4 ms·

Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. I don't think we can call them "laws", because are cle

Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy. No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world". Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.

karmakurtisaani 3y ago
"You don't have rights, you have temporary privileges." (George Carlin)
soco 3y ago
Basically agreeing with you, I want only to add that I don't believe it was freer earlier - just people less informed.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  FISA and the patriot Act and NSLs did not increase the freedom did they?
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
They're not laws, they're the exemption of laws, just like outlaws - "a person declared as outside the protection of the law". Terrorist means you're not protected by the law, do not get rights, don't fall under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, etc. It means you get to go to Guantanamo Bay and rot for two decades without charge or anything. But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.
t0bia_s 3y ago
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.
- mikrl 3y ago
  Ok but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law. I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent” If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
  - t0bia_s 3y ago
    How can I possible know 2 milions regulations, restrictions and laws that we now have in state where I live? It's not humanly possible.
- sobkas 3y ago
  > "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live. In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)
jkaplowitz 3y ago
I agree with you in general, but regarding this specific phrase in this specific context: > Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11. Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.
- mikrotikker 3y ago
  Yes they took legislation Joe Biden wrote and tweaked it a little which is why they came up with the patriot Act so quickly following the attacks.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    Not everything in the world revolves around the USA. The UK had an ongoing terrorism problem in Northern Ireland, and had instituted plenty of draconian laws of its own pursuant to that, even before Biden became a Senator in 1972.
    - 3seashells 3y ago
      The terrorism history is not much more than a pretext though. The source of these draconian Laws are highly stratified societies, with inept elites for seeing troubled times and accidentally accelerating them.
- fragmede 3y ago
  > especially not in the UK. For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings/timeline-worst-ira-bomb-attacks-on-mainland-britain-idUKTRE74F31Q20110516 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...
boppo1 3y ago
>No country is free anymore. I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void. But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative. Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket. [0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.
- coolThingsFirst 3y ago
  Why is 4chan so dangerous? Isnt it just an image board?
  - boppo1 3y ago
    It's kinda like reddit in that there's multiple boards with a broad array of topics. A few of the boards regularly have threads with pretty extreme racism/hate. Recently the president of a Detroit synagogue was stabbed to death outside her home and there were multiple threads openly celebrating the murder. But elsewhere on the site people are sharing clips of cute cows doing cute cow things. As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.
    - coolThingsFirst 3y ago
      Why would that implicate you on terrorism charges? You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions. I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.
bratbag 3y ago
That was always the case. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation now. Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.
herbst 3y ago
> No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world". Especially the US. My government has no rights to do anything like that. Please don't project your non freedom to the world.
- rmbyrro 3y ago
  I'm not from the US, btw

karmakurtisaani 3y ago

"You don't have rights, you have temporary privileges." (George Carlin)

soco 3y ago

Basically agreeing with you, I want only to add that I don't believe it was freer earlier - just people less informed.

mikrotikker 3y ago
FISA and the patriot Act and NSLs did not increase the freedom did they?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

They're not laws, they're the exemption of laws, just like outlaws - "a person declared as outside the protection of the law". Terrorist means you're not protected by the law, do not get rights, don't fall under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, etc. It means you get to go to Guantanamo Bay and rot for two decades without charge or anything. But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.

t0bia_s 3y ago

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.

mikrl 3y ago
Ok but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law. I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent” If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
- t0bia_s 3y ago
  How can I possible know 2 milions regulations, restrictions and laws that we now have in state where I live? It's not humanly possible.
sobkas 3y ago
> "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live. In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)

jkaplowitz 3y ago

I agree with you in general, but regarding this specific phrase in this specific context: > Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11. Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.

mikrotikker 3y ago
Yes they took legislation Joe Biden wrote and tweaked it a little which is why they came up with the patriot Act so quickly following the attacks.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Not everything in the world revolves around the USA. The UK had an ongoing terrorism problem in Northern Ireland, and had instituted plenty of draconian laws of its own pursuant to that, even before Biden became a Senator in 1972.
  - 3seashells 3y ago
    The terrorism history is not much more than a pretext though. The source of these draconian Laws are highly stratified societies, with inept elites for seeing troubled times and accidentally accelerating them.
fragmede 3y ago
> especially not in the UK. For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings/timeline-worst-ira-bomb-attacks-on-mainland-britain-idUKTRE74F31Q20110516 https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...

boppo1 3y ago

>No country is free anymore. I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void. But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative. Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket. [0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.

coolThingsFirst 3y ago
Why is 4chan so dangerous? Isnt it just an image board?
- boppo1 3y ago
  It's kinda like reddit in that there's multiple boards with a broad array of topics. A few of the boards regularly have threads with pretty extreme racism/hate. Recently the president of a Detroit synagogue was stabbed to death outside her home and there were multiple threads openly celebrating the murder. But elsewhere on the site people are sharing clips of cute cows doing cute cow things. As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.
  - coolThingsFirst 3y ago
    Why would that implicate you on terrorism charges? You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions. I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.

bratbag 3y ago

That was always the case. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation now. Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.

herbst 3y ago

> No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world". Especially the US. My government has no rights to do anything like that. Please don't project your non freedom to the world.

rmbyrro 3y ago
I'm not from the US, btw