6 ms·

I don't think "first class" citizens is the right classification. There are certain fields/work that are inherently more risky or serve a critical component of

by dk1138 6y ago

I don't think "first class" citizens is the right classification. There are certain fields/work that are inherently more risky or serve a critical component of society. We are seeing this exact thing pan out now with medical care--doctors and nurses are precious resources and if we don't protect them, we put our overall societal health at risk. Same is true for judges--if you don't protect them, you put the rule of law at risk which is a way of protecting everyone.

freshhawk 6y ago
But those jobs aren't more risky, not by any measurement. What they are are positions of authority. So it's hard to say "first class citizens" isn't the right term. Maybe "rulers"?
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I think to know if it's more risky, we would need to see violent crime statistics of people in these positions vs those who are not.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky? Those jobs are, but regular people have dangerous stalkers, are subject to harassment at their homes, or just want the peace of mind of some extra privacy, too. No one's arguing that judges shouldn't have protection, it's just that the same protections should be available to everybody else. Limiting these projections to judges & police officers only really helps marketers and sleazy peoplesearch websites, etc.
  - freshhawk 6y ago
    I probably would think it was too. But instead of just guessing I looked it up. It's not. Not even close. It's so far away from being risky, in fact, that having people in the field intentionally lying means I think they are lying for a specific reason and I think people should be concerned about that.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    At first glance it appears being a judge is safer than being an office worker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health...
    - imbnwa 6y ago
      Except as a judge you tend to die a terrible death if you do indeed die owing to your occupaion[0]. [0]https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16921-judges-face-threats-worldwide https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16921-judges-face-threats-w...
patrickm129 6y ago
The solution to this is sentence enhancements. For example, pass a law making the distribution of PII unlawful if the intent of the distribution is to cause violence or unrest. The law itself would cover everyone evenly. With a few sentence enhancement clauses, the same statute that protects everyone equally can add additional terms of incarceration or mandatory minimums for judges and law enforcement.
- adolph 6y ago
  The law itself would cover everyone evenly. The key flaw of this theory is the dependance on law enforcement practice. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/14/theory/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/14/theory/
- centimeter 6y ago
  "Enhancing" punishments on accusations as vague as "causing unrest" surely won't be abused...
  - patrickm129 6y ago
    I totally agree. The law is incredibly vague, I was just mentioning it as a "solution".
- asab 6y ago
  demonstrating intent in court can often be quite difficult. focusing instead on outcomes for the judges may help
  - patrickm129 6y ago
    Yup. Thankfully in a criminal investigation, the burden of proof for "intent" is typically on the prosecutor. I'd rather give the prosecutor a harder time than a defendant.
- baybal2 6y ago
  You cannot do so because US congress is prohibited making laws "abridging the speech." Such law abridges what somebody says, and thus cannot be made.
giantg2 6y ago
I'm not saying we shouldn't protect them. But why not extend these protections to the general public? I used the term first class citizens because people in power tend to grant themselves more of it over time or have privileges (official or unofficial) which benefit them, and not just to protect them. For example, how often do you hear about police being given a ticket? Many laws explicitly except the people in Congress as well.
rsync 6y ago
No. Equal protection under the law and freedom of speech. It's a terrible story being told here and I am saddened by her loss but this judge and you, and I, and everyone else are peers. Judges may be interesting and special for brief periods of time while they adjudicate on their bench but out in the world they are normal people just like everyone else. If privacy laws are inadequate for them then they are inadequate for all of us. I can't imagine a situation where I would know, much less disseminate, the address of a judge but that is without any question speech protected by the first amendment.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  How much First Amendment history and jurisprudence do you know? There's a naive view that speech is speech, and it's all protected, but that is an absolutely radical view compared to what "free speech" has meant for most of the post-Enlightenment period.
  - dalbasal 6y ago
    What does this have to do with the article or the comment? Are you saying that a judge's address is not free speech" in this post-Enlightenment (unenlightened?) period.
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      The comment said that it is without any question speech protected by the 1st Amendment. My comment is obviously following up on that. I do not think it is clear that publishing a judge's address is the kind of speech that is necessarily protected by the 1st Amendment, and certainly not the kind that would have been considered inherently worthy of protection around when the 1st Amendment was written. And I suspect the claim that it is "without question" is a naive one.
      - dalbasal 6y ago
        Fair enough. Apologies for the confrontational tone.
throwawaygh 6y ago
> There are certain fields/work that are inherently more risky or serve a critical component of society. You mean like grocery delivery drivers and cashiers? What about virologists? Or what about all of the PhD students in Field X, where X is not virology but some other thing that will be at the focal point of the next crisis but which everyone today thinks is unnecessary and figures we should stop over-produce PhDs for? 12 months ago you could probably come to a place like HN, complain that you can't find a good paying job with your phd in coronaviruses, and be told that academia is a pyramid scheme, that no one owes you anything and you should just learn to code and go work on a labor law arbitrage product at the center of an even bigger pyramid scheme. Since we're on a technology forum, what about the engineers who implement the software/hardware that's used to manufacture PPE, or run simulations to help design mRNA vaccines, or write firmware for the machinery and devices used to mass produce vaccines? Or even more mundane but none-the-less useful stuff like designing and implementing intuitive UX for no-contact payment methods? Anyways, what's the point of drawing this line between "useful resource" and "everyone else"? What if the role of government were to treat humans citizens with natural rights that should be protected by law, instead of as economic resources to be deployed? Also, have you asked any essential workers how they feel about being treated as a useful resource? Instead of, you know, a human with natural and legal rights? Perhaps judges don't need special treatment. Maybe, perhaps, personal privacy is incredibly important component of human dignity.
huffmsa 6y ago
Better let the police remove their name tags and hide behind qualified immunity too then. For their protection, and the stability and security of our society.
dalbasal 6y ago
I see your point. "First class" is loaded, but I don't this is just about risk. That's evident in the content of the law and in both judge Salas' explanation for it. "The federal government has a responsibility to protect all federal judges because our safety is foundational to our great democracy" Indeed it is. It's not just about likelihood of an attack occurring. It's about potential consequences. Killing judges is destabilizing... both directly and via reaction. They are an actually weakening to the governing system as a whole. We do actually have totally separate ways of protecting elected officials, including unique laws. They are, essentially, "first class citizens." It's because attacks are likely and because the consequences of such attacks are dangerous. That said, I sympathize with the OP. Separate laws for the specific protection of certain classes of citizens is well... also relevant to the foundations of democracies. Why can't these protections^ be extended to everyone? "“Daniel’s Law,” which prohibits the distribution of personal information, including home addresses and phone numbers, for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by dk1138 6y ago

