4 ms·

Seriously, how is this legal? Like, can't somebody be sued here? This guy apparently lost some basic rights for saying stuff?

by jbooth 16y ago

_delirium 16y ago
Unfortunately, courts are willing to give pretty broad authority to the government to detain/search/etc. people reentering the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). There are some sort of outer limits to the authority, but not much in the way of real enforcement from the courts so far. I would guess that they'd punt on this one as being national security + borders = defer to the executive.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, maybe it needs to be re-tested in court with a nice egregious example. From your wiki link: Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement.[3] Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.[4] If Mr. Ioerror's reading and can figure out who to sue, I'm good for a few hundred bucks on the legal fund.
tedunangst 16y ago
You would have to prove he lost his rights for saying stuff. The govt would probably respond that he lost his rights for associating with and participating in a movement with the purpose of undermining the government.
- jbooth 16y ago
  All the movement in question does is publish stuff. See my Pentagon Papers supreme court cite above/below. As far as associating with a movement.. it's legal to be a Nazi if you want. There's a supreme court case for that, too.
  - lutorm 16y ago
    It may be legal for a US citizen to be a nazi, but it also is one of those questions on the entry questionnaire that indicates that the immigration authorities are interested in whether you are.
    - dotBen 16y ago
      Actually, that question is only asked of those requiring visas and visa-waivers. A US citizen re-entering America wouldn't be asked that question. The specific question also pertains to specific Nazi activity C1939-1945 rather than Nazi'ism in general.
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    "publishing stuff" is not incompatible with undermining the government, it is the means by which the mining under is accomplished. From a govt perspective, Assange is just a guy publishing stuff like bin Laden is just a guy making video tapes. They are interested in knowing if he is doing more than just publishing stuff. I'm not particularly thrilled with the way the government is reacting to WL etc., but I also recognize that it's rather difficult to tell apart real threats from unthreatening people who behave in many ways like the real threats would. Appelbaum can say he's not going to hurt anyone, but that's what any terrorist can say. His actions may be perfectly legal, but also probably constitute probable cause. He hasn't been arrested, he's been searched. That is exactly what I'd expect the police to do in such cases. Your neighbors report a blood curdling scream from your house? The police come and check it out. It's not illegal to scream, but you'll still get asked a few questions. When does it become harassment? We've probably crossed that line, but what's the solution? Once you're screened and land successfully, you're exempt from future screening? That'd be a pretty big security flaw.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Bin Laden was A) not a citizen and B) I think he did a little more than make videotapes. Let's be honest here, the problem with wikileaks isn't the (nonexistent) threat to national security, it's their politics. These meatheads at the airport weren't concerned with national security, they were concerned with teaching this liberal pansy a lesson. Short-cop-syndrome writ large.
- baltcode 16y ago
  Does any bill or article of the constitution talk about undermining the govt., and what it means?
gcb 16y ago
> Seriously, how is this legal? 9/11! ... remember the good times when the excuse was "communist! Go back to your 'papers please' country"

Seriously, how is this legal? Like, can't somebody be sued here? This guy apparently lost some basic rights for saying stuff?

by jbooth 16y ago

Seriously, how is this legal? Like, can't somebody be sued here? This guy apparently lost some basic rights for saying stuff?

_delirium 16y ago

Unfortunately, courts are willing to give pretty broad authority to the government to detain/search/etc. people reentering the country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception). There are some sort of outer limits to the authority, but not much in the way of real enforcement from the courts so far. I would guess that they'd punt on this one as being national security + borders = defer to the executive.

jbooth 16y ago
Well, maybe it needs to be re-tested in court with a nice egregious example. From your wiki link: Although border-searches are exempted from the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, they are still subject to the amendment's reasonableness requirement.[3] Whether a border search is reasonable depends on a judicial analysis that balances the intrusion into an individual’s legitimate privacy and dignity interests against the government’s legitimate interest in the subject of the search.[4] If Mr. Ioerror's reading and can figure out who to sue, I'm good for a few hundred bucks on the legal fund.

tedunangst 16y ago

You would have to prove he lost his rights for saying stuff. The govt would probably respond that he lost his rights for associating with and participating in a movement with the purpose of undermining the government.

jbooth 16y ago
All the movement in question does is publish stuff. See my Pentagon Papers supreme court cite above/below. As far as associating with a movement.. it's legal to be a Nazi if you want. There's a supreme court case for that, too.
- lutorm 16y ago
  It may be legal for a US citizen to be a nazi, but it also is one of those questions on the entry questionnaire that indicates that the immigration authorities are interested in whether you are.
  - dotBen 16y ago
    Actually, that question is only asked of those requiring visas and visa-waivers. A US citizen re-entering America wouldn't be asked that question. The specific question also pertains to specific Nazi activity C1939-1945 rather than Nazi'ism in general.
- tedunangst 16y ago
  "publishing stuff" is not incompatible with undermining the government, it is the means by which the mining under is accomplished. From a govt perspective, Assange is just a guy publishing stuff like bin Laden is just a guy making video tapes. They are interested in knowing if he is doing more than just publishing stuff. I'm not particularly thrilled with the way the government is reacting to WL etc., but I also recognize that it's rather difficult to tell apart real threats from unthreatening people who behave in many ways like the real threats would. Appelbaum can say he's not going to hurt anyone, but that's what any terrorist can say. His actions may be perfectly legal, but also probably constitute probable cause. He hasn't been arrested, he's been searched. That is exactly what I'd expect the police to do in such cases. Your neighbors report a blood curdling scream from your house? The police come and check it out. It's not illegal to scream, but you'll still get asked a few questions. When does it become harassment? We've probably crossed that line, but what's the solution? Once you're screened and land successfully, you're exempt from future screening? That'd be a pretty big security flaw.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Bin Laden was A) not a citizen and B) I think he did a little more than make videotapes. Let's be honest here, the problem with wikileaks isn't the (nonexistent) threat to national security, it's their politics. These meatheads at the airport weren't concerned with national security, they were concerned with teaching this liberal pansy a lesson. Short-cop-syndrome writ large.
baltcode 16y ago
Does any bill or article of the constitution talk about undermining the govt., and what it means?

gcb 16y ago

> Seriously, how is this legal? 9/11! ... remember the good times when the excuse was "communist! Go back to your 'papers please' country"