Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not contain the words "FBI" or "watch"
[flagged]
This does not add any information. The article doesn't say anything about an FBI watch list, it says NSA flagged people for extra surveillance.
French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
341–350 of 553 posts
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#342Earlier quoted context omitted.
They indeed sometimes destroyed some properties But you cannot blame them for the violence in the protest they co-organized. People are free to attend the protest, and they cannot control them. They never called for violence against police. And most protest now in France have some people fighting with the police. The same way you can see firefighters throwing stuff (including petanque ball) to police during firefighe…
If some Neo-nazis co-organize a protest, and it becomes violent, do you blame the neo-nazis? Just wondering if your reasoning is based on logic or political sides.
Depend which kind of Neo-Nazi organization (they are illegal in France and most of them in France do like to punch people and say it), and co-organized with whom, and depend on what is saying these Neo-Nazi
But for sure I do blame Neo-Nazi for being Neo-Nazi !
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#343This article should be taken with care: La Quadrature Du Net is a stark defender of liberties (which is good, we need those more than ever), but I found they have a tendency to cherry-pick what aligns with their views to dramatic effect. I'm not saying there is no cause for concern - there usually is - but more often than not they have this tendency to overlook some elements and overblow some others to serve their na…
There is a big cause for concern; our secret service deems anybody using encryption tools as a quasi-terrorist.
I agree there is cause for concern, I just find the narrative style to be of disservice and detracts from the issue, as it appears to me that the use of a catastrophist, panic-inducing, anger-laden tone and structure is a mechanism to buy people into their view through fear instead of reason, which in turn drives the wrong response for addressing the issue.
IOW the good part is that they're fact driven, the bad part is that they cherry-pick and use doomsday FUD-like tactics to drive their point home.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they came for the protesters you did not speak out because you was not a protester... Beware when they come for you there will be no one left to speak out. ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ )
When they came for violent people preventing other pacific people to move on with their life, nobody needed to speak because their actions were against the law.
Will you be celebrating the 14th of July buddy?
Or will you be condemning the act of 633 angry French citizens "storming the Bastille in Paris, capturing its munitions, releasing its seven prisoners, lynching the governor and demolishing the fortress".
After all, they broke the law and since it's the law then clearly the government had full legitimacy... right?
Next, you should be defending the "Code Noir" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir That was also the law at some point and only affecting a minitority of the population. The suffering of anyone in society shouldn't interrupt your daily life as any act of revolt is illegal and therefore illegitimate.
Are you even French? "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" unless it inconveniences my day-to-day.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/945415/gilets-jaunes-app... Those in favour went from 70 to 50% over the course of 5 months, opposition tripled, strong support went from 50% to 20%.
Few months after the start of the Gilet Jaune, they were not "blocking the country" anymore (I was answering a comment about this)... And while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed, like Citizens' initiative referendum, or the Solidarity tax on wealth
> while not supporting the Gilet Jaune mode of action anymore, people still strongly supported and support the main ideas they pushed
Imagine how successful they could have been if they had behaved as civilised people from the beginning! I personally like some of those ideas, but I'll never trust people who think that violence is justifiable.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have had well-educated French acquaintences telling me for a decade that France is ripe for a new system of government First, this is not "well-educated French acquaintences" so much as it is supporters of Melanchon's LFI political party, who explicitely campaign on the idea of ending the 5th republic to start a 6th where all problem would be magically solved. Second, the reason I hate his proposal, is because he…
Not everybody that want a 6th republic are supporters of Melanchon's party. We have to be careful about this kind of amalgamation.
Not everyone who supported Brexit in the UK was a right wing xenophobe but look where they ended up.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that always the case when you have rule of law and separation of powers? The legislative body comes up with the law; judges just apply it. E.g. if the law says "murder carries a penalty of minimum 5 years and maximum 30 years imprisonment", then a judge cannot give a sentence of 4 year or of 40 years, even if they personally believe this to be a "better" sentence.
My understanding of the US system design is that the law as defined by the legislative body is in a way "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level), and jurisprudence augments it with the details. Taking your example, what constitutes murder and minimum and maximum penalty are defined in "broad strokes", and the judge gets to define "in this specific case that person is guilty in a way where they should be…
> My understanding of the US system design is that the law as defined by the legislative body is in a way "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level), and jurisprudence augments it with the details.
Which really makes me wonder, how the hell to even professionals keep track of that? For regular stuff you literally can have thousands of relevant cases going back centuries as "precedent" to build on.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
Townshend v Townshend is a ruling from 1848 still being quoted. Citing Slavery Project did an analysis and found 18% of all current cases in courts either quote slavery rulings or are less than 2 steps removed (quote a ruling that quotes the slavery ruling).
Not sure how that's relevant. > The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. That's the part that doesn't match reality.
> That's the part that doesn't match reality.
I mean Spain recently had a big case related to a group sexual assault. Society was up in arms about the ruling (minimum sentence was 1 year, max was like 6)
So the law was amended and now sexual violence has a maximum sentence of 15 years which is more in line with other european countries.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that always the case when you have rule of law and separation of powers? The legislative body comes up with the law; judges just apply it. E.g. if the law says "murder carries a penalty of minimum 5 years and maximum 30 years imprisonment", then a judge cannot give a sentence of 4 year or of 40 years, even if they personally believe this to be a "better" sentence.
My understanding of the US system design is that the law as defined by the legislative body is in a way "minimalistic" (and even more so at the federal level), and jurisprudence augments it with the details. Taking your example, what constitutes murder and minimum and maximum penalty are defined in "broad strokes", and the judge gets to define "in this specific case that person is guilty in a way where they should be…
IANAL but no, the US claim to minimalism is just branding.
The largest jurisdiction like the Federal judiciary, for example, have the Federal Sentencing Guidelines which have a strict point system for criminal sentencing where judges have little discretion due to a Federal “tough on crime” wave.
It really depends on the subfield of law and the vagueness of past legislation.
Re: French govt. says users of uBlock Origin, Signal etc. are potential terrorists
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
During the Trump/Biden elections, I distinctly remember the "these elections probably are also being manipulated by the Russians right now" narrative being dropped the moment it became obvious that Biden's winning. Well, if the right candidate wins, the elections must have been fair.