Slashdot Mirror
US Government Has 'No Right To Rummage' Through Anti-Trump Protest Website Logs, Says Judge (theregister.co.uk)
A Washington D.C. judge has told the U.S. Department of Justice it "does not have the right to rummage" through the files of an anti-Trump protest website -- and has ordered the dot-org site's hosting company to protect the identities of its users. The Register reports: Chief Judge Robert E. Morin issued the revised order [PDF] Tuesday following a high-profile back and forth between the site's hosting biz DreamHost and prosecutors over what details Uncle Sam was entitled to with respect to the disruptj20.org website. "As previously observed, courts around the country have acknowledged that, in searches for electronically stored information, evidence of criminal activity will likely be intermingled with communications and other records not within the scope of the search warrant," he noted in his ruling. "Because of the potential breadth of the government's review in this case, the warrant in its execution may implicate otherwise innocuous and constitutionally protected activity. As the Court has previously stated, while the government has the right to execute its Warrant, it does not have the right to rummage through the information contained on DreamHost's website and discover the identity of, or access communications by, individuals not participating in alleged criminal activity, particularly those persons who were engaging in protected First Amendment activities." The order then lists a series of protocols designed to protect netizens "to comply with First Amendment and Fourth Amendment considerations, and to prevent the government from obtaining any identifying information of innocent persons."
If the website actually cared about privacy, they wouldn't have logged everything.
Sorry, but I know of NO 'public' websites that publish their log files, that is just ill-informed dumbassery, which must be very common in russian troll farms
Can't they just call their counterparts at NSA and get whatever they want? Why all the paperwork and redundant court-theater to get what they already have?
Assuming the website is publically acecssible, of course it does.
Wrong assumption. They are "requesting" (demanding) that Dreamhost provide them with logs containing IP addresses of 1.3M people that merely visited the site (without participating in any discussion). That info is not publicly available. If it was, they wouldn't need a warrant.
Here is the relevant law:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Since there is no probable cause for 1.3 million people, the judge was right to deny the warrant.
Hmmm... you nailed publicly, but whiffed on accessible... Your no pure-blooded grammar Nazi, are you laddie?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Yessir. Lest we forget, the protections afforded citizens by the Bill of Rights are tested most severely when they protect the rights of the people you disagree with.
I see the President for what I believe he is, a charlatan with a magician's gift for distraction, but I would never condone the outing of his supporters' personal information in a warrant-less search.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Go home Vlad, you're drunk.
Bullshit and you know it. There were lots and lots of anti-obama websites, some coming close to calling for armed insurection. I mean besides fox news et. al. The Obama DOJ didn't go after them at all. Something to do with The Constitution.
Russia is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
If you want to use it, you need to be a citizen of the United States or a person within its borders.
Not a guy in Russia buying ads on Facebook. They'd need to do it from within US borders. Then they would be bound by the laws related to political campaign advertising.
Bullshit .. because for starters, Obama never asked for such draconian shit.
Look, if Tump the Idiot feels it is his presidential right to attack, intimidate, harass, and otherwise dig into the lives of people who disagree with him, then the reality is he's grossly unfit for the office.
Political dissent is a Constitutionally protected right, and in fact, it's part of the basis of the 1st amendment. Are you suggesting that anybody but a fascist asshole would do this or that there is any legal basis upon which said asshole would do it?
When you elect a thin-skinned egomaniac wannabe facist as your president, and if you support his actions, then please, do the world a favor and fuck off.
Trump is a narcissist, a crook and a thug, and he's using his presidential powers exactly as you'd expect such a douchebag to do.
If any Americans are supporting Trump to do idiotic and fascist things like this, then America is well and truly fucked.
Tell me, what do you think the response would be if someone had asked for logs for an NRA or an anti-abortion site? And now tell me what either of those two idiotic groups would have done if someone did it to them.
Idiot.
. . . if the same judge would so vociferously enforce the Constitution and "protect netizens" if the political parties were reversed, e.g., hypothetical President Hillary's DoJ demanding the weblogs of hypothetical-conservative-site.org.
Of corse he is. What would be the fun of trolling a grammer nazi-wannabe.
Wait a Minute! POTUS Obama's Regime rummaged through Federal Government records (IRS/tax records according to the Main Stream Media) and barely caught a News story. POTUS Obama's Regime bugged people (stingray, etc.) and it only came to light during the "Russian" investigations. POTUS Obama & His Regime did a lot of illegal surveillance of USA Citizen & people. These actions by POTUS Obama, et al, are a lot worse than asking for the logs. Actions speak louder than words.
