3 ms·

What do you mean by cooperating with the police? The guy abided by the law, which he was aware of and the border agents were not (or pretended not to be). You

What do you mean by cooperating with the police? The guy abided by the law, which he was aware of and the border agents were not (or pretended not to be). You must be of the opinion that laws are too lenient and that the additional bully tactics used by cops, etc., are actually in the interest of the general public b/c they help to correct for insufficiently strict laws. If you don't believe this, then what is the nature of your argument that we should just comply with their wishes? Politeness? Tradition? Respect for authority? Humility?

tptacek 16y ago
I'm confused by this comment because I don't think the laws are too lenient, I don't believe in "bully tactics", and I do think that for society to work properly we do, for the most part, need to assist the people with charter with enforcing our laws. I'm not repeating this in every comment because it feels tiresome, but, like I said, I'm glad this guy is out there pushing the frontiers of our civil liberties, but I still think he's a bit of a douche, and I still think his arguments don't make much sense: his fear of the consequences of answering "business or pleasure" seems irrational compared to the powers the border police already have to search his luggage, the files on his computer, and his body cavities without a warrant. Incidentally, the principled stand this guy took for not answering questions seems a bit hollow when you consider that, semiotically speaking, he pretty much answered their question: "yes", he said, "I am very much worth your time to scrutinize further."
- grandalf 16y ago
  Principled or not, how is respectful, quiet dissent not completely appropriate. Consider how comfortable a person is when speaking to a telemarketer compared to a police officer or border patrol officer. That we must grovel before those in uniform is a clear sign that they have too much power. Of course his behavior was irrational if he was someone trying to smuggle in contraband. But it was rational if he's someone who feels that his rights as a law abiding citizen have been compromised by the re-entry procedures and seeks to make a point.

tptacek 16y ago

I'm confused by this comment because I don't think the laws are too lenient, I don't believe in "bully tactics", and I do think that for society to work properly we do, for the most part, need to assist the people with charter with enforcing our laws. I'm not repeating this in every comment because it feels tiresome, but, like I said, I'm glad this guy is out there pushing the frontiers of our civil liberties, but I still think he's a bit of a douche, and I still think his arguments don't make much sense: his fear of the consequences of answering "business or pleasure" seems irrational compared to the powers the border police already have to search his luggage, the files on his computer, and his body cavities without a warrant. Incidentally, the principled stand this guy took for not answering questions seems a bit hollow when you consider that, semiotically speaking, he pretty much answered their question: "yes", he said, "I am very much worth your time to scrutinize further."

grandalf 16y ago
Principled or not, how is respectful, quiet dissent not completely appropriate. Consider how comfortable a person is when speaking to a telemarketer compared to a police officer or border patrol officer. That we must grovel before those in uniform is a clear sign that they have too much power. Of course his behavior was irrational if he was someone trying to smuggle in contraband. But it was rational if he's someone who feels that his rights as a law abiding citizen have been compromised by the re-entry procedures and seeks to make a point.