I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.
Really? Because I see shooting at drones as no better way to get all government-owned drones armed in the first place. Because, y'know, domestic terrorists.
You want to do civil disobedience, stage a sit-in. You don't need to jeopardize equipment in the air -- or people on the ground when you inevitably miss -- to make a political statement. That's the definition of terrorism.
wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood.
No, a few people in those rural counties are pursuing it. And they're fucking nuts if they think anything will come of it, because guess where all the water for their crops comes from?
And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.
Or, for that matter, walk into five different Walmarts in one town on midnight the day after Thanksgiving. Remind me again how many of those have TSA checkpoints set up?
Fact of the matter is, we're going to have to accept some level of risk in our lives. The question is one of how much.
If you change the context, and mention that conservative Muslims should likewise be completely shunned from consideration because they are even more homophobic, MURDERING gay men for their choices, suddenly culture and context is an exonerating factor.
Hi. Liberal here. And no, it's absolutely not OK for Muslims in Muslim countries to be doing that, in my opinion.
But my opinion doesn't hold much weight in Muslim countries because I don't live in a Muslim country. I live in the United States of America. And in my United States, "Other countries are behaving even worse" is not an excuse to deprive other American citizens of the rights and privileges I have the good fortune to have been blessed with by virtue of my birth.
My United States doesn't set its standards based on the actions of other nations. My United States sets its standards based on the ideals upon which it was founded. If your country doesn't hold itself to a similar standard, then congratulations, you're part of the problem.
This is probably correct; it depends on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has already set the precedent with what's termed the rational basis test: see Romer v. Evans, for which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 1996.
The nuts and bolts of the ruling are that government cannot make a law specifically designed to deny rights to a certain class of individuals.
This isn't about swinging fists. It's about writing about it. This isn't about anything physical. It's about a form of expression. About writing. About typing letters on a keyboard.
It's about threatening to swing a fist, which is no more protected than the actual swinging.
What about James Eagan Holmes' words? Were those a threat? Or do you think his words were OK under the First Amendment (given that his later actions were most certainly not)?
According to this report in the Los Angeles Times, University of Colorado officials seemed to think they were, because they disabled his access to their campus. They didn't seem to think he was a big enough threat to report to law enforcement, though, which is a shame because then 12 people who are dead today might still be alive instead.
Yes. They also had gross violations of airport security, just like TSA does now. The difference is, you're paying the TSA guy's pension after he retires.
But what they didn't have was government agents looking to violate people's privacy. Or nudie scanners. Or groping.
I mostly agree with you here. The so-called "pat-down searches" where passengers are sexually assaulted at random are ridiculous and need to end. The Iraqis who worked at Joint Base Balad when I was deployed there five years ago get a less invasive search than what TSA is doing to American citizens. That should tell you something.
As to the scanners: The last time I flew, I went through one of the scanners and checked out the display after I was on the other side. The image was generic, with nothing identifying my body specifically, so in that sense, it was no more invasive than a metal detector. I'm fairly (though not 100-percent) certain the TSA screeners get the same image. I can't speak for the long-term health effects, but then, I don't fly all that frequently, either.
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't airports have metal detectors and the like before 9/11, too?
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.
The hell I am. I recognize that for the security theater that it is. I also recognize that if anyone ever tries to hijack a plane again in the next century, the other passengers will make sure it doesn't happen.
But I'll admit, I'm just "paranoid" enough to believe that anyone who threatens to shoot up a school should get a knock on the door from the local authorities at the very least, because public safety is their job.
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 take your point. That's where the distinction lies, I suppose: In the U.S., you can speak your mind about religion, politics, etc. In North Korea, you face "consequences" for doing so.
The U.S. has legal safeguards to protect most forms of expression. However, that protection ends when your expression could cause imminent harm to another individual. In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
So can I look up "Magic Maverick" on social media and find out what city you live in? Or are you more anonymous than you claim?
If you happen to live near me, does that necessarily mean you know where I live?
So this is apples and oranges. You're comparing an anonymous threat against an individual to a threat made by a person whose identity is known against a number of schoolchildren who lives near a school and may or may not have the capacity to actually carry it out.
In any case, the point is the same: Threats are not protected speech.
He didn't make any type of credible direct threat against anyone or anything that I can tell.
Without knowing more about the case in question, I don't think we can say the threat he made wasn't "credible or direct." 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.
Now, whether there was enough evidence to take it to trial is another story. But in lieu of Columbine, and more recently Sandy Hook, threatening to shoot children at a school is a credible threat by definition.
If there was 100% freedom of speech, we could all say whatever we want. There isn't. There are certain restrictions on, e.g., commercial speech (you can't out and out lie in an ad).
Right. That's essentially what I'm saying. There are restrictions on individual speech as well, and threats fall into that category.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of no better way to get all drone programs shut down post-haste.
Really? Because I see shooting at drones as no better way to get all government-owned drones armed in the first place. Because, y'know, domestic terrorists.
You want to do civil disobedience, stage a sit-in. You don't need to jeopardize equipment in the air -- or people on the ground when you inevitably miss -- to make a political statement. That's the definition of terrorism.
wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood.
No, a few people in those rural counties are pursuing it. And they're fucking nuts if they think anything will come of it, because guess where all the water for their crops comes from?
Does that mean Texas is full of Help Me People?