The headline is quite misleading, the real details are in the order that, thankfully, the summary links to.
Basically, the judge granted a protective order that lets the feds search for evidence of criminality (e.g. more info on those plans to dump butyric acid into the ventilation shafts or to chain trains), without the ability to go fishing around for evidence of other crimes they may have committed.
In short, it's a reasonable protective order that lets the feds do their job while addressing the privacy concerns. From the headline, you'd assume they lost, but if you look at the details, the feds will be able to search the site for evidence with the judge acting as an intermediary to ensure that all the searches are justified.
Russians are and people in Russia are protected by it. The US constitution says what the US government is allowed to do and what it can't. It doesn't say that the US government can do anything it wants to people outside the US borders or non-citizens. It is very clear on that. In fact the limits are the same for in the USA and outside, and mostly for citizens and non-citizens*. The trouble with most constitutions is if politicians choose not to follow them and the people don't actually read, understand and hold the politicians accountable then it really is just a scrap of paper.
*And now blacks and women. Don't hold your breath for native Americans though.
I doubt that. Distributing a foreign magazine, book, pamphlet, tract, etc. in the USA would be covered under the USA Constitution. Also foreign websites that can be viewed by a person in the USA are covered . Foreign videos, movies, etc. that can be streamed to a device and viewed by a person in the USA are covered. You think that the USA Constitution doesn't cover foreigners? Or that they actually have to be here?
You forget POTUS Obama's Regime armed drug cartel with Operation Fast and Furious (with military grade stuff), and POTUS Obama's Regime sanctioned legal businesses with Operation Choke Point.
No, the Obama administration just sicced the IRS on them.
They're onto me. Shite... What would our Fearless Leader do with Puerto Rico in shambles, the Secretary of State calling him an effin' moron, and a tinpot dictator besting him in a game of one-upmanship?
"Oh yeah! Well, what about the NFL players kneeling during the anthem?"
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I am not in US. Looking from outside, I find the apparent general lack of faith in the ability of US judges to act with impartiality in respect of the law surprising. This is doubly so when you consider that, with few exceptions, decisions are subject to appeal and review by many others. Can someone in the US please explain whether my perception is skewed or there is a general distrust? If the latter, where does that stem from?
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
There are scary people on both sides, for sure.
I hate partisans of all stripes, because we should not strive to be a slave to a label, but individuals with our own human opinions.
Both groups have good ideas and bad ideas, but if all you see is "they" then you can never see the good ideas from the bad -- and you can't see the bad ideas for the reason they're actually bad!
It covers everyone within its borders.
separation of power still works.
define "borders" in the Internet era ?
>Since there is no probable cause for 1.3 million people, the judge was right to deny the warrant.
He didn't deny the warrant you utter nincompoop.
To ensure that the identities of innocent persons are not revealed, the government must adhere to the following safeguards: (1) file a report with the Court explaining the government's intended search protocol and review procedures designed to minimize access to data and information not covered by the Warrant; (2) if the Court approves the report, the government may only conduct its search on a redacted data set that omits non-subscriber identifying
information; (3) upon completion of review, the government must file an itemized list of the materials it seeks to retain with the Court, and explain how such materials are relevant to its investigation and its basis for removing any redactions; and (4) only upon a finding by the Court that the requested information is evidence of criminal activity, as described in the Warrant for which this Court has found probable cause, may the government obtain any un-redacted information, such as the identity of the user.
The judge just set a number of conditions and protocols that the government has to abide by in order to minimize exposing the information not sought in the warrant.
To be fair, they were evading taxes, and part of their platform was evading taxes.
Sort of bringing it upon yourself at that point, aren't you?
The US Constitution doesn't prevent the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which requires all activities and finances of a foreigner/foreign government or their agents to be registered, unless specifically exempt.
The same as the pre-Internet era?
Russia is not covered by the 1st Amendment.
If you want to use it, you need to be a citizen of the United States or a person within its borders.
Nope. Freedom of speech is considered by the United States to be a natural right, and the first amendment does not create it, only recognize it. In general, the USA has extended the right of free speech to non-citizens. This is not the case worldwide; for example, it's still illegal for a noncitizen of the UK to engage in "seditious" speech while on their soil, while they basically eliminated that for their own citizens some while ago.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wrong assumption. They are "requesting" (demanding) that Dreamhost provide them with logs containing IP addresses of 1.3M people that merely visited the site (without participating in any discussion). That info is not publicly available. If it was, they wouldn't need a warrant.
