Do you really need a specific answer of when abuses might happen? Because you shouldn't, and no one can give you such a thing. But if you know even a bit about history, you'll know that it's probably not a good idea to give a human access to such a ridiculous amount of information; such a power will be abused.
I suppose that's another "murky non-answer," but only a ridiculously naive person would conclude that abuses won't happen.
Some people only seem to care about the second amendment as if it's the only part of the constitution, for instance. There are also the ones who think that the fourth amendment says that it can be thrown out if people believe the bogeyman will get us.
This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
If your only justification for your actions are, "Well, at least I'm not as bad as the other guys!" something is probably wrong. We don't need a utopia; we need our government to stop flagrantly violating people's rights.
The NSA is enormously effective at intercepting communications and sifting through them.
I don't care. You claimed that it delivers value, and I don't consider that very valuable. I really don't care for all the warmongering; I'd rather my tax dollars go to better use.
If we don't spy on everyone, the terrorists will get us (and maybe the communists, but they're not the big bad bogeymen they once were)! Grope everyone at airports! Have secret courts rubberstamp warrants that allow for the collection of random people's information even though there's no probable cause! Spy on allies! Spy on every single person in existence!
Somehow it seems as if our own politicians hate our freedom more than the terrorists supposedly do...
Not necessarily. There is no absolute line to be drawn. That said, unless there is a chance of a catastrophe, I don't believe people's liberties should be curtailed (meaning that I don't believe people should be banned from having something just because there's a potential for abuse).
The difference is destructive power. One person going insane with a working gun could never do as much damage as someone with full access to a powerful nuclear weapon. Unless an action could cause the deaths of thousands, individual liberties must be preserved.
The people who begin to panic chose to panic, whether consciously or unconsciously. If you arrest someone for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you are arresting them for their speech; there is literally nothing else you could arrest them for, as all they did was speak.
If someone posts a threat to kill the president, then yes, that's not free speech and has consequences.
Which is rather pathetic considering how well-guarded the president is compared to the rest of us, and how unlikely it is that someone is serious when saying such a thing.
Then they shouldn't be wasting their time or our taxpayer dollars with nonsense such as this. A 0.00000000000001% chance of someone dying isn't worth investigating, and if all you have is a message that appears to be a joke to anyone with a brain, that's how likely the 'threat' is.
Mature people (over 24) make more logical decisions regarding, e.g., investments, risk, etc.
And yet many of them still act like imbeciles who think the terrorist/pedophile/communist bogeyman is going to get them unless the government takes away some of our rights. Speaking as a 31 year old, many adults may as well be adolescents; it wouldn't make much of a difference.
If you don't see the problem, then may I suggest joking about bombing a plane the next time you're in an airport? Let me know how that works for you.
I'd also like to see you get on a US plane without having your 4th amendment rights violated. Thanks to the TSA, doing that will probably prove rather difficult.
All any of this shows is that the government does not care about people's rights, not that the victims of government abuse are in the wrong.
But we have to acknowledge that he did make a very serious threat, and even if he made it in jest, that situation needs to be investigated.
No, it doesn't; you're as paranoid as the people who think everyone should be molested for trying to get on a plane because otherwise the terrorist bogeymen will get us.
Take into account the context of the situation. Some people claim that while you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to be free from the consequences (in this case, being arrested) of said speech. They're effectively saying that the government could arrest you for anything you say as long as they let you say it first, which means that just about any country could claim to have as much free speech as the US if what they are saying is at all true (and it isn't).
I also remember reading about some older guy on Twitter who threatened to blow up an airport. It's not that people don't "understand" or that there's anything to be sorry about, it's that they foolishly believe that the government actually cares about people's rights.
I'm seriously confused as to how people here of all places can say such blatantly idiotic things, and repeat them again and again. Unless it's just a troll, do they even think about what it would be like if their versions of freedom of speech were reality? According to their logic, North Korean citizens have exactly as much freedom of speech as we do in the US...
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really need a specific answer of when abuses might happen? Because you shouldn't, and no one can give you such a thing. But if you know even a bit about history, you'll know that it's probably not a good idea to give a human access to such a ridiculous amount of information; such a power will be abused.
I suppose that's another "murky non-answer," but only a ridiculously naive person would conclude that abuses won't happen.
Any time there exists individuals in the government who aren't perfect beings; in other words: always.
Some people only seem to care about the second amendment as if it's the only part of the constitution, for instance. There are also the ones who think that the fourth amendment says that it can be thrown out if people believe the bogeyman will get us.
This just in: The world sucks, there are no utopias, but western countries (including the US) are still a heck of a lot better than the alternatives.
