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

'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#81

Post by tptacek »

tedks wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having a cell phone is a privilege? In what state, owing to what statute?

It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reas…

It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#83

Post by snowwrestler »

DannyBee wrote: post #57
chimeracoder wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike you, I am not a laywer, so take this for what it's worth: I agree with most of what you say, but I do think the following statement is a bit unfair: > So it does make sense to talk about invoking it, since the same people who have explained this right have said, as part of that explanation, that you are required to do it. Unless I'm mistaken, you're referring to two separate SCOTUS decisions that are separated…

"Again, I agree with the rest of what you're saying, but I don't think it's unfair to criticize the most recent SCOTUS ruling for appearing to[0] reverse or mitigate our understanding of the earlier SCOTUS ruling." It's certainly fair to criticize, but honestly, this is the problem with unenumerated rights in general (like "The right to privacy" and others), and judicially made rules like the exclusionary rule - they…

The contemporaneous objection to the proposed Bill of Rights was that future generations would come to believe that only those rights enumerated in the Bill are protected by the Constitution.

It seems to me that that fear has basically come true. Adding a few more amendments won't fix that; in fact they would reinforce the problem.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#84

Post by aric »

tptacek wrote: post #80
aric wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're confusing explicit rights with implicit rights built on precedence. Much of what's considered Constitutional rights is not definite and explicit. Likewise, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state that you have a right to your physical senses as a sentient being beyond ambiguous terms pertaining to welfare. This reminds me of a leading worry during the writing of the Bill of Rights: a worry that the affirmati…

You're caught in a semantic rut. Your peer in this conversation isn't suggesting that there is no "right to silence". Re-read his comment. He's acknowledging that there is an implied right, but pointing out that it is not in the Constitution. He agrees with you that the right is eroding. His disagreement regards the solution that erosion. Your solution seems to be to shore up the implied right to silence that comes f…

It's a semantic rut, perhaps. It's not necessarily my semantic rut. Off the bat he was arguing down this road as if to suggest that I was implying that "remaining silent" was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution -- something I never implied. I'm not stating solutions. I'm commenting on results. Ideas for solutions are numerous and probably least served for attention in this thread. A full constitutional amendment would be great. Agreed. Unfortunately, that's a daunting likelihood given the prevailing winds.

This matter would benefit from re-reading my comments equally, as well, but I digress. No worries. Thank you for your added thoughts.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#85

Post by kasey_junk »

tedks wrote: post #76
seanflyon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a voluntary transaction between 2 private parties. Either party can deny that transaction, but the government stepping in and preventing the transaction seems like a very different thing. I suppose some would say it's part of thew government's right to regulate interstate commerce.

Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.

"owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#86

Post by anonbanker »

anonbanker wrote: post #74
mcherm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Interesting quote you put there. Did I say that? No. I used the quotation marks to indicate my paraphrasing of what I believed you were implying, not your actual words.

We'll consider your silence to the rest of my post as agreement to its contents.

And we'll consider your downvotes to be a sign of vexation, rather than legitimate contribution to the conversation. This type of censorship is not in the spirit of the HN guidelines.

Regardless, I have karma to burn. bury away. :-)

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#87

Post by tedks »

tptacek wrote: post #81
tedks wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's certainly regulatable, though it isn't now. Since cell carriers lease public airwaves, it'd be possible to mandate that they block some people from using their service, only sell phones if the person's ID is checked, etc.. This is drastic and would disrupt (in the traditional sense of the word) pay as you go phones that are popular for various demographics, but it seems possible, and there certainly isn't a reas…

It's not true that anything one can imagine being regulated can legally be regulated. The state has an extremely compelling interest in regulating automobiles --- they are incredibly dangerous and create externalities. It is harder to see how a restriction on free speech and association could pass Constitutional muster.

There's no free speech or association here, only questions of who can access government-controlled radio spectrum.

This is also incredibly dangerous -- nearly all drug trafficking is orchestrated via cellular networks, and it's not a stretch to imagine that felons might lose the right to use government radio spectrum to communicate in the same way they lose the right to vote in many states.

To put it another way, which seems more of a central right in the democratic system: voting, or controlled frequency access?

It seems very quixotic to make this an issue of free speech, when free speech itself is so highly regulated. Ask the protesters outside the free speech zone if free speech exists beyond state regulation -- the silence is your answer.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#88

Post by tedks »

kasey_junk wrote: post #85
tedks wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the government owns the radio spectrum that the communication goes over, so it's more direct than that.

"owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.

"The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#89

Post by kasey_junk »

tedks wrote: post #88
kasey_junk wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"owns" in this sentence is problematic. It is a highly technical discussion so it is probably best not to dwell on it. But the government regulates the radio spectrum on behalf of the public, who own it.

"The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.

For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.

Re: 'You Have the Right to Remain Silent.' or Do You?

#90

Post by vertex-four »

kasey_junk wrote: post #89
tedks wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The public" is an abstract concept. If you try to use radio spectrum in ways the government dislikes, it will stop you with violence, so they own it for all intents and purposes.

For that matter, the "government" is an abstract concept. So what? The point is, the "government" doesn't own anything. They regulate it. That is completely different than ownership, and in the case of radio spectrum the very concept of ownership is really hard to even reason about it.

What is ownership of a piece of land, precisely, then, and how does it differ from ownership of the radio spectrum? My understanding is that ownership of a piece of land simply means that you'll (or a proxy, whether private entity or Government, will) use violence (or threaten it) to keep other people from using it without your permission.
Post reply on HN