They probably already have that information, they logged the connections to begin with. [Never forget QWest.] But that won't help them with parallel construction...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You don't know very many then.
Logging does not equal security. Logging enables forensic analysis after the fact.
Cameras don't prevent the bank robbery, but they may help you find the robber.
Well said.
The main problem with logs is how long do you keep them. Normally this is set by company policy but as per usual Governments (usually ill-informed or draconian) seem to want companies to keep logs forever which is stupid since logs do take up storage space.
A very import part of company policy with respect to logs is a statement of who has the right to view them and the reasons for this. Obviously, you cannot stop a System Administrator so there has to be some trust but you can dictate that any external access can only be allowed when the appropriate legal documents are produced.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
And POTUS Obama's Regime murdering US citizens via drone strike.
Except that that asking for information that is held by a third party isn't covered under that amendment. That's why Congress had to pass the Pen Register Act, among other laws. Laws like that are statutory fixes for situations you couldn't reasonably expect an 18th century politician to anticipate.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Totally agree. There's a very real difference between suppressing free speech and punishing someone for not doing a professional job.
Well, with there now being undeniable video of CNN and NYT actually being the antithesis of real journalism (which NBC is doing as well), why should they allow them to continue to spread disinformation?
Are you suggesting that CNN is less accurate than our White House? If DJT tells me one thing and CNN tells me another, I know who I'm going with. Because that keeps happening and DJT is wrong every time. He's still spouting off about America being "the highest-taxed nation in the world" and poor Sanders is stuck trying to defend it.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
The independence of the judiciary is pretty well grounded in the Constitution.
So is equal protection under the law, prohibitions against religious persecution, limitations to the scope of the amendments, etc.
Play Command HQ online
To flip it around ... I guess you're ok with the unmasking?
I take Russian meddling far more seriously than a group trying to cause a ruckus at the inauguration, just my opinion though.
Play Command HQ online
He's still spouting off about America being "the highest-taxed nation in the world"
To be fair, this is true in an absolute sense. It is only when you look at percentages or per capita taxes that other countries pay more.
... without due process.
then how do you apply 1st Amendment enforcement to virtual data ? The storage location ? So as such, should ISIS be free to spread their content without restriction (after all, hate speech is still free speech ? [and yes, I believe they should.])
until November 2016, the Bill of Rights was considered a outdated relic that was irrelevant, but suddenly the Left turned 180 degrees
Not true. The left has championed the 4th Amendment for a long time, just as the right has long defended the 2nd and 10th.
Judges are flawed humans being as everybody else... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
LOL no the only thing that suddenly and mysteriously changed was your perception of the issue. Retroactively. If you can dig deep into your suppressed memories, you might remember free speech cages, and the right wanting to run the bill of rights through a crosscut shredder in the name of stopping those durn Muslim terr'ists under Dubya. Back when the mass surveillance kicked into high gear, that the right hardly ever complained about, even under Obama. Remember that?
Heck, remember when the right had this conspiracy theory that net neutrality was an attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and that was considered a Very Bad Thing? Now the Golfer in Chief talks very plainly about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine in all but name, and nobody on the right bats an eye. One good thing that's come from the Senile Racist Uncle regime is that the shameless, all-encompassing hypocrisy of the right has been laid bare for all to see.
I'm still not sure what the right wants done to prevent boycotts, these days they're always complaining about people's freedom of speech and association when companies are pressured to fire outspoken deplorables in their employ like James Damore and Brendan Eich. Maybe an anti-boycott tribunal to force business relationships to continue when there's evidence of a political motive when ceasing them. Doesn't sound very constitution-friendly to me, but again, the right is very hypocritical about these things. They didn't make a peep about Jemele Hill after all.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
> Their goal was to get more access than they needed for whatever reason, and they failed at reaching that goal. I'd say they lost; now they're going to have to do their jobs (or whatever facsimile thereof they've been tasked with) using only the legal amount of information.
Right, and you're a mind reader now? I don't know about you, but I'm more wary of people who have decided the police are out to get them, like those crazy people who assassinated random cops for no reason...
Anyhow, I suggest taking some actual law classes someday, instead of getting your education from fiction. We have an adversarial justice system. They always ask for the max and it's the defense's job to whittle that down with the court as the referee. I realize it may be strange if you're from a country where they have, say, an inquisitional system or any of the other models, but this is pretty much normal. They basically always ask for everything they could possibly get and leave it to the judge to whittle that down. Sometimes nobody bothers to contest it and they get everything, after all.
