5 ms·

Key word: criminal prosecutions

by freejazz 4y ago

tengbretson 4y ago
"It's a private institution - They can quarter soldiers wherever they want."
- freejazz 4y ago
  I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.
  - db48x 4y ago
    The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped out in your living room. I understand that China is fond of it as well.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that because the constitution doesn't prohibit people from coming into your homes, people can come into your homes? did you think that through?
      - db48x 4y ago
        I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.
        freejazz 4y ago
        That's making a huge assumption on someone else's part, which is a funny thing to do given the comment you responded to. Oh well. > The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments. It's not funny at all, it's shockingly ignorant, actually, if anyone thinks what you posted.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        I think it's better to let the person who made the comment explain it, since you may or may not understand what they meant by it. No offense, but I felt your interpretation of it confused rather than clarified the issue.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid. Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house". That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.

Key word: criminal prosecutions

tengbretson 4y ago

"It's a private institution - They can quarter soldiers wherever they want."

freejazz 4y ago
I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.
- db48x 4y ago
  The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped out in your living room. I understand that China is fond of it as well.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that because the constitution doesn't prohibit people from coming into your homes, people can come into your homes? did you think that through?
    - db48x 4y ago
      I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        That's making a huge assumption on someone else's part, which is a funny thing to do given the comment you responded to. Oh well. > The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments. It's not funny at all, it's shockingly ignorant, actually, if anyone thinks what you posted.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        I think it's better to let the person who made the comment explain it, since you may or may not understand what they meant by it. No offense, but I felt your interpretation of it confused rather than clarified the issue.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid. Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house". That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.