freshhawk 6y ago

But those jobs aren't more risky, not by any measurement. What they are are positions of authority. So it's hard to say "first class citizens" isn't the right term. Maybe "rulers"?

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky?
- giantg2 6y ago
  I think to know if it's more risky, we would need to see violent crime statistics of people in these positions vs those who are not.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > You don't think a job which massively inconveniences petty and violent criminals - some of whom will be part of larger crime families and networks - is inherently risky? Those jobs are, but regular people have dangerous stalkers, are subject to harassment at their homes, or just want the peace of mind of some extra privacy, too. No one's arguing that judges shouldn't have protection, it's just that the same protections should be available to everybody else. Limiting these projections to judges & police officers only really helps marketers and sleazy peoplesearch websites, etc.
- freshhawk 6y ago
  I probably would think it was too. But instead of just guessing I looked it up. It's not. Not even close. It's so far away from being risky, in fact, that having people in the field intentionally lying means I think they are lying for a specific reason and I think people should be concerned about that.
- mulmen 6y ago
  At first glance it appears being a judge is safer than being an office worker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_safety_and_health...
  - imbnwa 6y ago
    Except as a judge you tend to die a terrible death if you do indeed die owing to your occupaion[0]. [0]https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16921-judges-face-threats-worldwide https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/16921-judges-face-threats-w...

patrickm129 6y ago

The solution to this is sentence enhancements. For example, pass a law making the distribution of PII unlawful if the intent of the distribution is to cause violence or unrest. The law itself would cover everyone evenly. With a few sentence enhancement clauses, the same statute that protects everyone equally can add additional terms of incarceration or mandatory minimums for judges and law enforcement.

