12 ms·

Beautiful - Go to protest against Trump (or even to document it [1]) - get arrested and charged with "Rioting", "Disturbing the Peace" or my most favorite "Resi

Beautiful - Go to protest against Trump (or even to document it [1]) - get arrested and charged with "Rioting", "Disturbing the Peace" or my most favorite "Resisting Arrest[2]" - get an Arrest Record - Get fired immediately thanks to RAP BACK - Charges get dropped. Rinse and repeat. Welcome Absolute Fascism. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-ch... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=92toXdu2KR0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=92toXdu2KR0

nickthemagicman 10y ago
Another reason jobs are a legacy system of gaining resources. Drug tests background tests, now this. How easy is it to control people who need a job to survive?
Spooky23 10y ago
This stuff is scary. My union as a .gov employee didn't understand that it was signing up for something even worse than this. That employer will get an active notification of any arrest (not indictment) for every impacted employee's life, even after separation from service. Worse, the employer can administratively decide that an arrest is of concern and can basically void your appointment to a position.
randywaterhouse 10y ago
We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. Although, in some ways, we've been here for a while. Maybe less-so for individuals but for corporations, whom the law generally treats with a degree of "individual" rights (IANAL), it's long been that an indictment is worse than a conviction. After an indictment, clients turn away -> revenue flees -> shutters. What's scary is an indictment is, in theory (under fair application of the principles of law), is more severe than a simple arrest. If we're living in a system (US) where a simple arrest results in a database entry which can result in the end of your productive life, we're living in a... [up to the reader to determine the severity] Ultimately, the power of gov't to drop charges after such a consequence (firing) is powerful and unfair to the individual. Indeed.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  > We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. source on that?
  - GavinMcG 10y ago
    I think it was pretty obvious that it was an evaluation the commenter was making, not something that came from another source. That makes me wonder whether you were being sincere in your response, and if not, what you thought you were contributing.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      I'm contributing skepticism. How many arrests statistically lead to convictions? I suspect it's high, but if it's not, then his statement is untrue. I also don't see how it's obvious that was his intent, as I obviously don't see it as meaning that.
      - glial 10y ago
        Statistics has nothing to do with it. People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am honestly shocked that this appears to be a controversial assertion.
        CaptSpify 10y ago
        > People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. How did what I say imply otherwise? I completely agree with that statement.
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  > We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. It's not, under the law, of course. But since businesses can (generally) freely choose who to hire or fire, it is legal for them to ask employees about arrests and make decisions based on the answer. This is different, though, in that the federal government itself (the FBI) is assisting companies in doing this. The FBI is reporting arrests to businesses, in full knowledge of the negative consequences for employees in doing so. Indeed, the negative consequences are the entire point of the program. The federal government is held to different standards. If an employee could prove that they were fired because of an arrest that never led to a conviction, reported through Rap Back, I think they would have a pretty good test case for the ACLU to go to town on. The whole point of our system of justice is to ensure that the government only punishes citizens when there is beyond reasonable doubt that an actual crime was committed. Here, the federal government is delivering punishment entirely outside that framework. The government will argue that they're just supplying information, not punishment, but they don't get to just pretend they have no idea what happens next. Everything the FBI has ever said about this program will be reviewed and will show that the whole point is to fire people.
battlebot 10y ago
Okay, but it wasn't Trump who did this! Trump is trying to dismantle the machine, not build it up. I'm a libertarian, I'm perfectly happy when government shrinks and I wish it would shrink back to its constitutionally mandated duties. I would also like it if companies would stop enabling the police state here and around the world by selling the tech that allows it to go on. Talk about dangerous! This is why we have dystopian science fiction--to warn us about crap like this.
ihsw 10y ago
Or you could avoid being a social pariah and go about your life normally. There's nothing wrong with that. Personally I have no interest in my workplace being a haven for "social justice warriors," whatever that even means. Sounds like a euphemism for bored layabouts that need something better to do than spread hateful propaganda over Twitter/Facebook and generally be a nuisance to "raise awareness."
ManFromUranus 10y ago
The FBI already builds watch-lists, how is this news? You're employer can already get a background check on you (even without your knowledge or consent I'm pretty sure). Lets be honest here, nobody is getting arrested for protesting Trump, they are getting arrested for property destruction, assault, blocking public throughfares (hows the ambulance or firetruck supposed to get through?) There are so many legitimate reasons to arrest these people, this comment is is just pure fear mongering.
pvg 10y ago
No, that's still nowhere close to Fascism, 'absolute' or otherwise. Fascists beat, imprisoned and killed protesters and dissenters. They didn't engage in niceties like 'your protesting might impact your job at an airport'.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Of course they did, read a history book. As for the more kinetic style of fascism, I refer you to the student show at a protest at the University of Washington about 10 days ago: http://q13fox.com/2017/01/24/shooter-sent-facebook-message-to-controversial-speaker-at-uw/ http://q13fox.com/2017/01/24/shooter-sent-facebook-message-t...
  - pvg 10y ago
    Are you telling me to read a history book? That's in the 'did you read the article' category of rude. The OP claim is utter hyperbole. The thing you linked is titled "Shooter sent Facebook message". How was the government involved in this? Edit: I'll try to put it more clearly. Fascism is a real thing that really happened and killed real people. Claiming it as your own over some stupid shit that does neither and you disagree with (hell, I probably disagree with) is despicable. Please don't.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Yes, I'm telling you to read a history book. Fascists in Germany and Italy frequently promulgated policies designed to keep people in line by bureaucratic means, such as threatening their job security, in addition to various forms of physical violence. The most comprehensive book that I always recommend to people is William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third reich.. I feel it's entirely appropriate to make this observation int eh context of discussing whether someone's job can be jeopardized by their participation in lawful political activity. When you ask 'how was the government involved in this', you appear to be claiming that fascism can only manifest through the machinery of government. But this is a nonsensical claim, given the historical existence of fascist political parties that later gained governmental power. I am certainly not claiming that the shooter in Washington was an agent of a fascist government. But he was certainly a participant in a fascist political movement. Fascism is a real thing that really happened and killed real people. And it's a real thing that is happening again and is killing real people right now, even if you are not willing to label it as such. I've been monitoring the extreme right for about 15 years now, so this isn't some hasty conclusion I jumped to after reading an op-ed or listening to some talking head on TV; nor am I a member of any political or social group where like-minded people regularly reinforce each others' views.
verandaguy 10y ago
Charges get dropped I think I'm missing something; why would the charges get dropped?
- aaronblohowiak 10y ago
  Cops aren't lawyers, spurious arrests happen all the time, the standards for what it takes to be arrested are basically suspicion, etc
- Anthony-G 10y ago
  In Ireland, I've seen police arrest people for attending a political demonstration. In the past (roughly 7-15 years ago), I've witnessed enough people getting arrested simply because they sat on the ground as part of a group (I've always thought the ad-hoc spontaneous sit-down is a terrible idea). Later, the charges were dropped or the police perjured themselves in court to try and secure a conviction. If the defendant was lucky, the arrest (or surrounding events) was caught on camera and the police were shown to be lying. Otherwise, police testimony is usually enough to convict a protester. From what I read, the situation isn't any better in the US.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  There's no burden of proof for an arrest. There is for a conviction.

