5 ms·
The rules are different when the democracy is at stake, as this country's history should have taught you.
by djtriptych 6y ago
The rules are different when the democracy is at stake, as this country's history should have taught you.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- salawat 6y agoYeahhh... No. A good half the problems in the world are created when we try to force oversized round pegs through undersized square holes. Besides which, was Parler not the site that required excessive amounts of personal info just to sign up? That means if authentication failed open, that could mean that this researcher has obtained access to reams of PII. Which they'll deny or state that of courae they didn't collect or look at, but the potential breach is large enough that doing something like this is so unconscionably reckless and stupid, it ranks right up there with the event that even has this site in the public eye in the first place. Another brick through the stained glass windows of American civil discourse. We don't even need other country's help to push us to the brink because of reckless moves like this.
- djtriptych 6y agoYeah, yes. Look at literally any time the democracy was seriously threatened and what happened to domestic liberty during that time.
- swalsh 6y agoWas it okay to place Japanese in internment camps? Not going to wait for an answer, because the answer should clearly be no. Curtailing domestic liberties is not okay regardless the circumstances.
- djtriptych 6y agoNever OK but sometimes necessary. I'm sure you can at least imagine a scenario where it's appropriate to curtail speech to save lives, e.g. taking away an enemy combatant's comms, even if they're American. Liberty is always opposed to security. How free we are depends on how worried we are. That's always the case.
- salawat 6y agoAh, a Schneck apologist. Such a bore. By the way, lets look at some other circumstances: Suspension of habeas corpus. Abraham Lincoln, Civil War. Half of country wants to clock the other half. Total existential threat. WWI. Schneck v. United States. Cornerstone and terrible case for limiting free speech in order to silence opposition to the bloody draft. WWII:Japanese internment camps. Labor cracked down on for striking and shutting down most of the wartime manufacturing supply chain. Existential threat. 2001: 3 buildings hit with aircraft. All liberties around airtravel basically cancelled. Heavy intensification of SIGINT intensifies, birth of widespread dragnet surveillance programs. 2020: A bunch of people waltz into the Capitol pissed as all hell because their concerns were not taken seriously. Rest of country is just fine. Suggestions to yeet civil liberties because think of the Congresspeople who had to continue their meeting elsewhere! One of these is not like the others. Further, Congress is getting what it deserved. With the way they've spent years delegating increasing chunks of lawmaking to the Executive branch, ain't it grand the way they get reminded of why checks and balances were there in the first place?
- djtriptych 6y agoHe means Schenck, not Schneck for anyone googling. Obviously we disagree on what it means when an angry mob chants about hanging the VP, breaches one of the most secure buildings in the country, and swears to try again. This is obviously not an existential threat to you, but it is to the majority of the country, and certainly to our institutions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mickmars 6y agoThe Roman Republic had that exact behavior of different rules in times of crisis. That landed them with Julius Caesar who refused to return his power, and that did not end well for republic.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]