adolph 6y ago
The law itself would cover everyone evenly. The key flaw of this theory is the dependance on law enforcement practice. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/14/theory/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/04/14/theory/
centimeter 6y ago
"Enhancing" punishments on accusations as vague as "causing unrest" surely won't be abused...
- patrickm129 6y ago
  I totally agree. The law is incredibly vague, I was just mentioning it as a "solution".
asab 6y ago
demonstrating intent in court can often be quite difficult. focusing instead on outcomes for the judges may help
- patrickm129 6y ago
  Yup. Thankfully in a criminal investigation, the burden of proof for "intent" is typically on the prosecutor. I'd rather give the prosecutor a harder time than a defendant.
baybal2 6y ago
You cannot do so because US congress is prohibited making laws "abridging the speech." Such law abridges what somebody says, and thus cannot be made.

giantg2 6y ago

I'm not saying we shouldn't protect them. But why not extend these protections to the general public? I used the term first class citizens because people in power tend to grant themselves more of it over time or have privileges (official or unofficial) which benefit them, and not just to protect them. For example, how often do you hear about police being given a ticket? Many laws explicitly except the people in Congress as well.

rsync 6y ago

No. Equal protection under the law and freedom of speech. It's a terrible story being told here and I am saddened by her loss but this judge and you, and I, and everyone else are peers. Judges may be interesting and special for brief periods of time while they adjudicate on their bench but out in the world they are normal people just like everyone else. If privacy laws are inadequate for them then they are inadequate for all of us. I can't imagine a situation where I would know, much less disseminate, the address of a judge but that is without any question speech protected by the first amendment.

GavinMcG 6y ago
How much First Amendment history and jurisprudence do you know? There's a naive view that speech is speech, and it's all protected, but that is an absolutely radical view compared to what "free speech" has meant for most of the post-Enlightenment period.
- dalbasal 6y ago
  What does this have to do with the article or the comment? Are you saying that a judge's address is not free speech" in this post-Enlightenment (unenlightened?) period.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    The comment said that it is without any question speech protected by the 1st Amendment. My comment is obviously following up on that. I do not think it is clear that publishing a judge's address is the kind of speech that is necessarily protected by the 1st Amendment, and certainly not the kind that would have been considered inherently worthy of protection around when the 1st Amendment was written. And I suspect the claim that it is "without question" is a naive one.
    - dalbasal 6y ago
      Fair enough. Apologies for the confrontational tone.

throwawaygh 6y ago

> There are certain fields/work that are inherently more risky or serve a critical component of society. You mean like grocery delivery drivers and cashiers? What about virologists? Or what about all of the PhD students in Field X, where X is not virology but some other thing that will be at the focal point of the next crisis but which everyone today thinks is unnecessary and figures we should stop over-produce PhDs for? 12 months ago you could probably come to a place like HN, complain that you can't find a good paying job with your phd in coronaviruses, and be told that academia is a pyramid scheme, that no one owes you anything and you should just learn to code and go work on a labor law arbitrage product at the center of an even bigger pyramid scheme. Since we're on a technology forum, what about the engineers who implement the software/hardware that's used to manufacture PPE, or run simulations to help design mRNA vaccines, or write firmware for the machinery and devices used to mass produce vaccines? Or even more mundane but none-the-less useful stuff like designing and implementing intuitive UX for no-contact payment methods? Anyways, what's the point of drawing this line between "useful resource" and "everyone else"? What if the role of government were to treat humans citizens with natural rights that should be protected by law, instead of as economic resources to be deployed? Also, have you asked any essential workers how they feel about being treated as a useful resource? Instead of, you know, a human with natural and legal rights? Perhaps judges don't need special treatment. Maybe, perhaps, personal privacy is incredibly important component of human dignity.

huffmsa 6y ago

Better let the police remove their name tags and hide behind qualified immunity too then. For their protection, and the stability and security of our society.

dalbasal 6y ago

I see your point. "First class" is loaded, but I don't this is just about risk. That's evident in the content of the law and in both judge Salas' explanation for it. "The federal government has a responsibility to protect all federal judges because our safety is foundational to our great democracy" Indeed it is. It's not just about likelihood of an attack occurring. It's about potential consequences. Killing judges is destabilizing... both directly and via reaction. They are an actually weakening to the governing system as a whole. We do actually have totally separate ways of protecting elected officials, including unique laws. They are, essentially, "first class citizens." It's because attacks are likely and because the consequences of such attacks are dangerous. That said, I sympathize with the OP. Separate laws for the specific protection of certain classes of citizens is well... also relevant to the foundations of democracies. Why can't these protections^ be extended to everyone? "“Daniel’s Law,” which prohibits the distribution of personal information, including home addresses and phone numbers, for judges, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel."

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]