4 ms·

You are mistaking extending special rights to minority groups with citizens rights. We have been increasing minority rights as fast as possible with removing al

by kongin 5y ago

You are mistaking extending special rights to minority groups with citizens rights. We have been increasing minority rights as fast as possible with removing all the protections from dictatorships in the name of, I don't even know what. >Post WW1 didn't erode rights, it actually increased them. Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918 >Post WW2, the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act And on and on. There are libraries written about this, but no one cares because there has been a bi-partisan consensus that citizen's rights need to be curtailed.

oblio 5y ago
Do you even read your own links? > As part of a sweeping repeal of wartime laws, Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920 The second wasn't a wartime act and even that was repealed. Talk about cherry picking.
- Clubber 5y ago
  He meant the Espionage Act, which is currently being used to seek prosecution of Snowden and Assange, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
  - kongin 5y ago
    Yes, it's hard to keep track of which act was used to curtail what freedoms. The Sedition Act was used to silence opposition to conscription and gave us the immortal quote of "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Of course the 'fire' in that case was this letter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... Which seems like an extremely level headed question about conscription in the US given that involuntary servitude should only be a punishment for a crime.

by kongin 5y ago

oblio 5y ago

Do you even read your own links? > As part of a sweeping repeal of wartime laws, Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920 The second wasn't a wartime act and even that was repealed. Talk about cherry picking.

Clubber 5y ago
He meant the Espionage Act, which is currently being used to seek prosecution of Snowden and Assange, among others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
- kongin 5y ago
  Yes, it's hard to keep track of which act was used to curtail what freedoms. The Sedition Act was used to silence opposition to conscription and gave us the immortal quote of "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Of course the 'fire' in that case was this letter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/media/File:Schenck_v._United_States_Leaflet_(Obverse).jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States#/medi... Which seems like an extremely level headed question about conscription in the US given that involuntary servitude should only be a punishment for a crime.