5 ms·

Your donation has been recorded citizen, and you have been placed on a special list. Thank you. -NSA

stephengillie 14y ago
It does seem like just a matter of time before the EFF becomes a "known terrorist organization" like WikiLeaks is about to become.
- mtgx 14y ago
  Maybe not a "known terrorist organization" but part of the "associated forces". The more vague the name in the law, the better, because they can catch anyone like that.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  IANAl but my understanding is that the current lines are drawn at active collaboration or directed communications to a designated foreign terrorist organization. I don't know whether this means that Brandenburg v. Ohio would come out differently today (remember, Brandenburg was accused of advocating terrorism at a domestic terrorist organization's meetings-- the domestic terrorism organization being the KKK, and yes the word terrorism occurred in the statute). Under lines drawn in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project you can blog all day and night about how groups like Hamas could adopt nonviolent means of resistance and be more successful, but if you directly talk to Hamas and make such a recommendation, then the court has declined to say that is protected. Worse, there is reason to think that is not protected. In Citizens United v. FEC the court said that independent expenditures were protected and corporations had a right to speak on election issues, but that speech coordinated in any way with candidates was not protected, because that makes it into a gift in kind that has the same effect, in essence, of a bribe. The idea that Citizens United and Holder v. HLP draw this funny line at who you talk to vs what you say strikes me as dangerous. But at least it isn't hard for the EFF to stay on the right side of that line.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
01Michael10 14y ago
Apparently, the NSA is already spying on all of us... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4259441 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4259441
jkn 14y ago
I've been wondering why humorous comments are so rare on HN, and this one just got downvoted. Is there a rule that comments should be serious? Anyway this was at least half serious so not a good example I suppose.
- samdk 14y ago
  I think that many people post jokes here because on other similar sites they're an easy way to get (often quite a lot of) upvotes, and a lot of us here dislike that mentality. My criteria for upvoting a joke are generally the same as my criteria for upvoting any other comment: if I feel it adds something to the discussion, it gets an upvote. If I feel like it contributes nothing at all, it gets a downvote, because reading it is a waste of someone's time. Most of the jokes posted here are surface humor. They are relatively obvious and add nothing to the discussion, and so I downvote quite a lot of them. Occasionally someone will use humor to make a good point, and then I will upvote them. In general I'd discourage it, though--it's usually much easier and clearer to just say what you mean, and people here are usually receptive to well-argued points.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- lmm 14y ago
  There's a post from pg that I wish I could find where he says something along the lines of "the greatest enemy of intelligent discussion is not the outright troll but the witty one-liner". There's no rule against humour that I know of, but there is a culture that believes it's often detrimental to the discussion.
- davidw 14y ago
  Because it's not funny - it's just a silly, hyperbolic meme. I've had funny comments upvoted (and a few I thought were funny downvoted, but c'est la vie). ( I always liked this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458155 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458155 )

It does seem like just a matter of time before the EFF becomes a "known terrorist organization" like WikiLeaks is about to become.

mtgx 14y ago
Maybe not a "known terrorist organization" but part of the "associated forces". The more vague the name in the law, the better, because they can catch anyone like that.
einhverfr 14y ago
IANAl but my understanding is that the current lines are drawn at active collaboration or directed communications to a designated foreign terrorist organization. I don't know whether this means that Brandenburg v. Ohio would come out differently today (remember, Brandenburg was accused of advocating terrorism at a domestic terrorist organization's meetings-- the domestic terrorism organization being the KKK, and yes the word terrorism occurred in the statute). Under lines drawn in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project you can blog all day and night about how groups like Hamas could adopt nonviolent means of resistance and be more successful, but if you directly talk to Hamas and make such a recommendation, then the court has declined to say that is protected. Worse, there is reason to think that is not protected. In Citizens United v. FEC the court said that independent expenditures were protected and corporations had a right to speak on election issues, but that speech coordinated in any way with candidates was not protected, because that makes it into a gift in kind that has the same effect, in essence, of a bribe. The idea that Citizens United and Holder v. HLP draw this funny line at who you talk to vs what you say strikes me as dangerous. But at least it isn't hard for the EFF to stay on the right side of that line.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

01Michael10 14y ago

Apparently, the NSA is already spying on all of us... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4259441 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4259441

jkn 14y ago

I've been wondering why humorous comments are so rare on HN, and this one just got downvoted. Is there a rule that comments should be serious? Anyway this was at least half serious so not a good example I suppose.

samdk 14y ago
I think that many people post jokes here because on other similar sites they're an easy way to get (often quite a lot of) upvotes, and a lot of us here dislike that mentality. My criteria for upvoting a joke are generally the same as my criteria for upvoting any other comment: if I feel it adds something to the discussion, it gets an upvote. If I feel like it contributes nothing at all, it gets a downvote, because reading it is a waste of someone's time. Most of the jokes posted here are surface humor. They are relatively obvious and add nothing to the discussion, and so I downvote quite a lot of them. Occasionally someone will use humor to make a good point, and then I will upvote them. In general I'd discourage it, though--it's usually much easier and clearer to just say what you mean, and people here are usually receptive to well-argued points.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
lmm 14y ago
There's a post from pg that I wish I could find where he says something along the lines of "the greatest enemy of intelligent discussion is not the outright troll but the witty one-liner". There's no rule against humour that I know of, but there is a culture that believes it's often detrimental to the discussion.
davidw 14y ago
Because it's not funny - it's just a silly, hyperbolic meme. I've had funny comments upvoted (and a few I thought were funny downvoted, but c'est la vie). ( I always liked this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458155 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=458155 )