Nobody can prove your claims to the contary for the make belive threats you countered
Actually, what probably happens is the cop's arrest rate goes way up because the device gives him a reason to search people his sub-conscious tells him are up to no good, but he can't actually justify searching. The device only triggers when his subconscious tells it to trigger, so he can subconsciously engage in all kinds of profiling that the Constitution of his country officially bans. As long as nobody gets arrested solely on the basis of this device the cop's bosses have no reason to stop using it, because courts don't like throwing convictions out unless they're pretty sure you're actually innocent.
You get the same thing in the US with lie detectors. In theory everybody knows they're BS, but if you want a high security clearance you have to pass a lie detector test, and the lie detector test guy will flunk your ass if he figures out you know how to beat the test.
Well, more important than ideometer effect is the placebo value.
If the public thinks there are bomb detectors at a checkpoint, then they are less likely to try and bring a bomb past that checkpoint.
I'm not sure that's called a "placebo effect," but it is probably a major policy reason that governments don't stop using them. Just as important, if they admit the damn things never worked then they'll get a lot of legal trouble from people who were convicted on the basis of evidence "found" with the damn detector. Cops in Western countries are just as bad. I've never heard a US Policeman admit that, he, personally, screwed up; even after he got fired.
Hell, cops in western countries can be just as wedded to a superstition as anyone else. Try getting a job high-up in the State department if you a) fuck up a lie detector test, or b) tell the tester you don't believe that lie detectors work.
That was a long post based on a poor understanding of the First Amendment. "Congress shall pass no laws..restricting freedom of the press" means Congress can pass no laws. No laws means no Court has the statutory authority to intervene. The 14th applies this to the states as well. The Ninth could be relevant, but a) it's generally understood as a check on government power over the people, rather then granting the government power to regulate people's behavior, and b) only if somebody actually passed a statute.
Since they haven't passed a statute the app is legal, just like it was legal when a newspaper outed every handgun owner in two counties.
In the US an internet cafe is not a place you pay money for time on a desktop. In my experience such a business would be absolutely useless, because local libraries in both states I've lived have free desktops with free internet connections.
In Florida these "cafes" were basically gambling dens. You'd go in and buy an hour. This does not give you access to Internet Explorer, but it does give you access to a bunch of slot-machine like games. You click the buttons on the games, and you could win more internet time. If, at the end of the day, you still have internet time they refund it to you on a debit card.
Technically under the laws of Ohio, and Florida prior to the ban, you haven't gambled. But in practical terms you bought a bunch of bets on a slot machine and it paid off (or it didn't).
It does if you define a slot machine as something you put money in, which then spits out money.
These slot machines don't take in any money, but can only use them if you have computer time (which costs money), and spits out more computer time. At the end of the day you trade in your computer time for money.
Come up to Cleveland. Go to any area where the most popular businesses are pawn shops or liquor stores. Pretty soon you'll find an "internet cafe."
I've never been in one, because high local taxes = great libraries = why the fuck would you pay money to rent a desktop, but the signs out front all talk about games and gambling winnings.
The entire point of the new law is that the Legislature thought the old law was way too permissive of gambling, which means that her claim that her cafe was legal is not actually an argument against the new law.
And, yes, if she got shut down she was running a gambling site. What happened was people came into her cafe and bought time on computers. The programs on the machines were games of chance. If you win you get more computer time. At the end of the day whatever computer time you have left turns into cash.
It's possible her computers were actually connected to the internet, and the user could actually run a web browser. But that was not true of all "internet cafes" in the state. In the minority where you could use the computer as an actual computer nobody bothered because Florida has public libraries where you can browse the web for free. The business tactics used by these places could be really sleazy. I saw at least one news article about a cafe operator who had a competitor beaten up.
It's possible that the law the Legislature passed does all the bad things she is alleging, but given the sleaziness of anyone involved in the industry, and Governor Rick Scott's proven ability to manipulate the legal system,* I'm thinking it's unlikely Scott fucked up this badly. It's much more likely the Internet Cafe business wants to go out with a bang.
*He defrauded Medicare of Billion$, and the only consequence was that he got a $9.88 million forced retirement. Then the people who most depend on Medicare made him Governor. The man's a fucking genius.