Sure, this one's a bit abnormal because it's getting a lot of attention, so the judge put more effort into that order than usual. But there's nothing particularly noteworthy here other than the level of controversy.
This is far too preliminary to be interesting. Sure, it's important because it lays the foundation of the case(s) to come, but it's usually more instructive to wait until there are trials and both sides show what evidence they have.
But I guess some judge will receive a threat to 'remove his license'
Of corse he is. What would be the fun of trolling a grammer nazi-wannabe.
The expression "grammar nazi" is interesting because:
1) actual nazis had, on average, poor grammar skills. Goebbels himself (who wanted to obtain a PhD in literature but had to fall back to literary history) wanted to become an author but his grammar was terrible. His own teacher, von Waldberg, once made fun of the fact that Goebbels was a huge fan of Dostoyevsky but never managed to write down the author's name properly.
2) nazis rarely took initiatives; they had a deeply hierarchical culture with centralized decision-making. Nazism was a textbook case of corporate statism.
Therefore, a person who engages on their own in grammatical nitpicking on the internet should not be called a "grammar nazi", but rather a "grammar vigilante", which is at the opposite end of the social spectrum.
In fact, one could argue that "grammar phony" would be an even better expression since grammatical nitpicking does not aim at correcting mistakes, but is rather a thinly veiled form of virtue signalling.
lucm, indeed.
This is the Superior Court of DC, so I think this is actually the relevant law on search warrants:
https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/48-921.02.html
The Constitution doesn't exactly provide a lot of details, so one normally looks at the actual laws on the subject. To re-derive the constitutional contours of search warrants from constitutional principles every time would be sort of like trying to do this every time you want to add 2+2. In short, no, it doesn't work that way.
It's normal for demands to be overly broad. They ask for whatever they might plausibly get, because sometimes the judge agrees with them and they won't get anything they don't request. This is how an adversarial justice system works. There are other models, for example, inquisitional systems, in use in other countries.
Note that I am not arguing with you about this being non-public information. You were right to correct the other poster about that. And you were right that it is, in fact, completely obvious from the fact that they issued a search warrant. The judge realized there were real concerns here, so they narrowed the scope of what was asked and are allowing the police to search it first, then unmask people later if they have probable cause to believe they were participants in a crime.
In short, it's a detailed and perfectly sensible decision that appears to be quite fair to both sides.
The US also has one of the rates for Corporate taxes, if I am not mistaken.
and for some reason lots of big Companies decide to use patent fees of their subcompanies to barely pay taxes outside of the US and more than they have to inside of the US.
Neat way to confirm what GP was saying.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's why the expression is "grammar nazi" and not simply "nazi". It's ascribing the zealotry of nazism to highlighting poor grammar, not saying that all nazis had impeccable grammar.
You are making the classic mistake of assuming the anger comes from a difference in opinion, not in the character of the different opinion.
He swallowed the government's coolaid after all. The 4th amendment does not protect "innocent" persons because guilt is only established in court proceedings, it protects persons not specifically targeted by an investigation. Once we apply the threshold of "innocence", somebody has to make that decision, and to make the decision, he needs to view the information. So we are again talking about dragnet operations under government control and are just bickering about who is responsible for operating which parts of the dragnet.
Nope, it's tiny hands he's talking about, moron. DO try to keep up with news. Hillary didn't get the presidency 8 months ago. Get over it: you deplorables have to actually DO something (and get blamed for it) rather than just whining about those who do.
Or perhaps something to do with being a decent human being.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Actually that's incorrect. What the first amendment actually starts with is "Congress shall make no law..." meaning the government is forbidden from acting against free speech in any capacity whatsoever.
Authoritarians like to talk about the Constitution as if it is a set of rights the government grants the People. That is totally wrong. The People are the holders of ultimate power and the Constitution is a set of rights we have decided to delegate to the government. The Bill of Rights is just a followup of the style of "if there were any doubts about who is really in control here, let's just make these things extra clear."
You don't know any actual liberals then. Calling someone a liberal, or oneself a liberal, doesn't make it so.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Comment removed based on user account deletion
undeniable video that of course you are completely incapable of actually providing or proving hte existence of.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
IDS is detection. IPS is prevention.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
how about when sanders was saying "he's more to fight ISIS in the past 6 months than Obama did in last 8 years" ...
ignoring both that ISIS is only like 3 years old, AND Trumps super secret "plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days" is just to keep following the plan Obama was already following.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
so what youre saying is, is that your delusions are still intact.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
still delusional.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You have not been paying attention. Look it up your self if you have doubts.