nickthemagicman 10y ago

Another reason jobs are a legacy system of gaining resources. Drug tests background tests, now this. How easy is it to control people who need a job to survive?

Spooky23 10y ago

This stuff is scary. My union as a .gov employee didn't understand that it was signing up for something even worse than this. That employer will get an active notification of any arrest (not indictment) for every impacted employee's life, even after separation from service. Worse, the employer can administratively decide that an arrest is of concern and can basically void your appointment to a position.

randywaterhouse 10y ago

We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. Although, in some ways, we've been here for a while. Maybe less-so for individuals but for corporations, whom the law generally treats with a degree of "individual" rights (IANAL), it's long been that an indictment is worse than a conviction. After an indictment, clients turn away -> revenue flees -> shutters. What's scary is an indictment is, in theory (under fair application of the principles of law), is more severe than a simple arrest. If we're living in a system (US) where a simple arrest results in a database entry which can result in the end of your productive life, we're living in a... [up to the reader to determine the severity] Ultimately, the power of gov't to drop charges after such a consequence (firing) is powerful and unfair to the individual. Indeed.

CaptSpify 10y ago
> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. source on that?
- GavinMcG 10y ago
  I think it was pretty obvious that it was an evaluation the commenter was making, not something that came from another source. That makes me wonder whether you were being sincere in your response, and if not, what you thought you were contributing.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    I'm contributing skepticism. How many arrests statistically lead to convictions? I suspect it's high, but if it's not, then his statement is untrue. I also don't see how it's obvious that was his intent, as I obviously don't see it as meaning that.
    - glial 10y ago
      Statistics has nothing to do with it. People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am honestly shocked that this appears to be a controversial assertion.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        > People should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. How did what I say imply otherwise? I completely agree with that statement.
snowwrestler 10y ago
> We've already lost when an arrest is equivalent to a conviction. It's not, under the law, of course. But since businesses can (generally) freely choose who to hire or fire, it is legal for them to ask employees about arrests and make decisions based on the answer. This is different, though, in that the federal government itself (the FBI) is assisting companies in doing this. The FBI is reporting arrests to businesses, in full knowledge of the negative consequences for employees in doing so. Indeed, the negative consequences are the entire point of the program. The federal government is held to different standards. If an employee could prove that they were fired because of an arrest that never led to a conviction, reported through Rap Back, I think they would have a pretty good test case for the ACLU to go to town on. The whole point of our system of justice is to ensure that the government only punishes citizens when there is beyond reasonable doubt that an actual crime was committed. Here, the federal government is delivering punishment entirely outside that framework. The government will argue that they're just supplying information, not punishment, but they don't get to just pretend they have no idea what happens next. Everything the FBI has ever said about this program will be reviewed and will show that the whole point is to fire people.