You do realize that particular section of the law was proposed in June 2012, so you're basically whining that you were too stupid to read the bill until after it passed?
More importantly you do realize that in only applies until September, which means Monsanto is actually telling the truth when they say it will simply allow a farmer to finish growing crops he plants this year even if some activist group convinces Courts to order a re-do on seeds the government has already approved?
Most importantly, good on you for posting this as an AC. "Bribe" is a specific legal term, which has no relation to campaign contributions, therefore you have just committed libel.
Congress is a job just like any other, only everyone is the Pointy-Haired-Boss.
In this case the silly PHB is that any Congressman has been able to read and understand every bill he votes on at any time since Lincoln took office the Federal government got really activist. At that time technology started getting complex, the government started regulating it more, the government got into more areas, etc. More importantly lawyers got a lot more picky, so bills are basically unreadable to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the exact sections of the US Code they deal with.
Since then a Congressman's job has been mostly to be an expert in a handful of areas (aka: his committee) and understand the bills his committee works on. He should probably avoid reading every bill, because even if he's actually a lawyer he's probably not familiar with the exact language of the US Code that's affected by the Bill, therefore it would take him hours to figure out what his staff can tell him in 15 minutes.
More importantly bills change up until the very last minute. There are 435 of them. They have a $3-4 Trillion government to oversee. The 435 of them have gotten used to brinksmanship as a negotiating strategy, so refusing to vote for a bill unless it's changed at the last minute is just something they do.
Now maybe if we passed a Constitutional Amendment mandating clear language, including a no-BS clause so future Supreme Court Justices couldn't pull a Scalia and insist the exact dictionary definition of every damn word wasn't the only possible legal interpretation; while greatly increasing the number of Congressman (and thus reducing workload per congressman), we could pull that off.
But you're never gonna get rid of interest groups writing legislation. Democratic Congressman like unions, if they wanna pass a bill that helps unions they are going to ask the unions what they want in it. Republican Congressman hate unions, if they want to pass a pro-business bill they are gonna ask the anti-union activists what to put in it. In other words outside interest groups get to write the bill. Period.
Voting for a third party doesn't solve the problem, it merely changes the interest group writing the law. Greens are gonna be in the Sierra Club's pocket, Libertarians would tow the Cato line, etc.
It's Democracy. Getting into power requires 50%+1. That means special interest groups that can credibly speak for large groups of people (ie: unions with large membership) have power.
If these internet cafes were the kind of thing you describe they would not have any customers. Why? Because Florida has libraries. Libraries are free. It would be like running a book rental business, and sweetening the deal by offering to teach your customer's kids to read.
The article you quote describes patrons as being heart-broken because they'll lose access to "entertainment, socializing and "legal gambling"," quotes around "legal gambling" in the original.
It's a pretty long stretch from "I reported this guy on the Dangerous Guns App because I thought he was owning guns dangerously and I wanted him to cut it out," to "I believed somebody would probably steal from him."
Keep in mind that the Dangerous Guns app is speech. It is people saying "This guy is dangerous." The Constitutional issues with arresting people for speech because you don't think they should say it is pretty dang high.
There's a reason the New York Newspaper whose gun-owner-list was linked to three burglaries by various pro-gun groups has not been prosecuted under this law.
In general I agree that speech should be allowed, but most of speech is actually criticism of other speech. The political correctness controversy, for example, is based a conservatism criticism of liberal criticism of conservative speech. This entire thread is actually a debate over whether liberal speech (in the form of the "Dangerous Guns" app) should be condemned.
That means to ban condemnation of speech is to ban pretty much all actual speech.
In the US there's plenty of speech that should be condemned. On the left a lot of criticisms of the US Government, and it's actions abroad, are incredibly naive. I'm not saying we're magical saints who always fight for the righteous, but there's a much stronger correlation between righteousness and being on our side then exists for any other major power. OTOH, given that we actually enslaved a large part of our population, and claimed that was freedom; have had multiple long periods where various groups were second or third-class citizens, etc. a lot of conservative nostalgia for the past is equally problematic.
I said Liberals and Conservatives are equally interested in using state power to force people to agree with them, then you disagreed listing examples of Liberal over-reach. Then you say "conservatives are as bad." That was kinda my point. Both sides want to use state-power to force obedience, they just want to force different things.