This is such an incredibly annoying post that I hope it is a troll. We need some decent trolls back on slashdot, not just meme-regurgitators.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That is classic right wing false equivalence "there are good and bad people on both sides" bollocks. Some Nazis liked Mozart or kittens, that doesn't mean that Nazism was OK on balance.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"barely caught a news story" ... what fantasy world are you living in?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
IDS is detection. IPS is prevention.
And IBS is a pain in the ass.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
and you seem to have no clue as to the facts of the case.
here's the rundown:
-IRS is tasked with approving 501() tax exemptoin applications
-IRS had a backlog
-IRS tried to shortcut determinations for 501(c) groups, the NON-POLITICAL group category by searching for political terms in group names
-this is because groups didnt want to have to file under 501(d) because (d) requires disclosure of donors while (c) does not (thats why its explicitily for political groups)
-IRS did this to both conservative AND liberal groups
-Congress critter Issa tried to paint it as being conservatives only by manipulating hte investigation and only pointing out conservative groups
-IRS never actually disapproved any conservative groups
-IRS did disapproved a few liberal ones
-the whole scandal was manufactured conservative bullshit that came about because the IRS tried to do its job and actually enforce the law as written, albeit with a misguided shortcut.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
ah yes.
the famous leftist agenda of having all citizens treated equally under the law as the constitution demands.
that makes the conservative agenda what exactly?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yes. Apparently Grammar Nazis criticize Nazi grammar.
So just do a Google search for "undeniable video" and there it is?
keep proving me right
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
that there exists a small number of judges that are still willing to defy the Department of Justice. This was the correct ruling. DoJ needs a good swift kick in the balls as a reminder that, as much as it wants to, it cannot violate the constitution.
You are asking that on a tech forum? Sometimes you have to wonder why they call this site "News for Nerds"?
I do not have to as you are obviously showing your selective ignorance. Here is what I can say, if you only listen to one side of the story, that is all you have.
Do not conflate free speech with lying. That is what got your party into the situation to where they are.
no.
you see, you dont understand argument.
you made the claim.
you back it up.
until then, its just unsubstantiated bullshit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Except that that asking for information that is held by a third party isn't covered under that amendment.
Asking for information is something that the government (like literally everybody else) is perfectly within their rights to do. Compelling information is something that is restricted by the Constitution -- whether its held by a third party or not.
The Constitutional distinction is this:
The government cannot conduct a search without a warrant unless they have the permission of the entity they want to search.
Let's say you have information about me and have not agreed to keep the information confidential. Let's say the government has no warrant, and I do not agree to provide the information to them. They can certainly ask you for the information, and you are free to volunteer it. But if you refuse as well, they need a warrant.
As much as the government tries to convince people otherwise, the Constitution does not cease to apply just because someone else gets information from or about you.
The Bill of Rights is constantly tested, from both the left and the right and will continue to be tested until it is replaced by something else. The United States of America has the longest running continuous government on the planet. France, in comparison, has had 6 or more different forms of government since the Bill of Rights was first enacted into law. Governance is not easy and changing it can be messy, like during the Reign of Terror.
It is interesting to see people on the left attack people on the right and people on the right attacking people on the left, but ultimately it is not productive. I fear that the USA is heading towards a reckoning for the left, right and middle. And it is the extremists, like you, who are mostly responsible. You bring up transgressions from your perceived opponents but fail to mention any from your side, of which there are many.
I don't remember free speech cages. Don't know who Damore or Eich are. But as a center-right type of person, I can agree that the right has tried to subvert many protections specified in the constitutional amendments. Most of these have been handled judiciously and administratively, which is part of the US system of governance. On the left, I see a different set of rights being trampled by mob rule, not by rule of law. Specifically, this mob rule has successfully prevented people from exercising their right to free speech and peaceable assembly. Worse, these actions occurred during an election cycle and the right to vote and participate in the election process are fundamental rights.
It is the radicals we need to fear, not the left or right wings of our two moderate parties.
this is just your typical textbook example of a conservative interpreting "disagreement, arguing, or counter protesting against racists" as silencing them, misinterpreting the freedom to speak, as either a freedom to be heard or a freedom from criticism, or both.
besides, what's wrong with making racists and nazis go away and crawl back into their holes?
they can spew their shit all they want.
they're just such snowflakes they cant handle the the fact that most people disagree with them, and so they complain, as you are, that they are being "silenced" because they dont understand the actual rights at play.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
polite. but delusional.
that's not a personal attack.
it is an observation made based on the content of his post.
content that is delusional, devoid of fact, disconnected from reality.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
because it was, and claims otherwise show a tremendous ignorance of the actual facts.
http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/...
