3 ms·

The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view

The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view the privacy argument.

coldtea 10y ago
Those kind of bizarro assumptions in American law when the spirit of the law is blatantly obvious always amuse me... E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...
- al3xnull 10y ago
  Those kind of bizarro "blatantly obvious" comments always amuse me... Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests... Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money. Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause. Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.
- rayiner 10y ago
  1) There is nothing bizarro about the idea that something isn't "private" if you share it with strangers at BigWebCo. You mah. It agree with it but it's a reasonable interpretation. 2) The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to join a militia. It protects the right to bear arms. I assume you wouldn't agree with taking a similarly narrow approach to the right to free speech, for example.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    If by a 5-4 decision just a couple years ago you mean "2A protects the right to bear arms", sure. Want to bet that in 20 years, we refine that to "strict scrutiny applies only to to the individual right to bear the specific kinds of arms used in a well-regulated militia, and rational basis to all other arms"?

The assertion that privacy is binary is primarily an American legal fiction that the Government and media managed to sell to the people as the only way to view the privacy argument.

coldtea 10y ago

Those kind of bizarro assumptions in American law when the spirit of the law is blatantly obvious always amuse me... E.g. whether it's OK for the government to check your email if you already give it to an email provider vs snail mail, and such BS. Or whether idiots with gun fetishes for "protecting their property" are what was meant by "well armed militias"...

al3xnull 10y ago
Those kind of bizarro "blatantly obvious" comments always amuse me... Get real. Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Your viewpoint is yours and your bias is confirming it.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and laws has never been "blatantly obvious". Well, it has always been subject to the political pressure from various lobbies and interests... Judges can write whole treatises with delicate legal interpretations to justify their alliances, government pressure and/or under the table money. Kind of like medieval religious scholars could write treatises on how many angels fit on the head of a pin -- it pays well and furthers their friends cause. Between those issues, the death penalty, three strikes laws, and such -- not to mention widespread litigation mania--, the legal code there is kind of the joke in the western world.
rayiner 10y ago
1) There is nothing bizarro about the idea that something isn't "private" if you share it with strangers at BigWebCo. You mah. It agree with it but it's a reasonable interpretation. 2) The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to join a militia. It protects the right to bear arms. I assume you wouldn't agree with taking a similarly narrow approach to the right to free speech, for example.
- tptacek 10y ago
  If by a 5-4 decision just a couple years ago you mean "2A protects the right to bear arms", sure. Want to bet that in 20 years, we refine that to "strict scrutiny applies only to to the individual right to bear the specific kinds of arms used in a well-regulated militia, and rational basis to all other arms"?