I know lots of people who swear they are safe because they have a weapon in their nightstand at all times. They believe they are protected by that gun, and think it is safe because a) everyone in the house is trained on it, b) it is loaded, but the safety's on and no round is chambered, etc. I think that's dangerous. I know others who think just having a weapon in your home is risky, even if it's got the safety on, is not cocked, is kept unloaded in a gun safe, etc. "Dangerous gun-owner" is simply a phrase that has no objectively true definition.
As for the truth being a defense to a defamation claim, that has to mean the truth you believe in your head. Otherwise it would be impossible to print a copy of the Zionist Protocols and not go bankrupt.
I think I was unclear. I don't personally avoid gun-owners. I was listing a legally legitimate use of the list, and I used the first-person because I was speaking as the guy who would do that. If there was an edit button I'd completely re-do that paragraph because it was incredibly confusing. People who avoid all guns all the time probably avoid cops, too, because in most states cops always carry.
As for Gun Safety, if you check out the recent rhetoric on the background checks legislation you'll find a lot of people very skeptical of anything labeled "gun safety." I've had enough internet conversations on gun rights to meet people who oppose gun-safes, ever for long guns, on principle. There aren't many of them, but they do exist; and if there was some way I could avoid ever interacting with people that crazy I'd do it.
As for the most likely use of the map, one man's "harassment" is another man's freedom of speech. You're not gonna get lectured by somebody every day (the legal definition of harassment), you'll have one conversation and then you'll never speak to them again. Not good for the gun-owner, but then being friends with somebody that judgmental about gun-ownership wasn't exactly good for the gun-owner either.
You're gonna have to quote the statute numbers for me to believe that.
Because if it was that simple then everyone who works for Ford would be guilty of facilitation because some guy used a Taurus as a getaway car. Everyone who works in the gun industry at all would be rotting in jail. Facilitation cannot be that simple.
If there's a non-criminal use to this list (and being an asshole to gun-owners is not criminal), then it is legal. Period.
I don't think you understand the definition of totalitarian. Every ideology ever created wants everyone to agree with them, and is willing to use all kinds of levers to persuade people to do so, he wants every institution in the country (including private industry, religion, etc.) to be devoted to pushing his ideology. In a totalitarian state it's actually illegal for your boss to disagree with you because it's illegal for either of you to disagree with the government.
Liberals are no more interested in using the state to force people to actually agree with them then conservatives. For example, you'll find very few liberals who want the Catholic Church to be forced to recognize divorce or same-sex marriage by the government. They are interested in using state power to achieve their ideological goals, but so is everyone else. Conservatives like to make divorce harder, are currently fighting to actually ban same-sex marriage. You get the same thing on abortion. Liberals make everyone buy a health plan that covers abortions because that suits their ends, whereas conservatives make it illegal to operate a clinic that gives people abortion pills without a full ER because nobody can afford to attach an ER to a pharmacy. Neither side tries to have the other side arrested, but both sides argue vigorously that their use of state power is completely legit and the other sides is completely not legit.
Here's the thing: SSI Fraud is an actual crime, with an actual legal definition. If you accuse somebody of it you are accusing them of something very specific, which is fairly simple to prove one way or the other in Court.
OTOH, "dangerous gun-owner" is relative. In the opinion of many Americans, the numerous other Americans who keep a gun in the nightstand with bullets in it are engaging in dangerous behavior. That makes them (by definition) dangerous gun-owners. But other Americans argue that the dangerous thing to do is not have a weapon in the nightstand where it's handy.
Facilitation only applies if there's no non-criminal use of the facilitating actions. It's intended for people who profit off of crime, and knew they were profiting off of crime, but managed to maneuver it so they didn't officially know about the crime. The same goes for solicitation. Otherwise everyone who printed a rich list would already be in prison.
If you ever get out of your pro-gun bubble you'll realize guns scare the shit out of a lot of people, and a lot of them will not want to go to your house if you're a gun-owner. This is cruel, and stupid; but it is perfectly legal.
So you're saying that it's possible to sue people in the US for Invasion of Privacy, and nothing else, and win?
Because if you try that they declare you a vexatious litigant. This means you can only sue people after a court-appointed officer approves the suit.