battlebot 10y ago

Okay, but it wasn't Trump who did this! Trump is trying to dismantle the machine, not build it up. I'm a libertarian, I'm perfectly happy when government shrinks and I wish it would shrink back to its constitutionally mandated duties. I would also like it if companies would stop enabling the police state here and around the world by selling the tech that allows it to go on. Talk about dangerous! This is why we have dystopian science fiction--to warn us about crap like this.

ihsw 10y ago

Or you could avoid being a social pariah and go about your life normally. There's nothing wrong with that. Personally I have no interest in my workplace being a haven for "social justice warriors," whatever that even means. Sounds like a euphemism for bored layabouts that need something better to do than spread hateful propaganda over Twitter/Facebook and generally be a nuisance to "raise awareness."

ManFromUranus 10y ago

The FBI already builds watch-lists, how is this news? You're employer can already get a background check on you (even without your knowledge or consent I'm pretty sure). Lets be honest here, nobody is getting arrested for protesting Trump, they are getting arrested for property destruction, assault, blocking public throughfares (hows the ambulance or firetruck supposed to get through?) There are so many legitimate reasons to arrest these people, this comment is is just pure fear mongering.

pvg 10y ago

No, that's still nowhere close to Fascism, 'absolute' or otherwise. Fascists beat, imprisoned and killed protesters and dissenters. They didn't engage in niceties like 'your protesting might impact your job at an airport'.

anigbrowl 10y ago
Of course they did, read a history book. As for the more kinetic style of fascism, I refer you to the student show at a protest at the University of Washington about 10 days ago: http://q13fox.com/2017/01/24/shooter-sent-facebook-message-to-controversial-speaker-at-uw/ http://q13fox.com/2017/01/24/shooter-sent-facebook-message-t...
- pvg 10y ago
  Are you telling me to read a history book? That's in the 'did you read the article' category of rude. The OP claim is utter hyperbole. The thing you linked is titled "Shooter sent Facebook message". How was the government involved in this? Edit: I'll try to put it more clearly. Fascism is a real thing that really happened and killed real people. Claiming it as your own over some stupid shit that does neither and you disagree with (hell, I probably disagree with) is despicable. Please don't.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Yes, I'm telling you to read a history book. Fascists in Germany and Italy frequently promulgated policies designed to keep people in line by bureaucratic means, such as threatening their job security, in addition to various forms of physical violence. The most comprehensive book that I always recommend to people is William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third reich.. I feel it's entirely appropriate to make this observation int eh context of discussing whether someone's job can be jeopardized by their participation in lawful political activity. When you ask 'how was the government involved in this', you appear to be claiming that fascism can only manifest through the machinery of government. But this is a nonsensical claim, given the historical existence of fascist political parties that later gained governmental power. I am certainly not claiming that the shooter in Washington was an agent of a fascist government. But he was certainly a participant in a fascist political movement. Fascism is a real thing that really happened and killed real people. And it's a real thing that is happening again and is killing real people right now, even if you are not willing to label it as such. I've been monitoring the extreme right for about 15 years now, so this isn't some hasty conclusion I jumped to after reading an op-ed or listening to some talking head on TV; nor am I a member of any political or social group where like-minded people regularly reinforce each others' views.

verandaguy 10y ago

Charges get dropped I think I'm missing something; why would the charges get dropped?

aaronblohowiak 10y ago
Cops aren't lawyers, spurious arrests happen all the time, the standards for what it takes to be arrested are basically suspicion, etc
Anthony-G 10y ago
In Ireland, I've seen police arrest people for attending a political demonstration. In the past (roughly 7-15 years ago), I've witnessed enough people getting arrested simply because they sat on the ground as part of a group (I've always thought the ad-hoc spontaneous sit-down is a terrible idea). Later, the charges were dropped or the police perjured themselves in court to try and secure a conviction. If the defendant was lucky, the arrest (or surrounding events) was caught on camera and the police were shown to be lying. Otherwise, police testimony is usually enough to convict a protester. From what I read, the situation isn't any better in the US.
paulddraper 10y ago
There's no burden of proof for an arrest. There is for a conviction.