Yes. They're called state Republican legislators, and they clearly need help. :P
And yet, I and 19 of my "friends" could walk into 5 of the busiest airports in the country on the day before Thanksgiving, each carrying a backpack and two duffel bags filled with explosives and shrapnel, get in line and at a predetermined time, blow ourselves up while waiting in the crowded lines caused by the security circus.
Or, for that matter, walk into five different Walmarts in one town on midnight the day after Thanksgiving. Remind me again how many of those have TSA checkpoints set up? Fact of the matter is, we're going to have to accept some level of risk in our lives. The question is one of how much.
And that's different from what happens to you luggage in WHAT way ??
It costs a bit more to repair my car than to replace my luggage.
Shoot at these things enough and they will get equipped to shoot back. And their aim's a lot better.
I had to look up the definition of malice, but you're right.
"Better return for stockholders" is done for the benefit of certain people.
And when that better return comes at the expense of another, it's malice ... whether it was intended or not.
This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
That's probably part of the problem.
Exactly.
I'm getting a bit tired of news like this.
That's the danger in fighting a bureaucracy that's overstepped its bounds: Bureaucracies don't get tired. Outraged private citizens do.
If you change the context, and mention that conservative Muslims should likewise be completely shunned from consideration because they are even more homophobic, MURDERING gay men for their choices, suddenly culture and context is an exonerating factor.
Hi. Liberal here. And no, it's absolutely not OK for Muslims in Muslim countries to be doing that, in my opinion.
But my opinion doesn't hold much weight in Muslim countries because I don't live in a Muslim country. I live in the United States of America. And in my United States, "Other countries are behaving even worse" is not an excuse to deprive other American citizens of the rights and privileges I have the good fortune to have been blessed with by virtue of my birth.
My United States doesn't set its standards based on the actions of other nations. My United States sets its standards based on the ideals upon which it was founded. If your country doesn't hold itself to a similar standard, then congratulations, you're part of the problem.
This is probably correct; it depends on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has already set the precedent with what's termed the rational basis test: see Romer v. Evans, for which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 1996.
The nuts and bolts of the ruling are that government cannot make a law specifically designed to deny rights to a certain class of individuals.
How does this make you different than Orson Scott Card?
Beliefs are not genetic. Beliefs are chosen.
This isn't about swinging fists. It's about writing about it. This isn't about anything physical. It's about a form of expression. About writing. About typing letters on a keyboard.
It's about threatening to swing a fist, which is no more protected than the actual swinging.
And if you don't think words on a keyboard have very real consequences, the family of Gabrielle Molina would like a word. Along with the family of Erin and Shannon Gallagher. And the family of Megan Meier.
Wait. This kid makes a threat to kill schoolchildren, and she's the "nutjob"?
What about James Eagan Holmes' words? Were those a threat? Or do you think his words were OK under the First Amendment (given that his later actions were most certainly not)?
According to this report in the Los Angeles Times, University of Colorado officials seemed to think they were, because they disabled his access to their campus. They didn't seem to think he was a big enough threat to report to law enforcement, though, which is a shame because then 12 people who are dead today might still be alive instead.
Yes. They also had gross violations of airport security, just like TSA does now. The difference is, you're paying the TSA guy's pension after he retires.
But what they didn't have was government agents looking to violate people's privacy. Or nudie scanners. Or groping.
I mostly agree with you here. The so-called "pat-down searches" where passengers are sexually assaulted at random are ridiculous and need to end. The Iraqis who worked at Joint Base Balad when I was deployed there five years ago get a less invasive search than what TSA is doing to American citizens. That should tell you something.
As to the scanners: The last time I flew, I went through one of the scanners and checked out the display after I was on the other side. The image was generic, with nothing identifying my body specifically, so in that sense, it was no more invasive than a metal detector. I'm fairly (though not 100-percent) certain the TSA screeners get the same image. I can't speak for the long-term health effects, but then, I don't fly all that frequently, either.
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't airports have metal detectors and the like before 9/11, too?
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.
The hell I am. I recognize that for the security theater that it is. I also recognize that if anyone ever tries to hijack a plane again in the next century, the other passengers will make sure it doesn't happen.
But I'll admit, I'm just "paranoid" enough to believe that anyone who threatens to shoot up a school should get a knock on the door from the local authorities at the very least, because public safety is their job.
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 take your point. That's where the distinction lies, I suppose: In the U.S., you can speak your mind about religion, politics, etc. In North Korea, you face "consequences" for doing so.
The U.S. has legal safeguards to protect most forms of expression. However, that protection ends when your expression could cause imminent harm to another individual. In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
So can I look up "Magic Maverick" on social media and find out what city you live in? Or are you more anonymous than you claim?
If you happen to live near me, does that necessarily mean you know where I live?
So this is apples and oranges. You're comparing an anonymous threat against an individual to a threat made by a person whose identity is known against a number of schoolchildren who lives near a school and may or may not have the capacity to actually carry it out.
In any case, the point is the same: Threats are not protected speech.
He didn't make any type of credible direct threat against anyone or anything that I can tell.
Without knowing more about the case in question, I don't think we can say the threat he made wasn't "credible or direct." 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.
Now, whether there was enough evidence to take it to trial is another story. But in lieu of Columbine, and more recently Sandy Hook, threatening to shoot children at a school is a credible threat by definition.
If there was 100% freedom of speech, we could all say whatever we want. There isn't. There are certain restrictions on, e.g., commercial speech (you can't out and out lie in an ad).
Right. That's essentially what I'm saying. There are restrictions on individual speech as well, and threats fall into that category.