5 ms·

I guess the main difference is one of scale. The vast majority of citizens don't "experience restrictions on mobility or expression" in a significant way, even

I guess the main difference is one of scale. The vast majority of citizens don't "experience restrictions on mobility or expression" in a significant way, even though it happens to some people.

yourepowerless 11y ago
Simply untrue. Airports. No fly lists. Mass surveillance. Free speech zones, civil forfeiture, national security letters. Millions of Americans have a security clearance, the government has created a two tier system of those inside and everyone else. Big media is tightly controlled in America, and after TPP and other international treaties the internet will also be even more tightly controlled. Civil liberties have been extensively erroded since 9-11, how can anyone besides a shill or the ignorant not know such basic facts?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  Unfortunately your text largely uses the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. You even use the word "shill". I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you, because your opinions are so extreme.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    No fly lists are a conspiracy theory? You have got to be a troll.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      That post listed a lot of things other than no fly lists...
  - wfo 11y ago
    The person you're responding to stated very few opinions (essentially "things will get even worse") and some well-known facts. The tone and style of rhetoric is a little heavy but there is absolutely nothing extreme about any of the statements there. An extremist would be someone who chooses to plug their ears and shout and refuse to acknowledge these simple factual statements about American society/government.
    - vacri 11y ago
      Facts were stated, but not the salient one: what proportion of the population experience those things, which is what the comment's parent was talking about. You could have a secret court that decides to kill one person per year, but one person out of a nation of 300M does not a police state make. TL;DR: A sense of proportion is missing from the factoids.
      - maus42 11y ago
        Now that sounds quite weak argument: Where exactly goes the line? A quite small minority of DDR or Soviet (speaking of post-Stalin timeframe) 'citizens' actually were jailed or killed. I'd bet that also a very small percent of Chinese population is killed outside the judicial system today, or even within the judicial system's framework of courts and executions, even if they give death sentences very liberally. It's a question of principle. Either the government and its agencies are held accountable, or they are not. Arbitrary and extra-judicial use of power is still arbitrary and extra-judicial use of power, even if the wielder of that power chooses to use it discreetly. The government is not restricted by the constitution if they can just choose what parts of it they pay lipservice to as they please, even if they do that only seldom and to people who don't matter or "don't deserve our sympathy". edit. Edited for tone.
        vacri 11y ago
        It's only a weak argument because you've strawmanned it. I didn't say that the only thing that makes a police state is state killings. My point was about proportion, not mere absolute existence. You wouldn't say that Norway (0.7 murders/100k pop) is the same as Honduras (~90/100k, from memory) in terms of personal safety, simply because murders exist in an absolute sense in Norway. > Either the government and its agencies are held accountable, or they are not. Such philosophical absolutes are useless in the actual human experience. You chide me for weak arguments, yet you hold the modern US state and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot's states as morally equal, since they all have extrajudicially killed at least one person and proportionality does not matter. Clearly this is not the case - the world is shades of gray, not black and white absolutes. Some grays are darker than others.
- grkvlt 11y ago
  How are free speech zones a "restriction on [...] expression"? Surely they are the very definition on the LACK of restrictions on expression, the physical embodiement of the freedom of expression...!
  - wfo 11y ago
    "You may speak freely, but men with guns will escort you to a cage where you may do so in a place nobody can hear you"
  - KMag 11y ago
    The OP was using a shorthand expression for the oppression zones surrounding free speech zones. Free speech zones are areas where normal rights apply, implying that their immediate vicinities are special areas where free speech is curtailed. The zones themselves aren't oppressive, but indicate that oppression exists at their borders, and the free speech zones themselves are used to justify the oppression zones.
    - grkvlt 11y ago
      OK, I get that one could make that inference. And, having read more about them [1] I think I picked the wrong thing to rebut, as they are probably one of the better examples of "restrictions on expression." The others, I still contend, not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
beeboop 11y ago
Restrictions on speech, specifically with NSLs, can happen to only a few people but still be extremely significant. The example of the Lavabit email hosting service comes to mind. He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users. He was a single person with an extremely important thing to say with drastic implications, but was legally barred from doing so. I would call that significant. Multiply times thousands of people and you have thousands of very important things being censored.
- grkvlt 11y ago
  > He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users. Should really be: He was served with an NSL requiring him to gather the private encrypted emails of one of his users. Rather less inflammatory, and more accurate - the NSL really only affected the person (actually, it may have been slightly more - two people?) using the service that was being targeted. The reason the service was shut down was because of the precendent; the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal.
  - 2g67vupsoknn 11y ago
    > the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal. Actually, this is exactly what was requested (and was eventually provided). http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/ http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/
    - grkvlt 11y ago
      From your cite: > "earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata." > "the documents indicate the bureau was still trying only to capture metadata on one user." > "while the metadata stream would be captured by a device, the device does not download, does not store, no one looks at it, [and] at the back end of the filter, we get what we’re required to get under the order." > "So there’s no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever, [...] No one looks at that, no one stores it, no one has access to it." So, they were still only looking for (and recording) metadata on one user...

