Of course, most of this also applies to the soft science studies saying that violent video games do increase real violence. The media eats all this garbage up (which studies they eat up depend on their agenda obviously), no matter how little sense it makes.
Of course, we're not doing that because history tells us it will be a lot more if we do.
I thought it was because we cared about individual liberties? Haha, who am I kidding... "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would never care about such a thing.
E.g., a database identifying everyone by photo and voiceprint isn't, in and of itself, oppressive. It's only when you mix it with authoritarian legislation that it becomes so.
Bullshit. It's oppressive because it's a massive violation of people's privacy rights.
McCarthy was right in the same way that the people terrified of terrorists are right; communists existed, and terrorists do exist, but both threats were overblown. And none of this justifies infringing upon people's liberties.
Depends on the business, and what's being regulated. I would argue that certain regulations are, in fact, bad. Including ones restricting something like dancing.
Also, assuming that dancing is free speech, free speech doesn't become null and void just because it's done by a business.
Obscenity laws are 100% unconstitutional and the first amendment lists no such exceptions to freedom of speech; that nonsense was created when judges modified the constitution with invisible ink rather than interpreting it as they're supposed to. Care to try again?
It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.
Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.
They also didn't put in any protections of privacy, despite being terrorists who hid their identity on numerous occasions, though also announced their identity and stood by there actions at other times. Arguably the 9th and 10th Amendments are protections on privacy, but the present rulings on privacy are implied from the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are considered meaningless.
Indeed, privacy rights are implicitly protected. And too bad the 9th and 10th amendments are rarely considered.
They also wouldn't consider standing on the street corner looking at people in plain sight as a "search", so the 4th wouldn't apply to surveillance, mass or otherwise.
I'm not sure how standing on a street corner looking at people in plain sight is at all equivalent to conducting mass surveillance of people's communications. Are we talking about the same thing, or are you attempting some sort of cute 'trick' where you equate unencrypted communications (almost a necessity in modern day life, even if you don't want the government to conduct surveillance on you) to standing on the street corner in plain sight?
If in one country one is free to marry who they want, and in another, one is free to own and carry firearms (and in each case, the other freedom doesn't apply), would you consider both to be unfree, thus not worthy of consideration?
I would say both are unfree, since you're asking me specifically. Of course, others are free to not care about certain freedoms, so what freedoms are important is my opinion.
If you want people to interpret you precisely, you have to be precise.
Right, I'll be sure to be a pedantic asshole the next time you say something that isn't 100% precise. Or you could learn to understand simple human language.
and you're 100% positive their response to a massive database of trivial tweets would be to freak the fuck out?
You've revealed your true colors by trivializing the situation. This so-called "metadata" (which is just data) could've been used to find Paul Revere. When you have rights groups all over up in arms about this because the government is unconstitutionally gathering everyone's data, you know there is a problem. This is no less than a mass violation of people's fundamental liberties, and you are an authoritarian to the core to even suggest otherwise.
Oh, and it's not just tweets, you ignorant fucking fool. There, you weren't 100% precise and didn't describe all the sorts of data they're collecting. Should've been more precise, idiot.
So they set up a totally new level of government, specifically giving it the power to create the very first massive database of every American (aka: the Census)
You're bullshitting by comparing the Census to mass surveillance of people's communications.
Read the actual Amendment. And don't do that thing Americans always do where they read it specifically to find out everyone who has ever disagreed with you is a fucking moron. There are multiple ways the Founders could find everything the NSA does is perfectly legal.
And if they did, they'd be wrong. The end.
Read the actual Amendment.
I did. Its spirit clearly forbids mass surveillance. I would suggest you read the actual amendment, but you read everything through authoritarian goggles.
Also, the founders were not the be-all end-all, and I didn't try to make it seem like that; they violated the constitution as well. I speak of the constitution's spirit, and gave more arguments than just "The founders would've disagreed," which I still believe.
As I understand it, you're saying that based on the reasoning behind the fourth amendment, had the draftsman envisioned mass surveillance he would also have prohibited it? So in other words, the actual language of the amendment doesn't prohibit it?
Yes, not explicitly.
A constitution sets hard limits on the power of the government, that cannot be changed without enormous popular support. It should be as unambiguous as humanly possible. The problem if it is not is that it gives policy decisions to judges rather than to the legislature, leading to a politicised judiciary.
If it were more specific, that would be great. People writing such a thing today would know of more government powers that need to be explicitly forbidden.
When you say "Without freedom, we are nothing" you aren't taking a position in the debate at all.
I am. Being greatly free in a country with a bad economy is better than being hardly free in a country with a good economy.
If you don't want to engage with that debate, what are you in favour of when you're in favour of "freedom"? "Fundamental freedoms should never be abridged, and I'll know which ones are fundamental freedoms once these guys work it out"?