This guy will be exactly like Defense Distributed. Half the country will freak out, a couple lawsuits may be filed, but he'll win them all easily. The increase in notoriety for this guy;'s books and lectures alone will make up the cost.
What interests me about conservatives is the huge double-standard they give.
Barrack Obama should be hated by all right-thinking Americans for saying small town residents (who have never actually been denied the right to vote) "cling to" their God and their guns. Trent Lott says flat-out he wishes the candidate who'd opposed black voting had won in 1948, and that's freedom of speech.
I agree there's room for debate on what speech should be interpreted as offensive, and thus condemned by everyone, but I do not agree that conservatives should get to define those limits unilaterally simply because they've come up with the cute catch-phrase "politically incorrect."
If safe harbor doesn't protect internet companies from libelous statements posted on their servers Slashdot is totally fucked. I've been honest about my opinion of Republicans on this site more then once.
As for facilitation, the first stretch is getting jurisdiction. Gun-friendly DAs are not exactly common in SoCal, and I don't know who else would have jurisdiction. More importantly there are plenty of uses for this info that do not involve stealing guns. I know people, for example, who will not let their kids enter a house with firearms. IMO they're being a fucking paranoid, but everyone has a Constitutional right to be fucking paranoid.
More importantly I've lived in high-crime areas. I've dealt with actual criminals. They aren't the kind of people who go to a completely new neighborhood to hit a completely unfamiliar target just because an internet listicle said something interesting was in that house. They are the kind of people who steal from every single house in their own neighborhoods. That's where they know the police schedule, whose on vacation, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody can prove your claims to the contary for the make belive threats you countered
Actually, what probably happens is the cop's arrest rate goes way up because the device gives him a reason to search people his sub-conscious tells him are up to no good, but he can't actually justify searching. The device only triggers when his subconscious tells it to trigger, so he can subconsciously engage in all kinds of profiling that the Constitution of his country officially bans. As long as nobody gets arrested solely on the basis of this device the cop's bosses have no reason to stop using it, because courts don't like throwing convictions out unless they're pretty sure you're actually innocent.
You get the same thing in the US with lie detectors. In theory everybody knows they're BS, but if you want a high security clearance you have to pass a lie detector test, and the lie detector test guy will flunk your ass if he figures out you know how to beat the test.
Well, more important than ideometer effect is the placebo value.
If the public thinks there are bomb detectors at a checkpoint, then they are less likely to try and bring a bomb past that checkpoint.
I'm not sure that's called a "placebo effect," but it is probably a major policy reason that governments don't stop using them. Just as important, if they admit the damn things never worked then they'll get a lot of legal trouble from people who were convicted on the basis of evidence "found" with the damn detector. Cops in Western countries are just as bad. I've never heard a US Policeman admit that, he, personally, screwed up; even after he got fired.
Hell, cops in western countries can be just as wedded to a superstition as anyone else. Try getting a job high-up in the State department if you a) fuck up a lie detector test, or b) tell the tester you don't believe that lie detectors work.
That was a long post based on a poor understanding of the First Amendment. "Congress shall pass no laws..restricting freedom of the press" means Congress can pass no laws. No laws means no Court has the statutory authority to intervene. The 14th applies this to the states as well. The Ninth could be relevant, but a) it's generally understood as a check on government power over the people, rather then granting the government power to regulate people's behavior, and b) only if somebody actually passed a statute.
Since they haven't passed a statute the app is legal, just like it was legal when a newspaper outed every handgun owner in two counties.
Read the law carefully.
If your primary purpose isn't gaming you're legal.
Which way is this post funnier:
1) The OP knows that the GOP holds all state-wide elected offices in Florida, a 76-44 edge in the House, and a 26-14 edge in the Senate.
2) He doesn't.
In the US an internet cafe is not a place you pay money for time on a desktop. In my experience such a business would be absolutely useless, because local libraries in both states I've lived have free desktops with free internet connections.
In Florida these "cafes" were basically gambling dens. You'd go in and buy an hour. This does not give you access to Internet Explorer, but it does give you access to a bunch of slot-machine like games. You click the buttons on the games, and you could win more internet time. If, at the end of the day, you still have internet time they refund it to you on a debit card.
