Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#221

Post by jimbokun »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #56
refurb wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like arresting people when they say something the gov't doesn't like? [1] I'll take a pass, thank you. [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-...

I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

Can be equally used to suppress anyone with an unpopular opinion.

Who is deciding what is edgy but still funny, vs what’s over the line?

What is valid criticism of people who happen to be part of a minority group, vs what is hateful and racist?

The only reason you are ok with this, is because all of your beliefs fall within the boundaries of acceptability set by the censors. And you want to be protected from the speech of people who might think or believe differently.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#222

Post by jimbokun »

gowld wrote: post #139
opo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.

Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n... > Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Well now that we Americans can murder people directly with words, we can merge the first and second amendments.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#223

Post by martin1975 »

Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #97
martin1975 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly atheist? You clearly haven't been to Albania...

I travel in Albania annually and visit all major regions, and I now speak the language and am always keen to talk about local customs. The Hoxha era had a serious impact. Today, religious observance in Albania is low, and for most of the population any declared religious affiliation is mostly a matter of ethnographic color, not serious belief. Opinion polls in Albania regularly reflect this. “Atheist” may be too stro…

Yes.. they aren't religious, they're just mostly ass backwards, as anyone who has set foot in Albania can attest to. But to deny the islamic influence, IMHO, would be silly.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#224

Post by jpindar »

jryan49 wrote: post #105
cf498 wrote: post #44

I thought civil asset forfeiture was outlawed around 2014/2015. Looking closer it seems that was only in a few states. I found this map from 2015 https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7195521/c... Has much changed since then?

edit: Any changes to these laws would not apply due to the border search exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception The supreme court basically decided you have no rights at the border.

Within 100 miles of the border, that is. Which includes most of the more populated areas of the US.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#225

Post by opo »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #151
opo wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.

…right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder )

>...but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech.

Well, the article discusses the origin of the idea that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is illegal. It also points out that Brandenburg v. Ohio is the actual relevant decision.

For more context on the Brandenberg decision:

>...Charles Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, had spoken to group members at a televised Ohio rally. He’d used inflammatory language and racial slurs. He’d called for "revengeance," which Ohio prosecutors interpreted as a call to violence. This meant, said the prosecutors, that Charles Brandenburg had broken the law.

>...Advocacy, even when it encourages law-breaking, helps the marketplace of ideas, ruled the Court. Had Brandenburg instructed followers to commit a specific crime, he’d have committed a number of offenses himself. But the First Amendment protects speech that merely advocates general, indefinite illegal action.

>With that ruling, the Court overturned the Schenck decision that had introduced "shouting fire in a crowded theater." No longer was "clear and present danger" a sufficient standard for criminalizing speech. To break the law, speech now had to incite "imminent lawless action."

>So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.

http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/...

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#226

Post by manicdee »

JackCh wrote: post #180
gowld wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first 3 have long been exhausted for civil forfeiture.

I disagree and I strongly discourage you from shooting people. There is still a large portion of the public who don't know what civil forfeiture is or why it's a bad thing. If you want to make a difference the best thing you can do right is educate people.

The soap box has already been used. People don't care.

The ballot box has already been used. Both sides either take no action or work to extend the practise. People still don't care.

The jury box has already been used, the supreme court has ruled this legal. People still don't care.

If you think it's too soon to resort to the ammo box, you need to reevaluate your perspective on the government in the USA. Remember, "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing."

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#227

Post by lopmotr »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #128
ra1n85 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't consider arresting and immediately sentencing an individual to 13 months in prison for broadcasting outside of a public trial to be sensible in the least. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/29...

Your source doesn't support your allegations. > It’s illegal in Britain to report the details of some trials before they conclude > Robinson was convicted of breaking that law last year > He showed up with his cameraman again Friday — this time outside a restricted child-sex-abuse trial at Leeds Crown Court, for what he inaccurately announced was the verdict. So not only was he not arrested for broadcasting generally…

This revealed a bizarre feature of UK law. The facts he broadcast were taken from a local newspaper. Newspapers are allowed to report names and charges of defendants, presumably before their trial begins, but then reporting is banned until after it's over. What happens if some shop has old copies of last week's paper on the shelf? Or if it's an online newspaper that keeps all its historic articles available? It also can't stop people in other countries publishing it on the internet. The law seems kind of irrelevant and impossible to be effective.

The other day, I saw a bizarre talk on Youtube about this case by a UK and Canadian activist sitting together in the same room. At one point, the UK citizen stops talking and the Canadian takes over to tell some information. Then the UK person continues. Why? Because he could be arrested if he said it himself so he needed someone who wasn't going to the UK to say it for him.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#228

Post by dang »

martin1975 wrote: post #223
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I travel in Albania annually and visit all major regions, and I now speak the language and am always keen to talk about local customs. The Hoxha era had a serious impact. Today, religious observance in Albania is low, and for most of the population any declared religious affiliation is mostly a matter of ethnographic color, not serious belief. Opinion polls in Albania regularly reflect this. “Atheist” may be too stro…

Yes.. they aren't religious, they're just mostly ass backwards, as anyone who has set foot in Albania can attest to. But to deny the islamic influence, IMHO, would be silly.

That's a breach of HN's civility guidelines. Please don't vent nationalistic remarks here, for or against. We don't want the flamewars it leads to.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#229

Post by jimmaswell »

orf wrote: post #25
3pt14159 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless. Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't. If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada,…

A thousand times this. I'm not saying the UK is some shining beacon of how to run a country but I do think overall our governmental systems are pretty sensible . I think being sensible might be a stereotypical English trait, but it's true. For example you have to comply with the spirit of a law, not the exact text. Also our QC's are pretty level headed and the same goes for our police force. Nobody is overly nitpicky…

Here are some things that would never happen in the US:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/school-calle...

Post reply on HN