The law has been reviewed and found constitutional.
At one point, the Supreme Court deemed it okay to arrest war protestors. Fortunately, that was later overturned to some degree. The point is that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, that doesn't mean it is, and that doesn't mean it's okay. Have a mind of your own, faggotry jones saga
(S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the/. group-think.
Well, that's because amiga3d's post was fuckin' garbage, even more so than yours. I'd say it's even worse than all those useless "nigger" posts, assuming he wasn't just trolling, because if enough morons support this unjust garbage, it will likely continue.
Browsing with a 5 threshold still leaves me with having to weed through trashtalking, insulting, harrumph harrumph, "I'm smart because everybody agrees with me although all I did was copy/paste somebody else's opinion from the internet" crap worthy of a Rush Limbaugh show.
That's interesting, because your comments are as generic as you believe everyone else's to be. Now, they may not contain a myriad of insults, but they demonstrate pretty much the same attitude that you're criticizing. And guess what? It doesn't fuckin' matter.
What an ignorant bootlicker you are! If you're not careful, I'll perform a grand slam of the ages...
Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet.
So, he failed to mention what he thinks is unreasonable (clearly the NSA's actions are unreasonable to him), so that means there has been no violation of the constitution? What absurd logic.
General warrants are unconstitutional, you know. The fact that some judge, who is part of a secretive court, rubberstamped general warrants doesn't change anything. If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.
The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation.
They use whatever interpretation is most convenient for the government.
There is a reason that organizations dedicated to protecting our rights, such as the EFF and the ACLU, are up in arms about this. Think about it.
You must extremely unprincipled and naive to want to sacrifice your freedoms to the government for safety. No government in history hasn't abused its powers in horrible, disgusting ways, and yet you want the government to be able to violate the constitution as it pleases? You disgust me, bootlicker.
Well, then, go over to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country. If you're Kafir, they'll do that very thing and you'll either be very dead or nearly so.
Telling me to go visit other countries with awful governments changes nothing; terrorists are almost nonexistent, and that is a fact.
What you FEEL to be wrong doesn't map to the cold harsh truth of how the world is and wishing it not so won't EVER change it.
Yeah, so just let the government violate the constitution; just accept it.
What's with this government cheerleading? Are you so naive and ignorant of history that you're willing to give the government the power to spy on just about everyone's communications simply because some people might be terrorists? Do you despise freedom so greatly that you don't care if the government violates the constitution if it's in the name of keeping you safe? No government throughout history has been filled with perfect angels, and all have abused their powers in egregious ways; why would you trust the current government, and all the people in the future who will be part of it, with this information? How could anyone be so disgustingly naive?
By saying "Government is the Enemy", you're saying WE are the enemy.
That's only if the government listens to the people. That's only if the system isn't set up to trick stupid people (which are a majority) into voting for the same two parties over and over, or the 'lesser of two evils'; it doesn't matter how much people disagree with their chosen party in such a case, as they'll just keep voting for them... That's only if the people in the government don't choose to take these actions themselves; the government is not authorized to violate the constitution, even if people want that to happen.
The ONLY reasonable gun law, is the one that prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons.
If you're going to say that fully automatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment, why should any other modern gun be protected?
I'm in favor of all guns and arms being protected by it until we actually amend the constitution. You don't just say that certain violations are "reasonable"; it's not reasonable for the government to violate the highest law of the land, or at least not in my eyes.
Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
Better yet, get rid of the TSA completely and forget the dogs. Terrorists are almost nonexistent to begin with.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously
No. Harassing people selectively is not okay with me, and I believe Israel is wrong in doing so.
No, but protection of rights can go away with time, if the law dictates it be so.
I'd call that a "violation," depending on what you were referring to. If you're saying that the law can change with time, then that's rather irrelevant to my point. Copyrights expire on their own and without changes to the law, as they were meant to; the privileges only last for a limited time.
Fine. No skin off my back if you can't be bothered to understand the issues.
It's not that I don't understand; it's that I reject the propaganda that copyright holders love to spew forth.
you've got an uphill battle with only about 3 centuries of political philosophy and case law to rebut...
Slavery was around for a long time. No point in mentioning this garbage; it means nothing to me. I have a mind of my own, and I reject such frivolous notions of copyright being anything more than a privilege.