Technically under the laws of Ohio, and Florida prior to the ban, you haven't gambled. But in practical terms you bought a bunch of bets on a slot machine and it paid off (or it didn't).
It does if you define a slot machine as something you put money in, which then spits out money.
These slot machines don't take in any money, but can only use them if you have computer time (which costs money), and spits out more computer time. At the end of the day you trade in your computer time for money.
Come up to Cleveland. Go to any area where the most popular businesses are pawn shops or liquor stores. Pretty soon you'll find an "internet cafe."
I've never been in one, because high local taxes = great libraries = why the fuck would you pay money to rent a desktop, but the signs out front all talk about games and gambling winnings.
The entire point of the new law is that the Legislature thought the old law was way too permissive of gambling, which means that her claim that her cafe was legal is not actually an argument against the new law.
And, yes, if she got shut down she was running a gambling site. What happened was people came into her cafe and bought time on computers. The programs on the machines were games of chance. If you win you get more computer time. At the end of the day whatever computer time you have left turns into cash.
It's possible her computers were actually connected to the internet, and the user could actually run a web browser. But that was not true of all "internet cafes" in the state. In the minority where you could use the computer as an actual computer nobody bothered because Florida has public libraries where you can browse the web for free. The business tactics used by these places could be really sleazy. I saw at least one news article about a cafe operator who had a competitor beaten up.
It's possible that the law the Legislature passed does all the bad things she is alleging, but given the sleaziness of anyone involved in the industry, and Governor Rick Scott's proven ability to manipulate the legal system,* I'm thinking it's unlikely Scott fucked up this badly. It's much more likely the Internet Cafe business wants to go out with a bang.
*He defrauded Medicare of Billion$, and the only consequence was that he got a $9.88 million forced retirement. Then the people who most depend on Medicare made him Governor. The man's a fucking genius.
You do realize that particular section of the law was proposed in June 2012, so you're basically whining that you were too stupid to read the bill until after it passed?
More importantly you do realize that in only applies until September, which means Monsanto is actually telling the truth when they say it will simply allow a farmer to finish growing crops he plants this year even if some activist group convinces Courts to order a re-do on seeds the government has already approved?
Most importantly, good on you for posting this as an AC. "Bribe" is a specific legal term, which has no relation to campaign contributions, therefore you have just committed libel.
Congress is a job just like any other, only everyone is the Pointy-Haired-Boss.
In this case the silly PHB is that any Congressman has been able to read and understand every bill he votes on at any time since Lincoln took office the Federal government got really activist. At that time technology started getting complex, the government started regulating it more, the government got into more areas, etc. More importantly lawyers got a lot more picky, so bills are basically unreadable to anyone who isn't intimately familiar with the exact sections of the US Code they deal with.
Since then a Congressman's job has been mostly to be an expert in a handful of areas (aka: his committee) and understand the bills his committee works on. He should probably avoid reading every bill, because even if he's actually a lawyer he's probably not familiar with the exact language of the US Code that's affected by the Bill, therefore it would take him hours to figure out what his staff can tell him in 15 minutes.
More importantly bills change up until the very last minute. There are 435 of them. They have a $3-4 Trillion government to oversee. The 435 of them have gotten used to brinksmanship as a negotiating strategy, so refusing to vote for a bill unless it's changed at the last minute is just something they do.
Now maybe if we passed a Constitutional Amendment mandating clear language, including a no-BS clause so future Supreme Court Justices couldn't pull a Scalia and insist the exact dictionary definition of every damn word wasn't the only possible legal interpretation; while greatly increasing the number of Congressman (and thus reducing workload per congressman), we could pull that off.
But you're never gonna get rid of interest groups writing legislation. Democratic Congressman like unions, if they wanna pass a bill that helps unions they are going to ask the unions what they want in it. Republican Congressman hate unions, if they want to pass a pro-business bill they are gonna ask the anti-union activists what to put in it. In other words outside interest groups get to write the bill. Period.
Voting for a third party doesn't solve the problem, it merely changes the interest group writing the law. Greens are gonna be in the Sierra Club's pocket, Libertarians would tow the Cato line, etc.
It's Democracy. Getting into power requires 50%+1. That means special interest groups that can credibly speak for large groups of people (ie: unions with large membership) have power.