Well, if there were serious talks, you'd need to be specific. But not on random Slashdot posts where you'd just giving some general principle.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft.
By government thugs? That makes all the difference. Personally, I think even private companies should be restricted in what they can do.
There would never be a law to this effect and any politician who ever supported it would be out of office next term.
Much like any politician supporting mass surveillance, the TSA, or other unconstitutional nonsense would be out of office; oh wait, most people don't care about privacy or freedom.
foul launguage is a problem for society. I mean serious. These kids will grow up and not be offended by foul language, and won't teach their kids to be offended by it either.
Yes, I agree, some words are inherently bad because some people arbitrarily decided that it is so. It's not like it's a subjective matter or anything. Like how the word "doctor" is a bad word and shouldn't be used on formal occasions. Everyone with Common Sense knows that.
No one cares about your personal experiences, and they won't disprove a rule.
My strong support of free speech makes me wish that were true.
What does free speech have to do with this? Let's say that video games did cause violence for some people. Okay, so what? Freedom is more important than safety, so that still wouldn't be a reason to limit free speech unless you're an authoritarian asshole.
You're still assigning blame, no matter how much you sugar coat it. The point is ultimately just to offer reasonable ways for people to protect themselves.
Yeah. You see, in a nation of laws it is the role of the police to enforce those laws.
Actually, police do have some discretion, and they have a moral responsible to not enforce immoral laws. If people and police rose up, these laws would be gone in no time.
So, if an officer has probable cause based on his senses--and last time I checked smell is a sense--then if he does not search you then he is not doing his job.
The problem is, it just makes it far too easy for the police to lie and say they smelled drugs just so they can harass you. Police should always have to wear cameras and judges should never just take them at their word.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, most of this also applies to the soft science studies saying that violent video games do increase real violence. The media eats all this garbage up (which studies they eat up depend on their agenda obviously), no matter how little sense it makes.
Of course, we're not doing that because history tells us it will be a lot more if we do.
I thought it was because we cared about individual liberties? Haha, who am I kidding... "the land of the free and the home of the brave" would never care about such a thing.
I did bring up mass surveillance to NicBenjamin, but what you said definitely makes more sense in the context of the actual article. Sorry.
E.g., a database identifying everyone by photo and voiceprint isn't, in and of itself, oppressive. It's only when you mix it with authoritarian legislation that it becomes so.
Bullshit. It's oppressive because it's a massive violation of people's privacy rights.
McCarthy was right in the same way that the people terrified of terrorists are right; communists existed, and terrorists do exist, but both threats were overblown. And none of this justifies infringing upon people's liberties.
Any law banning that would be unconstitutional.
Depends on the business, and what's being regulated. I would argue that certain regulations are, in fact, bad. Including ones restricting something like dancing.
Also, assuming that dancing is free speech, free speech doesn't become null and void just because it's done by a business.
Obscenity laws are 100% unconstitutional and the first amendment lists no such exceptions to freedom of speech; that nonsense was created when judges modified the constitution with invisible ink rather than interpreting it as they're supposed to. Care to try again?
It may surprise you to learn that most people in the U.S. today are not "offended" by simple nudity.
Yet they still manage to be insufferable puritans. If they are not, they should fight against unconstitutional laws against public swearing, public nudity, FCC censorship, etc. But they don't.
Yes, let's be Tough On Crime, rather than focus on rehabilitation. I'm sure that's why our prison system is so great at the moment.
They also didn't put in any protections of privacy, despite being terrorists who hid their identity on numerous occasions, though also announced their identity and stood by there actions at other times. Arguably the 9th and 10th Amendments are protections on privacy, but the present rulings on privacy are implied from the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, and the 9th and 10th Amendments are considered meaningless.
Indeed, privacy rights are implicitly protected. And too bad the 9th and 10th amendments are rarely considered.
They also wouldn't consider standing on the street corner looking at people in plain sight as a "search", so the 4th wouldn't apply to surveillance, mass or otherwise.
I'm not sure how standing on a street corner looking at people in plain sight is at all equivalent to conducting mass surveillance of people's communications. Are we talking about the same thing, or are you attempting some sort of cute 'trick' where you equate unencrypted communications (almost a necessity in modern day life, even if you don't want the government to conduct surveillance on you) to standing on the street corner in plain sight?
If in one country one is free to marry who they want, and in another, one is free to own and carry firearms (and in each case, the other freedom doesn't apply), would you consider both to be unfree, thus not worthy of consideration?
I would say both are unfree, since you're asking me specifically. Of course, others are free to not care about certain freedoms, so what freedoms are important is my opinion.
If you want people to interpret you precisely, you have to be precise.
Right, I'll be sure to be a pedantic asshole the next time you say something that isn't 100% precise. Or you could learn to understand simple human language.
and you're 100% positive their response to a massive database of trivial tweets would be to freak the fuck out?
