4 ms·
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
by femiagbabiaka 1y ago
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
- hopelite 1y agoConsidering our government’s practices that most people are not even aware of leading up to WWI and WWI, in addition to the ones people are a bit more aware of regarding the anti-war, pro-peace movements leading up to Vietnam, not to mention what we were forced and willingly gave up following 9/11; most likely the government will abuse us and destroy the very few rights we have in theory. I am 100% sure of this because the government has been 100% consistent and 100% abusive about this, 100% of the time. Even the Civil War was clearly orchestrated and the people were abused and not just rights, but the very core Constitution was essentially destroyed and nullified, and what we’ve had since is nothing more than an abusive invalidated social contract upheld my sheer force, delusion, and bribing. The delusion and bribery part being what keeps people from realizing that.
- one-note 1y agoQuite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... Curious why this is downvoted?
- gr_norm 1y agoI've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.
- rangestransform 1y agoEverybody feels the need to defend government overreach when it’s in their favour. The most famous example is any non-libertarian political leaning with free speech, but it was the same deal with the “left” complaining about Chevron v. USA being overturned when their guy was in power.
- gr_norm 1y agoYeah. It's not cool to be principled anymore, I guess...
- ToValueFunfetti 1y ago>I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side. You attacked the idea of free speech for the other side in the same comment where you said this. I would assume based on reference to government infringements that you're referring to the first amendment as "free speech" if you hadn't specifically emphasized "idea"; conservatives have no real first amendment case, but they do get censored and suppressed by people with power. The idea of free speech is very much still in play when university admin cancels a guest speaker or a forum moderator only allows left-wing or non-political posts. What am I missing here?
- gr_norm 1y agoNo? I would defend the first example too, which is why I specified the idea rather than the letter (the 1A). Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? That I think they're an asshole is irrelevant.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y agoOh, sorry, I misunderstood you. If someone is being an asshole on a mailing list, I don't think it's a free speech issue to remove them, and I took that example in context to mean you were saying all conservative gripes were non-issues like that. >Is it so rare to see someone who genuinely cares about this stuff, not just for those who agree with me? Yes, absolutely. I can name maybe 8, including the both of us.
- noqc 1y agoThen you should read the article.
- gr_norm 1y agoI did. I believe this sort of stuff to be, at least morally, a violation of the 4A. It's no secret that the anti-Israel protests have gotten an inordinate amount of attention from the law relative to any harm caused, and overstepping bounds like this even to catch actual criminals (as happened here) isn't worth the price paid in liberty. My comment was targeted at the government/ICE's notorious targeting of anti-Israel protesters broadly. It's absolutely clear that we're giving up rights left and right for this total farce, the same way we did for 9/11. It is imperative to the survival of liberal democracy that this ceases.
- noqc 1y ago[flagged]
- tracker1 1y agoI've been pretty consistent in terms of supporting people saying things and even expressing views I find abhorrent. I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.
- gr_norm 1y agoYou're of course correct, but it's a complex issue. See my other comment for details.
- mousethatroared 1y agoBecause the "fire" excuse is a favorite of those who like the 1A when it protects them.
- pxc 1y ago> Curious why this is downvoted? Probably people reading the article title without reading the headline, not realizing that that it's not only literally about shouting in movie theaters. But tbh most commenters/voters on this site are reflexively imperialist, which is not surprising for a forum run by (and for!) capitalists in the imperial core. That's doubtless a big factor as well.
- throw310822 1y ago[flagged]
- hersko 1y ago[flagged]
- i_love_retros 1y agoThis is what happens when AIPAC are allowed to fund our elected officials.
- andrewla 1y ago[flagged]
- conception 1y agoIt’s the same basic thing as a spear being the same as a nuclear weapon. “They both kill people!” Walking around with a photo versus walking around with a hundred million photos and asking everyone simultaneously should not be considered about the basic same thing.
- tptacek 1y agoIt is very bad to throw spears at people, despite the existence of nuclear weapons.
- freedomben 1y agoYes, but throwing a spear and detonating a nuclear weapon are not equal levels of violating. They're both on the spectrum, but there is still a big difference
- tptacek 1y agoI don't see how the spectrum is relevant. Murdering one person is not as bad as murdering 100. Still a murderer.