Dude,
If these internet cafes were the kind of thing you describe they would not have any customers. Why? Because Florida has libraries. Libraries are free. It would be like running a book rental business, and sweetening the deal by offering to teach your customer's kids to read.
The article you quote describes patrons as being heart-broken because they'll lose access to "entertainment, socializing and "legal gambling"," quotes around "legal gambling" in the original.
"Probable that he is rendering aid?"
It's a pretty long stretch from "I reported this guy on the Dangerous Guns App because I thought he was owning guns dangerously and I wanted him to cut it out," to "I believed somebody would probably steal from him."
Keep in mind that the Dangerous Guns app is speech. It is people saying "This guy is dangerous." The Constitutional issues with arresting people for speech because you don't think they should say it is pretty dang high.
There's a reason the New York Newspaper whose gun-owner-list was linked to three burglaries by various pro-gun groups has not been prosecuted under this law.
In general I agree that speech should be allowed, but most of speech is actually criticism of other speech. The political correctness controversy, for example, is based a conservatism criticism of liberal criticism of conservative speech. This entire thread is actually a debate over whether liberal speech (in the form of the "Dangerous Guns" app) should be condemned.
That means to ban condemnation of speech is to ban pretty much all actual speech.
In the US there's plenty of speech that should be condemned. On the left a lot of criticisms of the US Government, and it's actions abroad, are incredibly naive. I'm not saying we're magical saints who always fight for the righteous, but there's a much stronger correlation between righteousness and being on our side then exists for any other major power. OTOH, given that we actually enslaved a large part of our population, and claimed that was freedom; have had multiple long periods where various groups were second or third-class citizens, etc. a lot of conservative nostalgia for the past is equally problematic.
I said Liberals and Conservatives are equally interested in using state power to force people to agree with them, then you disagreed listing examples of Liberal over-reach. Then you say "conservatives are as bad." That was kinda my point. Both sides want to use state-power to force obedience, they just want to force different things.
It's fun when people accidentally agree with you.
That's true today, because on Jan 18th the legislature passed a gun control bill which made gun permits private data. But as of Christmas every gun-owner in two counties had their names on a paper's website:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html
They did take the list of names and addresses offline when the bill passed, but the map is still online, and despite gun-owners being convinced they're responsible for multiple burglaries there have been no legal consequences to the paper:
http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/The-gun-owner-next-door-What-you-don-t-know-about-weapons-your-neighborhood?nclick_check=1
The paper has pointed out that since the list was posted there have been almost 600 burglaries in the two counties:
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130617/NEWS02/306170027
They've only been blamed for three, either gun-ownership in the two counties is below 0.5% or gun-owners are being oparaboid when they claim a list of gun-owners will significantly change criminal behavior.
"Dangerous gun-owner" certainly is relative.
I know lots of people who swear they are safe because they have a weapon in their nightstand at all times. They believe they are protected by that gun, and think it is safe because a) everyone in the house is trained on it, b) it is loaded, but the safety's on and no round is chambered, etc. I think that's dangerous. I know others who think just having a weapon in your home is risky, even if it's got the safety on, is not cocked, is kept unloaded in a gun safe, etc. "Dangerous gun-owner" is simply a phrase that has no objectively true definition.
As for the truth being a defense to a defamation claim, that has to mean the truth you believe in your head. Otherwise it would be impossible to print a copy of the Zionist Protocols and not go bankrupt.
I think I was unclear. I don't personally avoid gun-owners. I was listing a legally legitimate use of the list, and I used the first-person because I was speaking as the guy who would do that. If there was an edit button I'd completely re-do that paragraph because it was incredibly confusing. People who avoid all guns all the time probably avoid cops, too, because in most states cops always carry.
As for Gun Safety, if you check out the recent rhetoric on the background checks legislation you'll find a lot of people very skeptical of anything labeled "gun safety." I've had enough internet conversations on gun rights to meet people who oppose gun-safes, ever for long guns, on principle. There aren't many of them, but they do exist; and if there was some way I could avoid ever interacting with people that crazy I'd do it.
As for the most likely use of the map, one man's "harassment" is another man's freedom of speech. You're not gonna get lectured by somebody every day (the legal definition of harassment), you'll have one conversation and then you'll never speak to them again. Not good for the gun-owner, but then being friends with somebody that judgmental about gun-ownership wasn't exactly good for the gun-owner either.