Copyright is a privilege that is granted by society to certain people for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation. It is also a restriction. These things are not mutually exclusive.
That's why copyright notices say "all rights reserved" instead of "no privileges granted."
I don't care about what current laws says or what copyright holders like to say.
I want to slurp your bare ass. Wait... did you hear that? It was the sound of something licking its chops! Who or what made that sound!? Well, I ran an extensive gamma-class study with an omega-class scientist, and I managed to narrow down the possible culprits to the following:
1) Me. 2) My fetid cock.
And that's it. As it turns out, it was my smelly cock that licks its bare chops! But why would it do such a thing!? Well, I think we might find the answer if we let your foul asshole and my disease-ridden cock have a little chat...
Incest is unethical because of the risk of inbreeding
So because there's a higher risk that children (who wouldn't exist in any form otherwise, I might add) will have birth defects, it's wrong? I don't think I agree with that.
Is that erection coincidental, or do you want to jam your fetid-as-fuck cock straight into the deepest reaches of my rancid, feces-filled asshole? I think we both know it's the latter. Oh, yeah! I'm wigglin' my bare snap all over your cock! It's a feces-fiesta, and your disgusting cock has full omega access to the deepest, most rancid parts of my smelly asshole! Come on! My foul asshole just opened up like a circular door from a science fiction movie; it's waiting for your fetid little friend! What say you?
My, my, my... What do we have here? I've never seen such a rancid asshole before! My cock will now become One With Bayerhole right this minuteness! I can't wait to shoot my ass-seeking cock right into your rancidhole and get this fucking party started! What say you?
I don't recognize copyright as any sort of right. Does free speech vanish in time? Does freedom of religion vanish with time? No. In fact, copyright restricts everyone for the benefit of a few. There is no way I'll ever consider it a right, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.
Either way, they're dead as a result of that sentence.
No, in one instance, they're dead as a result of time; in the other, they're dead because the government killed them. Time would have killed them either way; prison had nothing to do with it. With the death penalty, it almost becomes a certainty that they'll die before they otherwise would have. With the death penalty, you're likely killing them before they had a chance to live out their lives. Not even the results are the same.
Should everyone have the "freedom" to shout fire in a crowded movie theater?
I think so, yes. If the owner of the property doesn't like it, they can kick them out. That's the nice thing about private property.
This is why you need a background in law. Understand where a balance is.
I do not compromise on fundamental freedoms, nor will I. The fact that you even put that forth as an option (especially when talking about the PATRIOT ACT) is exactly the sort of reason I said that you don't care about freedom.
Many people 'compromise' their freedoms away without any background in law, anyway.
You won't get everything you want (unless you can make it seem like "no duh captain obvious"), don't piss others off or you may not get anything that you wanted.
Sometimes compromise is not acceptable. To me, compromising away fundamental freedoms is unacceptable; I'd rather not get anything than do that.
Have you even written a letter to a representative? Local, State, Fed? Do you even vote?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
So don't tell me I don't care about freedom.
Since you seem to be so willing to discard (or 'compromise' away) fundamental freedoms, I stand by what I said, regardless of your actions.
Slashdot Mirror
The law has been reviewed and found constitutional.
At one point, the Supreme Court deemed it okay to arrest war protestors. Fortunately, that was later overturned to some degree. The point is that just because the Supreme Court says something is constitutional, that doesn't mean it is, and that doesn't mean it's okay. Have a mind of your own, faggotry jones saga
(S)He is one individual that expressed support for the NSA's position and was not only flagged a troll, but was called a moron for having an opinion that differs from the /. group-think.
Well, that's because amiga3d's post was fuckin' garbage, even more so than yours. I'd say it's even worse than all those useless "nigger" posts, assuming he wasn't just trolling, because if enough morons support this unjust garbage, it will likely continue.
Browsing with a 5 threshold still leaves me with having to weed through trashtalking, insulting, harrumph harrumph, "I'm smart because everybody agrees with me although all I did was copy/paste somebody else's opinion from the internet" crap worthy of a Rush Limbaugh show.
That's interesting, because your comments are as generic as you believe everyone else's to be. Now, they may not contain a myriad of insults, but they demonstrate pretty much the same attitude that you're criticizing. And guess what? It doesn't fuckin' matter.