You've revealed your true colors by trivializing the situation. This so-called "metadata" (which is just data) could've been used to find Paul Revere. When you have rights groups all over up in arms about this because the government is unconstitutionally gathering everyone's data, you know there is a problem. This is no less than a mass violation of people's fundamental liberties, and you are an authoritarian to the core to even suggest otherwise.
Oh, and it's not just tweets, you ignorant fucking fool. There, you weren't 100% precise and didn't describe all the sorts of data they're collecting. Should've been more precise, idiot.
So they set up a totally new level of government, specifically giving it the power to create the very first massive database of every American (aka: the Census)
You're bullshitting by comparing the Census to mass surveillance of people's communications.
Read the actual Amendment. And don't do that thing Americans always do where they read it specifically to find out everyone who has ever disagreed with you is a fucking moron. There are multiple ways the Founders could find everything the NSA does is perfectly legal.
And if they did, they'd be wrong. The end.
Read the actual Amendment.
I did. Its spirit clearly forbids mass surveillance. I would suggest you read the actual amendment, but you read everything through authoritarian goggles.
Also, the founders were not the be-all end-all, and I didn't try to make it seem like that; they violated the constitution as well. I speak of the constitution's spirit, and gave more arguments than just "The founders would've disagreed," which I still believe.
"the dangers of the police state pale in comparison to what 40 years of declining wages and eroding worker's rights have done."
I disagreed. A police state is worse. That's all.
As I understand it, you're saying that based on the reasoning behind the fourth amendment, had the draftsman envisioned mass surveillance he would also have prohibited it? So in other words, the actual language of the amendment doesn't prohibit it?
Yes, not explicitly.
A constitution sets hard limits on the power of the government, that cannot be changed without enormous popular support. It should be as unambiguous as humanly possible. The problem if it is not is that it gives policy decisions to judges rather than to the legislature, leading to a politicised judiciary.
If it were more specific, that would be great. People writing such a thing today would know of more government powers that need to be explicitly forbidden.
Unfortunately, courts oftentimes side against the rights of the people in favor of increasing government power when they shouldn't. So yes, a new amendment going into more (it can't ever be 100% precise) detail would be great, but the current people in government likely wouldn't allow it.
When you say "Without freedom, we are nothing" you aren't taking a position in the debate at all.
I am. Being greatly free in a country with a bad economy is better than being hardly free in a country with a good economy.
If you don't want to engage with that debate, what are you in favour of when you're in favour of "freedom"? "Fundamental freedoms should never be abridged, and I'll know which ones are fundamental freedoms once these guys work it out"?
Well, if there were serious talks, you'd need to be specific. But not on random Slashdot posts where you'd just giving some general principle.
Completely untrue. There has always been screenings when getting on an aircraft.
By government thugs? That makes all the difference. Personally, I think even private companies should be restricted in what they can do.
There would never be a law to this effect and any politician who ever supported it would be out of office next term.
Much like any politician supporting mass surveillance, the TSA, or other unconstitutional nonsense would be out of office; oh wait, most people don't care about privacy or freedom.
Also, equating real-world experiences to fantasy violence seems rather silly to me.
An obvious truth is flamebait.
When you compare kids who see a lot of crap vs those who don't, shockingly the kids who see crap tend to do crap.
Where is your rigorous scientific study that isn't based off of subjective soft science, and where is the scientific consensus?
foul launguage is a problem for society. I mean serious. These kids will grow up and not be offended by foul language, and won't teach their kids to be offended by it either.
Yes, I agree, some words are inherently bad because some people arbitrarily decided that it is so. It's not like it's a subjective matter or anything. Like how the word "doctor" is a bad word and shouldn't be used on formal occasions. Everyone with Common Sense knows that.
No one cares about your personal experiences, and they won't disprove a rule.
My strong support of free speech makes me wish that were true.
What does free speech have to do with this? Let's say that video games did cause violence for some people. Okay, so what? Freedom is more important than safety, so that still wouldn't be a reason to limit free speech unless you're an authoritarian asshole.
But why would you?
You're still assigning blame, no matter how much you sugar coat it. The point is ultimately just to offer reasonable ways for people to protect themselves.
It's legal stupidity.
Yeah. You see, in a nation of laws it is the role of the police to enforce those laws.
Actually, police do have some discretion, and they have a moral responsible to not enforce immoral laws. If people and police rose up, these laws would be gone in no time.
So, if an officer has probable cause based on his senses--and last time I checked smell is a sense--then if he does not search you then he is not doing his job.
The problem is, it just makes it far too easy for the police to lie and say they smelled drugs just so they can harass you. Police should always have to wear cameras and judges should never just take them at their word.
You can blame someone for not taking reasonable precautions.