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The IRS review identified both conservative and liberal groups with questionable 501c designations.
Politically-active non-profit organizations should be designated 501d, which requires disclosure of donors.
"Just because it confirms your bias does not make it insightful."
You're missing the point.
Trump may not be right every time, and often exaggerates.
That's an interesting way of saying, "Trump lies."
But he has also often been proven right when his stories conflict with those of a number of major media outlets, including CNN and NYT.
[citation needed]
And you think you can say something as blitheringly toxic and stupid as that and think you're "defending your side"?
You're not. You're making an argument for the other side. A neutral observer who just read that now believes you're a radical totalitarian, and an idiot.
After tying up the groups in investigations and red tape through the first week of November, 2012. Gee, what might have they wanted to do before the first week of November 2012 that became irrelevant afterwards? I do wonder.
What "liberal" groups did the Obama IRS do this to that weren't enough to his left that they were criticizing him for not being far enough left?
the 1st Amendment doesn't provide free speech. It prevents the US Government from creating laws that restrict it.
Perhaps you should read it.
Freedom of speech doesn't include incitement of hatred or violence, aka "fighting words"
3rd paragraph, page 68, "Recapturing the Spirit: Essays on the Bill of Rights at 200"
https://books.google.com.au/bo...
So no, ISIS should not be free to spread hate.
Trump... has also often been proven right when his stories conflict with those of a number of major media outlets, including CNN and NYT.
But of course you won't hear much about THAT on CNN.
On CNN or anywhere else! Are you sure you didn't dream these situations where DJT has been correcting the MSM? 'Cuz I can name a shit load of examples in the other direction. He kicked things off at "biggest electoral college win since Reagan" and has only gone downhill since.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
It's not a "both sides do it" thing, though. One side has the power to censor or bury content on Youtube, Google, Facebook, and so on. The enemy side doesn't. The Youtube "trending" news carousel has been exposed to be manipulated by the PC police, not an algorithm, and they can and do remove content they disagree with.
I sense this was modded troll because it doesn't acknowledge the propaganda efforts by 'the other side', but this is absolutely accurate in the sense that Youtube, Google and Facebook are not neutral parties but are actively manipulating.
Here is a Youtube employee discussing how the news carousel is curated for example, as they cut ad revenue from content creators and independent journalists who offer opposing viewpoints. What happened to James Damore exposed exactly the corporate culture at Google, which also removed the Gab app from Google Play because it didn't conform to their own censorship rules. Facebook has already been exposed to manipulating user's feeds for effect.
So in keeping with the GP's point about having blinders on in terms of the other 'side', this is inevitable, and from the perspective of conducting propaganda, very desirable. These platforms are massive and have the ability to define reality for a lot of people.
>> that's not a personal attack.
Of course it is.
the zealotry of nazism
Are you aware that "zealotry" comes from the name of a Jewish sect?
lucm, indeed.
No, but I'm aware you have no argument.
I don't have mods points today (and you're at a +5 anyway) so allow me to add a quote instead. "Our civil liberties are not burdens, they’re what make our country great". Rep Will Hurd (R-TX)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Ok, let me see if I got this:
I open a shop (1), designed to organize (2) folks to commit a crime (3), and I install a video camera that records the face and outfit of everyone that enters the store (4) and another that records the outfit of every customer that engages in the crime wore (5).
The state canâ(TM)t seek a copy of the video tapes of everyone walking into the store and everyone that committed the crime to rstablish who committed the crime? Proof of them entering the store is not proof of a crime, so their mere entry into the store isnâ(TM)t a punishable offense. But the two tapes together establish commission of the crime by the face associated with outfit.
What are those numbers about?
(1) the shop, like the website is public
(2) the website was built to share ideas and coordinate violent protests
(3) protesting isnâ(TM)t a crime, but violent, property-destructing protests are
(4) the IP log if the visitors to the website, which may be correlated with the
(5) user discussions to tie user-ids to IP addresses of those visitors that engaged ina criminal conspiracy to engage in violent protest.
Ken
The Constitution protects the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it does not grant them or, in your words, "afford...the citizens" these rights. Most of the essential rights: expression, thought, self-defense, freedom from molestation, etc., are "pre-political" and existed before and in the absence of the government.