Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hence the saying "hard cases make bad law"
That is not the saying
Seems to be one... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law
EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant
51–54 of 54 posts
Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not convinced "the law says you can't do that" is super meaningful in 2026. In fact, we're finding out very quickly that "what the government can do" is in practice, only limited by the rest of the government's willingness to push back. The set of things grows every time the government tries something new and receives no push back from the other two branches of government that are captured by the same political…
In a somewhat democratic country, it's limited by what the people vote for. Unfortunately, right now the people voted for obscene corruption and dismantling of institutions and selling pardons and a destruction of law and order. Republican politicians support this and do not stop Trump because stopping Trump will get them voted out.
> because stopping Trump will get them voted out
Hey, you misspelled "murdered".
Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant
#53This is even more important than it sounds because the US federal goverment considers 100 miles inland from any international border (including the great lakes, etc) as being "the border". And that is where 80% of the people in the USA live.
That's incorrect, or at best misleadingly incomplete. 8 USC §1357(a) authorizes border agents to, "(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access t…
The problem is that the Trump administration interprets those laws as granting them the power to do warrantless vehicle stops and searches, as well as expedited removal, anywhere in that 100-mile zone.
The ACLU has a page about it: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
Re: EFF to 4th Circuit: Electronic Device Searches at the Border Require a Warrant
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The rebrand here is because for something to be porn, the person in it has to be able to consent. Children can’t consent, thus it’s material showing sexual abuse. I think this new name is generally accepted at wide and will stick around in perpetuity from now on.
> The rebrand here is because for something to be porn, the person in it has to be able to consent.
This was a reason the rebranders stated. But it was false clearly. Dictionaries' definitions did not include consent. People understood revenge porn lacked consent. And people understood child porn lacked consent.