You're gonna have to quote the statute numbers for me to believe that.
Because if it was that simple then everyone who works for Ford would be guilty of facilitation because some guy used a Taurus as a getaway car. Everyone who works in the gun industry at all would be rotting in jail. Facilitation cannot be that simple.
If there's a non-criminal use to this list (and being an asshole to gun-owners is not criminal), then it is legal. Period.
I don't think you understand the definition of totalitarian. Every ideology ever created wants everyone to agree with them, and is willing to use all kinds of levers to persuade people to do so, he wants every institution in the country (including private industry, religion, etc.) to be devoted to pushing his ideology. In a totalitarian state it's actually illegal for your boss to disagree with you because it's illegal for either of you to disagree with the government.
Liberals are no more interested in using the state to force people to actually agree with them then conservatives. For example, you'll find very few liberals who want the Catholic Church to be forced to recognize divorce or same-sex marriage by the government. They are interested in using state power to achieve their ideological goals, but so is everyone else. Conservatives like to make divorce harder, are currently fighting to actually ban same-sex marriage. You get the same thing on abortion. Liberals make everyone buy a health plan that covers abortions because that suits their ends, whereas conservatives make it illegal to operate a clinic that gives people abortion pills without a full ER because nobody can afford to attach an ER to a pharmacy. Neither side tries to have the other side arrested, but both sides argue vigorously that their use of state power is completely legit and the other sides is completely not legit.
Here's the thing:
SSI Fraud is an actual crime, with an actual legal definition. If you accuse somebody of it you are accusing them of something very specific, which is fairly simple to prove one way or the other in Court.
OTOH, "dangerous gun-owner" is relative. In the opinion of many Americans, the numerous other Americans who keep a gun in the nightstand with bullets in it are engaging in dangerous behavior. That makes them (by definition) dangerous gun-owners. But other Americans argue that the dangerous thing to do is not have a weapon in the nightstand where it's handy.
Re-read the law.
Facilitation only applies if there's no non-criminal use of the facilitating actions. It's intended for people who profit off of crime, and knew they were profiting off of crime, but managed to maneuver it so they didn't officially know about the crime. The same goes for solicitation. Otherwise everyone who printed a rich list would already be in prison.
If you ever get out of your pro-gun bubble you'll realize guns scare the shit out of a lot of people, and a lot of them will not want to go to your house if you're a gun-owner. This is cruel, and stupid; but it is perfectly legal.
So you're saying that it's possible to sue people in the US for Invasion of Privacy, and nothing else, and win?
Because if you try that they declare you a vexatious litigant. This means you can only sue people after a court-appointed officer approves the suit.
This guy will be exactly like Defense Distributed. Half the country will freak out, a couple lawsuits may be filed, but he'll win them all easily. The increase in notoriety for this guy;'s books and lectures alone will make up the cost.
What interests me about conservatives is the huge double-standard they give.
Barrack Obama should be hated by all right-thinking Americans for saying small town residents (who have never actually been denied the right to vote) "cling to" their God and their guns. Trent Lott says flat-out he wishes the candidate who'd opposed black voting had won in 1948, and that's freedom of speech.
I agree there's room for debate on what speech should be interpreted as offensive, and thus condemned by everyone, but I do not agree that conservatives should get to define those limits unilaterally simply because they've come up with the cute catch-phrase "politically incorrect."
If safe harbor doesn't protect internet companies from libelous statements posted on their servers Slashdot is totally fucked. I've been honest about my opinion of Republicans on this site more then once.
As for facilitation, the first stretch is getting jurisdiction. Gun-friendly DAs are not exactly common in SoCal, and I don't know who else would have jurisdiction. More importantly there are plenty of uses for this info that do not involve stealing guns. I know people, for example, who will not let their kids enter a house with firearms. IMO they're being a fucking paranoid, but everyone has a Constitutional right to be fucking paranoid.
More importantly I've lived in high-crime areas. I've dealt with actual criminals. They aren't the kind of people who go to a completely new neighborhood to hit a completely unfamiliar target just because an internet listicle said something interesting was in that house. They are the kind of people who steal from every single house in their own neighborhoods. That's where they know the police schedule, whose on vacation, etc.