What an ignorant bootlicker you are! If you're not careful, I'll perform a grand slam of the ages...
What a fuckin' fucker cheeks patty you are! I bet you're slurpin' the governments boots as you please like corn on bajeebus! Vanish, already! Wow!
"Everybody else is doing it" is a useless observation, even if true.
Considering the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and you failed to define the word "unreasonable", there has been no violation of the 4th amendment as of yet.
So, he failed to mention what he thinks is unreasonable (clearly the NSA's actions are unreasonable to him), so that means there has been no violation of the constitution? What absurd logic.
General warrants are unconstitutional, you know. The fact that some judge, who is part of a secretive court, rubberstamped general warrants doesn't change anything. If you honestly think that spying on nearly everyone's communications is constitutional or okay, then you're a naive ignoramus.
The Constitution is up for (ever changing) interpretation.
They use whatever interpretation is most convenient for the government.
There is a reason that organizations dedicated to protecting our rights, such as the EFF and the ACLU, are up in arms about this. Think about it.
"as effective"? Considering how effective the TSA is, that's not saying... anything at all.
You must extremely unprincipled and naive to want to sacrifice your freedoms to the government for safety. No government in history hasn't abused its powers in horrible, disgusting ways, and yet you want the government to be able to violate the constitution as it pleases? You disgust me, bootlicker.
Well, then, go over to Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic country. If you're Kafir, they'll do that very thing and you'll either be very dead or nearly so.
Telling me to go visit other countries with awful governments changes nothing; terrorists are almost nonexistent, and that is a fact.
What you FEEL to be wrong doesn't map to the cold harsh truth of how the world is and wishing it not so won't EVER change it.
Yeah, so just let the government violate the constitution; just accept it.
Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it needs to be changed.
It's not just because I don't agree with it; it's also because the government is flagrantly violating the constitution.
And naturally, if someone disagrees with the government, of course they're going to think it needs to be changed.
What's with this government cheerleading? Are you so naive and ignorant of history that you're willing to give the government the power to spy on just about everyone's communications simply because some people might be terrorists? Do you despise freedom so greatly that you don't care if the government violates the constitution if it's in the name of keeping you safe? No government throughout history has been filled with perfect angels, and all have abused their powers in egregious ways; why would you trust the current government, and all the people in the future who will be part of it, with this information? How could anyone be so disgustingly naive?
By saying "Government is the Enemy", you're saying WE are the enemy.
That's only if the government listens to the people. That's only if the system isn't set up to trick stupid people (which are a majority) into voting for the same two parties over and over, or the 'lesser of two evils'; it doesn't matter how much people disagree with their chosen party in such a case, as they'll just keep voting for them... That's only if the people in the government don't choose to take these actions themselves; the government is not authorized to violate the constitution, even if people want that to happen.
Maybe we should stop violating people's rights just because they try to get on a plane?
The ONLY reasonable gun law, is the one that prevents most people from having fully automatic weapons.
If you're going to say that fully automatic weapons are not protected by the second amendment, why should any other modern gun be protected?
I'm in favor of all guns and arms being protected by it until we actually amend the constitution. You don't just say that certain violations are "reasonable"; it's not reasonable for the government to violate the highest law of the land, or at least not in my eyes.
Rather than all the expensive radiation machines, and having people grope you and grandma, just put in simple metal detectors, along with each one of them monitored by a guard with a bomb sniffing dog.
Better yet, get rid of the TSA completely and forget the dogs. Terrorists are almost nonexistent to begin with.
I suppose you could throw in a couple of behavioral specialists too to observer and question folks that were acting suspiciously
No. Harassing people selectively is not okay with me, and I believe Israel is wrong in doing so.
It is not a privilege, because in order for government to grant that privilege, they would have to have ownership of your work.
What they grant you is their cooperation and their enforcement of a monopoly over ideas. No ownership is needed.
all they can do is grant protection from others copying your work.
Which is what they grant, and as a privilege.
That's why the Constitution says it secures to authors and inventors "the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Sorry, but I will not count copyright among rights such as freedom of speech. Real rights don't just disappear with time alone.
but if you persist in using it to rationalize instead of analyze
Using buzzwords like "rationalize," which you can use in just about any situation, is not going to help you.
No, but protection of rights can go away with time, if the law dictates it be so.