I guess the main difference is one of scale. The vast majority of citizens don't "experience restrictions on mobility or expression" in a significant way, even though it happens to some people.

yourepowerless 11y ago

Simply untrue. Airports. No fly lists. Mass surveillance. Free speech zones, civil forfeiture, national security letters. Millions of Americans have a security clearance, the government has created a two tier system of those inside and everyone else. Big media is tightly controlled in America, and after TPP and other international treaties the internet will also be even more tightly controlled. Civil liberties have been extensively erroded since 9-11, how can anyone besides a shill or the ignorant not know such basic facts?

PlzSnow 11y ago
Unfortunately your text largely uses the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. You even use the word "shill". I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you, because your opinions are so extreme.
- beeboop 11y ago
  No fly lists are a conspiracy theory? You have got to be a troll.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    That post listed a lot of things other than no fly lists...
- wfo 11y ago
  The person you're responding to stated very few opinions (essentially "things will get even worse") and some well-known facts. The tone and style of rhetoric is a little heavy but there is absolutely nothing extreme about any of the statements there. An extremist would be someone who chooses to plug their ears and shout and refuse to acknowledge these simple factual statements about American society/government.
  - vacri 11y ago
    Facts were stated, but not the salient one: what proportion of the population experience those things, which is what the comment's parent was talking about. You could have a secret court that decides to kill one person per year, but one person out of a nation of 300M does not a police state make. TL;DR: A sense of proportion is missing from the factoids.
    - maus42 11y ago
      Now that sounds quite weak argument: Where exactly goes the line? A quite small minority of DDR or Soviet (speaking of post-Stalin timeframe) 'citizens' actually were jailed or killed. I'd bet that also a very small percent of Chinese population is killed outside the judicial system today, or even within the judicial system's framework of courts and executions, even if they give death sentences very liberally. It's a question of principle. Either the government and its agencies are held accountable, or they are not. Arbitrary and extra-judicial use of power is still arbitrary and extra-judicial use of power, even if the wielder of that power chooses to use it discreetly. The government is not restricted by the constitution if they can just choose what parts of it they pay lipservice to as they please, even if they do that only seldom and to people who don't matter or "don't deserve our sympathy". edit. Edited for tone.
      - vacri 11y ago
        It's only a weak argument because you've strawmanned it. I didn't say that the only thing that makes a police state is state killings. My point was about proportion, not mere absolute existence. You wouldn't say that Norway (0.7 murders/100k pop) is the same as Honduras (~90/100k, from memory) in terms of personal safety, simply because murders exist in an absolute sense in Norway. > Either the government and its agencies are held accountable, or they are not. Such philosophical absolutes are useless in the actual human experience. You chide me for weak arguments, yet you hold the modern US state and Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pot's states as morally equal, since they all have extrajudicially killed at least one person and proportionality does not matter. Clearly this is not the case - the world is shades of gray, not black and white absolutes. Some grays are darker than others.
grkvlt 11y ago
How are free speech zones a "restriction on [...] expression"? Surely they are the very definition on the LACK of restrictions on expression, the physical embodiement of the freedom of expression...!
- wfo 11y ago
  "You may speak freely, but men with guns will escort you to a cage where you may do so in a place nobody can hear you"
- KMag 11y ago
  The OP was using a shorthand expression for the oppression zones surrounding free speech zones. Free speech zones are areas where normal rights apply, implying that their immediate vicinities are special areas where free speech is curtailed. The zones themselves aren't oppressive, but indicate that oppression exists at their borders, and the free speech zones themselves are used to justify the oppression zones.
  - grkvlt 11y ago
    OK, I get that one could make that inference. And, having read more about them [1] I think I picked the wrong thing to rebut, as they are probably one of the better examples of "restrictions on expression." The others, I still contend, not so much. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

beeboop 11y ago

Restrictions on speech, specifically with NSLs, can happen to only a few people but still be extremely significant. The example of the Lavabit email hosting service comes to mind. He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users. He was a single person with an extremely important thing to say with drastic implications, but was legally barred from doing so. I would call that significant. Multiply times thousands of people and you have thousands of very important things being censored.

grkvlt 11y ago
> He was served with an NSL requiring him to nefariously gather the private encrypted emails of his users. Should really be: He was served with an NSL requiring him to gather the private encrypted emails of one of his users. Rather less inflammatory, and more accurate - the NSL really only affected the person (actually, it may have been slightly more - two people?) using the service that was being targeted. The reason the service was shut down was because of the precendent; the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal.
- 2g67vupsoknn 11y ago
  > the request was definitely not for blanket access to all users communications, which would be blatantly illegal. Actually, this is exactly what was requested (and was eventually provided). http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/ http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed/
  - grkvlt 11y ago
    From your cite: > "earlier orders intended to monitor a particular Lavabit user’s metadata." > "the documents indicate the bureau was still trying only to capture metadata on one user." > "while the metadata stream would be captured by a device, the device does not download, does not store, no one looks at it, [and] at the back end of the filter, we get what we’re required to get under the order." > "So there’s no agents looking through the 400,000 other bits of information, customers, whatever, [...] No one looks at that, no one stores it, no one has access to it." So, they were still only looking for (and recording) metadata on one user...