correlated, not that they can't exist in the same place. I would expect you would understand that, what with your critical thinking skills and all.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that wealth lead to enlightenment. I was saying that intellectuals who have wealth are able to keep the moronic masses at bay, or at least at a sufficient distance that they have no impact. Meanwhile, intellectuals without means are more likely to be drowned out by the rabble.
But, I absolutely agree with you. I should spend a lot more time with rich people! Could you perhaps make an introduction for me?
Ah, now I see what you're saying. Sorry, I can't offer any introductions. I generally can't stand those swells.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I wasn't trying to make my point more valid by inserting "to do" in there... freedom of speech is the same as any other kind of freedom that might otherwise apply to things like an actual action. I was generalizing when I mentioned "doing", but my point is identical without it when talking specifically about freedom of speech.
I disagree.... If you really feel like you have the need to say something publicly but you do not want to be held responsible for the consequences that what you are saying might not be well received, then I think you completely deflate the importance of saying it in the first place. If it's important enough to be publicly known, then it is probably important enough to be worth whatever consequences that might entail. I would compare wanting to say something publicly but not wanting to face any undesirable consequences that might arise from it as being akin to wanting to buy a car on credit but not wanting to have the regular monthly payments it entails.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'