I'd call that a "violation," depending on what you were referring to. If you're saying that the law can change with time, then that's rather irrelevant to my point. Copyrights expire on their own and without changes to the law, as they were meant to; the privileges only last for a limited time.
Fine. No skin off my back if you can't be bothered to understand the issues.
It's not that I don't understand; it's that I reject the propaganda that copyright holders love to spew forth.
you've got an uphill battle with only about 3 centuries of political philosophy and case law to rebut...
Slavery was around for a long time. No point in mentioning this garbage; it means nothing to me. I have a mind of my own, and I reject such frivolous notions of copyright being anything more than a privilege.
Rights don't go away with time, in my opinion.
Privileges are granted.
Copyright is a privilege that is granted by society to certain people for the sole purpose of encouraging innovation. It is also a restriction. These things are not mutually exclusive.
That's why copyright notices say "all rights reserved" instead of "no privileges granted."
I don't care about what current laws says or what copyright holders like to say.
I want to slurp your bare ass. Wait... did you hear that? It was the sound of something licking its chops! Who or what made that sound!? Well, I ran an extensive gamma-class study with an omega-class scientist, and I managed to narrow down the possible culprits to the following:
1) Me.
2) My fetid cock.
And that's it. As it turns out, it was my smelly cock that licks its bare chops! But why would it do such a thing!? Well, I think we might find the answer if we let your foul asshole and my disease-ridden cock have a little chat...
I don't see your point. Copyright is a privilege, and if you intended to convince me otherwise, you have failed.
"Ba la la la leh leh leh! Ba la la la leh leh leh!"
This is an amazing experiment! I've never see anything like it! A grand experiment is unfolding before my very eyes! Such a fuckin' thing!
Incest is unethical because of the risk of inbreeding
So because there's a higher risk that children (who wouldn't exist in any form otherwise, I might add) will have birth defects, it's wrong? I don't think I agree with that.
Is that erection coincidental, or do you want to jam your fetid-as-fuck cock straight into the deepest reaches of my rancid, feces-filled asshole? I think we both know it's the latter. Oh, yeah! I'm wigglin' my bare snap all over your cock! It's a feces-fiesta, and your disgusting cock has full omega access to the deepest, most rancid parts of my smelly asshole! Come on! My foul asshole just opened up like a circular door from a science fiction movie; it's waiting for your fetid little friend! What say you?
My, my, my... What do we have here? I've never seen such a rancid asshole before! My cock will now become One With Bayerhole right this minuteness! I can't wait to shoot my ass-seeking cock right into your rancidhole and get this fucking party started! What say you?
I don't recognize copyright as any sort of right. Does free speech vanish in time? Does freedom of religion vanish with time? No. In fact, copyright restricts everyone for the benefit of a few. There is no way I'll ever consider it a right, regardless of anyone's opinion on the matter.
Either way, they're dead as a result of that sentence.
No, in one instance, they're dead as a result of time; in the other, they're dead because the government killed them. Time would have killed them either way; prison had nothing to do with it. With the death penalty, it almost becomes a certainty that they'll die before they otherwise would have. With the death penalty, you're likely killing them before they had a chance to live out their lives. Not even the results are the same.
Should everyone have the "freedom" to shout fire in a crowded movie theater?
I think so, yes. If the owner of the property doesn't like it, they can kick them out. That's the nice thing about private property.
This is why you need a background in law. Understand where a balance is.
I do not compromise on fundamental freedoms, nor will I. The fact that you even put that forth as an option (especially when talking about the PATRIOT ACT) is exactly the sort of reason I said that you don't care about freedom.
Many people 'compromise' their freedoms away without any background in law, anyway.
You won't get everything you want (unless you can make it seem like "no duh captain obvious"), don't piss others off or you may not get anything that you wanted.
Sometimes compromise is not acceptable. To me, compromising away fundamental freedoms is unacceptable; I'd rather not get anything than do that.
Have you even written a letter to a representative? Local, State, Fed? Do you even vote?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
So don't tell me I don't care about freedom.
Since you seem to be so willing to discard (or 'compromise' away) fundamental freedoms, I stand by what I said, regardless of your actions.
GP had quite good points
Be that as it may, it had nothing to do with what I said.
And that's partly why we have such an abysmal education system; people want simple solutions to problems where simple solutions just don't cut it.