- chaps 1y agoIn the context of criminal prosecution/litigation, there's an enormous difference between "murdering one person" vs "murdering 100". For limitless reasons! Like, is a victim of life threatening domestic violence who shoots their abuser during an attack a "murderer"? Or is an abuser who killed their spouse in a rage a "murderer"? Obviously these are different and the prosecution/defense hash that out over a very, very long time. Details matter. Ask any public defender.
- stefan_ 1y agoThis guy was accused of hurling a rock at a protester, it seems we are trying to defend the right to peaceful protest? Like, this guy was identified off video of him throwing a rock at a protester that hit them in the face. By all accounts this is someone who is trying to violently suppress peoples rights. That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society, no matter how many waxing words try to twist him into being a "protester violated in his rights".
- mattnewton 1y agoI don't read it as a peaceful protest issue, I read it as police are breaking privacy laws over a Palestinian protestor specifically; as far as we know they aren't doing this to investigate other violent crime in NYC. I agree this is sloppy policework and an unnecessary loss to society as a result.
- thisislife2 1y agoThat's a separate issue. The US is an exception where evidence that is collected illegally (see 'fruit of the poisonous tree' - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree ) is not allowed in court. Thus, US law enforcements have come up with many creative means (like Parallel Construction - https://restorethe4th.com/our-new-brief-on-parallel-construction/ https://restorethe4th.com/our-new-brief-on-parallel-construc... ) to hide the fact that evidence was collected illegally. If you want justice to be done in the US, you want US law enforcement to comply with the law. Otherwise it could result in a miscarriage of justice - the guilty may escape because of police misconduct or innocents may be persecuted by the violation of their rights. This loophole used seems to be the grey area of the law. But loopholes too are slippery slopes in the law and shouldn't exist.
- tracker1 1y agoI definitely see both sides in this... it's a bad use of resources, that I'm not completely convinced police should be barred from all access to, if it exists... on the flip side, the context of protecting an a-hole throwing rocks at a protest irks me as well. I'm actually against parallel construction and feel that is far more dangerous than a lot of other activities in that it literally prevents you from knowing your true accuser in terms of laying out a defense/confrontation in court. This whole story is just full of bad guys all around to a large extent.
- i_love_retros 1y ago[flagged]
- noqc 1y ago[flagged]
- jajuuka 1y agoSelf defense isn't "you killed 1,200 people of our people so we're going to kill 60,000+ of your people (majority of which are children), destroy any all your hospitals and educational centers and prevent basics like food, water and medical supplies from getting to you." At what point do you listen to humanitarian organizations and the UN? Amazing that you think 24 people is a genocide but not 60,000+.
- noqc 1y ago[flagged]
- jajuuka 1y agoAgain, this isn't self defense. Maybe you're just not familiar with what self defense is. Self defense is not going to another country and murdering civilians en masse. Calling 60,000 deaths collateral damage is pure insanity. If China nuked HK and claimed self defense would you have the same sympathy? It's comically to talk about International Law when Israel has so many violations that Netanyahu has a warrant for his arrest by the ICC. It's also incredibly convenient that the IDF indiscriminately bombs and shoots civilians and civilian structures and claims they were Hamas. Including journalists. The cherry on top is preventing anyone else from confirming it. The IDF has continually done this. Claimed all houses are secret ICBM sites and that all civilians in other countries are terrorists. With zero evidence and when they are proven factually wrong they say some captain screwed up and that they will investigate. Yet it keeps happening. Every civilian in Gaza is starving and cannot get any aid at all because Israel is denying all foreign aid or distribution. These are text book conditions of genocide. I look forward to the future when these atrocities are finally acknowledged. But I have no doubt that will be after the people responsible are long gone sadly.
- noqc 1y ago[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoThe police should follow the rules laid out for them. If they don't, I would very much like to see them in prison.
- noqc 1y agoWhat point of mine do you think you are attacking? The parent comment said that these rights were being given up "in order to squash anti-war sentiment". This was wrong on two counts. a) The rights were preserved, the assaulter walks free on account of the NYPD's misconduct. The rock throwers have zero cause to be upset, the law protected them from the police overreach successfully. b) The student was not charged with "anti-war sentiment". He was charged with assault, for throwing rocks at people.
- ethagnawl 1y ago[flagged]
- flyinglizard 1y ago[flagged]
- r053bud 1y agoThe US actively supports Israel financially and militaristically. That's the difference. Those are my tax dollars killing innocent children over there in Gaza.