If your only justification for your actions are, "Well, at least I'm not as bad as the other guys!" something is probably wrong. We don't need a utopia; we need our government to stop flagrantly violating people's rights.
Yes, because if I threatened to beat someone up if they claimed that 1 + 1 = 2 and they ran away, that would indicate that they know they're wrong.
Yes, their governments are irresponsible if they aren't spying warmongers! Spy on everyone whether or not it's likely they actually pose a threat!
The NSA is enormously effective at intercepting communications and sifting through them.
I don't care. You claimed that it delivers value, and I don't consider that very valuable. I really don't care for all the warmongering; I'd rather my tax dollars go to better use.
On the one hand the NSA is one of those agencies that really seems to deliver value.
You should become a comedian. Really.
If we don't spy on everyone, the terrorists will get us (and maybe the communists, but they're not the big bad bogeymen they once were)! Grope everyone at airports! Have secret courts rubberstamp warrants that allow for the collection of random people's information even though there's no probable cause! Spy on allies! Spy on every single person in existence!
Somehow it seems as if our own politicians hate our freedom more than the terrorists supposedly do...
and the second amendment does not clarify the limits of that right
I really believe people should move to amend the constitution if they feel something should be changed or clarified.
So your cutoff is 1000?
Not necessarily. There is no absolute line to be drawn. That said, unless there is a chance of a catastrophe, I don't believe people's liberties should be curtailed (meaning that I don't believe people should be banned from having something just because there's a potential for abuse).
The difference is destructive power. One person going insane with a working gun could never do as much damage as someone with full access to a powerful nuclear weapon. Unless an action could cause the deaths of thousands, individual liberties must be preserved.
it's inciting panic.
The people who begin to panic chose to panic, whether consciously or unconsciously. If you arrest someone for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, you are arresting them for their speech; there is literally nothing else you could arrest them for, as all they did was speak.
If someone posts a threat to kill the president, then yes, that's not free speech and has consequences.
Which is rather pathetic considering how well-guarded the president is compared to the rest of us, and how unlikely it is that someone is serious when saying such a thing.
People need to take a basic constitutional law class
Maybe they should just read the first amendment.
Speaking of which, do you have anything on-topic to say? Are you going to respond to any of my points, or are you just going to attack straw men?
Which they shouldn't be allowed to do, frankly. And they did not give people a choice between nudie scanners and groping.
Idiot, someone reported him.
Thanks for informing me of something I'm already aware of. That was a great help!
Do I really need to go over how the government having surveillance equipment everywhere would only make it worse?
because public safety is their job.
Then they shouldn't be wasting their time or our taxpayer dollars with nonsense such as this. A 0.00000000000001% chance of someone dying isn't worth investigating, and if all you have is a message that appears to be a joke to anyone with a brain, that's how likely the 'threat' is.
But what they didn't have was government agents looking to violate people's privacy. Or nudie scanners. Or groping.
Mature people (over 24) make more logical decisions regarding, e.g., investments, risk, etc.
And yet many of them still act like imbeciles who think the terrorist/pedophile/communist bogeyman is going to get them unless the government takes away some of our rights. Speaking as a 31 year old, many adults may as well be adolescents; it wouldn't make much of a difference.
If you don't see the problem, then may I suggest joking about bombing a plane the next time you're in an airport? Let me know how that works for you.
I'd also like to see you get on a US plane without having your 4th amendment rights violated. Thanks to the TSA, doing that will probably prove rather difficult.
All any of this shows is that the government does not care about people's rights, not that the victims of government abuse are in the wrong.
But we have to acknowledge that he did make a very serious threat, and even if he made it in jest, that situation needs to be investigated.
No, it doesn't; you're as paranoid as the people who think everyone should be molested for trying to get on a plane because otherwise the terrorist bogeymen will get us.
Take into account the context of the situation. Some people claim that while you have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to be free from the consequences (in this case, being arrested) of said speech. They're effectively saying that the government could arrest you for anything you say as long as they let you say it first, which means that just about any country could claim to have as much free speech as the US if what they are saying is at all true (and it isn't).
I also remember reading about some older guy on Twitter who threatened to blow up an airport. It's not that people don't "understand" or that there's anything to be sorry about, it's that they foolishly believe that the government actually cares about people's rights.
I'm seriously confused as to how people here of all places can say such blatantly idiotic things, and repeat them again and again. Unless it's just a troll, do they even think about what it would be like if their versions of freedom of speech were reality? According to their logic, North Korean citizens have exactly as much freedom of speech as we do in the US...