101–110 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress will only stop renewing it if the voters demand it.
Hong Kong, as the most recent example, has once again shown us that whenever "the voters" demand something, the government's response is tear-gas and batons. But hey, governments are "by the people" and "for the people" of course, and to think otherwise would be tantamount to.. actually seeing what's happening!
I think this is the first time I've seen the phrase "post Edward Snowden world", used like "post 9-11 world" has been for the last decade-plus. I hope that catches on. Edit: can't believe I got the name wrong. Fixed.
Now I want to know what you said the first time around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
Well, the Constitution says everyone has the right to say anything they want. That's what "free speech" means, and that includes things that someone thinks are "obscene". Not that the government gives a fuck, but still, just to be clear about what we're discussing here. But yeah, "obscenities laws" are most certainly unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have to know for certain. They just need enough data from multiple sources to get nervous and suddenly the whole investigation is shot.
You mean criminals might stop doing what they are doing because they know they are being investigated? Fantastic! Don't we want them to stop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
Well, the Constitution says everyone has the right to say anything they want. That's what "free speech" means, and that includes things that someone thinks are "obscene". Not that the government gives a fuck, but still, just to be clear about what we're discussing here. But yeah, "obscenities laws" are most certainly unconstitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would any jury convict those people? I'd like to hope the answer is no. Again these are just rhetorical questions, I don't work for twitter.
Who says they'd be tried in a courtroom that even has a jury. Remember, we now know there are courtrooms with no juries.
Are there civilian federal criminal prosecutions without juries? I can't recall hearing of any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Censorship" isn't unconstitutional (e.g. obscenities laws). Certain kinds of censorship may be, and they have specific names.
Well, the Constitution says everyone has the right to say anything they want. That's what "free speech" means, and that includes things that someone thinks are "obscene". Not that the government gives a fuck, but still, just to be clear about what we're discussing here. But yeah, "obscenities laws" are most certainly unconstitutional.
What is "the freedom of speech?"
You can take it literally: the freedom to say anything you can speak. You probably don't want to go down that route, because the obvious corollary is: "fine, then the First Amendment doesn't cover publication, electronic communications, or expression" because those things are outside the dictionary definition of "speech."
You can also treat it as a phrase that has meaning in context, like "object" does in computer science. But you can't have your cake and eat it too: the same interpretive process the Supreme Court has used to create exceptions to the freedom of speech has also been used to take the freedom far beyond what literally qualifies as "speech." This is particularly true if you're talking about obscenities laws, which mostly deal with things like images and performances which aren't literally speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean criminals might stop doing what they are doing because they know they are being investigated? Fantastic! Don't we want them to stop?
We want to stop them by catching them . Them stopping and changing their operation to reduce the chances of being caught is not the desired outcome.
I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know about it because it's classified". They can't tell us anything about their 'constant' and 'heroic' efforts to save us from the evil monster redacted. There's no evidence presented to me.
On the other hand, the real bad guys are constantly doing stuff to get in the news. So the only conclusion I have is 'national security' is the bureaucratic way of saying "my girlfriend lives two towns over".
Back when I was in 8th grade, there was a guy who claimed he had a girlfriend. She lived in [two towns over]. But no one believed him because they never saw her. Never got her last name. There were just claims that "she's from [town], and she's awesome". I have the same reaction to the national security theatre that we're always presented with from classified space. "Trust us there's a real threat, but you don't know…
I boarded a commuter plane (prop plane, less than 50 seats) last month at a small town airport. It had pre-9/11 security in place and a broken metal detector. I got a quick pat down that didn't even cover all my pockets. From there, I got on a cross country jet identical to the ones that hit NYC or the Pentagon on 9/11.
It is pretty clear either:
A) The government is so incompetent they can't be trusted with providing anything resembling security.
B) They don't take their security theater seriously.