5 ms·
We don't throw people in prison for 3 decades over social media posts.
by chitowneats 4y ago
We don't throw people in prison for 3 decades over social media posts.
- phpisthebest 4y agoWe do if they would contain magic words that make them run afoul of the plainly unconstitutional Espionage Act
- zeraynor 4y agoIt does seem difficult balancing an open and free society with mechanisms for protecting and maintaining government secrets, and punishing those who betray those secrets. Do you believe it is plainly unconstitutional simply because it posting to twitter involves words?
- phpisthebest 4y agoDemocratic governments where the premise is "of the people by the people" I believe it is be highly undemocratic and corrupting to allow government to hold secrets from the very people that granted them power and are suppose to hold them to account via the ballot box Democracy can only work when the citizens are informed about what their government is doing The 1st amendment clearly states the Congress can not pass any law abridging speech. The espionage act clearly prevents whistleblowers and others from coming forward with information the government does not desire to be public which today is more often to be documents and evidence of crimes and embarrassing actions by government
- zeraynor 4y agoI do understand the dangers of a government that can arbitrarily declare something a "state secret" and subsequently stifle speech on some arbitrary grounds.. but at the same time, can you recognize that there may be legitimate grounds to forbid dissemination of particular information on the grounds that it is advantageous to hostile entities, and thus a detriment to the US as a whole?
- phpisthebest 4y agoWhile conceptually I can see such information can exist, I take it the same way I do free speech as a concept, over all I believe the negatives of allowing governments to hold secrets to be more damaging than any positives Just like I do not believe tech companies, or governments to censor "misinformation" or "disinformation" because the negatives of controlled speech far far far out weigh any net positives that would come from censorship Back to state secrets, I think the clear and obvious abuse of the practice should make it more than clear we should cease giving government agencies the "benefit of the doubt" and massively shift the Overton window back in the direction of total transparency State secrets, if they exist at all, should be EXTREMELY abnormal, rare, and continually in need of justification. Today however state secrets are the default, standard procedure, and we need justification to open records which is a complete inversion of how it should be
- pessimizer 4y agoWe can just refer to the social media posts as "material support to a terrorist organization."
- Volundr 4y agoAny examples of this happening?
- ethanbond 4y agoEquating the US to Saudi Arabia is beyond divorced from reality. No, you can't "just" do that and get anywhere close to similar outcomes as what's happened here. Turn on your TV anywhere in America, walk into a coffee shop, talk to a friend. Conversations freely and frequently come to vigorous criticisms of those in power. Now go try to do that almost anywhere in the Middle East. You'll struggle to find someone willing to even remotely entertain that conversation with you. That's what oppression looks like. Not hypotheticals like the one you're proposing here.
- lizardactivist 4y ago
- drstewart 4y ago
- fein 4y agoAustria nearly does. Mr. Bond. I see little difference between tweets and political parody songs.
- spacechild1 4y agoMr. Bond was a notorious neo-nazi rapper, calling it "political parody songs" is pretty misleading. For context: he was convicted of "Wiederbetätigung" (= glorification of national-socialism) which is a distinct criminal offence in Germany and Austria
- fein 4y agoSo what? It's an abhorrent and dystopian law along with Saudi Arabia's speech laws. He has never done a violent thing to a person, has not defrauded anyone, and is in jail for 10 years due to writing political parodies.
- spacechild1 4y agoSorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous. Also, I don't know why you keep calling his songs "political parodies", they are outright neo-nazi propaganda...
- fein 4y agoThey are parodies of songs and national socialism is a set of politics and philosophies - just because you don't like it doesn't make it not political. > they are outright neo-nazi propaganda... Yet again, so what? Are you insinuating that people are being assaulted by a song? > Sorry, comparing Austria's and Germany's anti-nazi-laws to Saudi Arabia is beyond ridiculous. No, it isn't, and if you're going to claim that it is, you need to explain why.
- ethanbond 4y agoHmm, sure. Perhaps Austria and Germany are a bit culturally traumatized by the horrors they inflicted upon the world under an ideology, and they wish (based on historical data) to prevent such an occurrence again? I don’t feel qualified to say whether this is effective, but it’s pretty obvious why this is characteristically different from “ruling class wants to crush all dissent against ruling class.”