4 ms·

There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I fe

There are fundamental freedoms the government cannot and should not be able to subvert. Communicating with others, via any means necessary is one of them. I feel I am politically very far away from many guns rights activists, and am wary of the practical outcomes of widespread weapon ownership, but at the same time I believe 2nd Amendment advocates are completely right to be wary of government's ability to strip individual power to protect and disrupt.

michaelfeathers 12y ago
If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.
- danudey 12y ago
  This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.
  - le_meta 12y ago
    "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "
  - michaelfeathers 12y ago
    I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a kill switch on phones.
AJ007 12y ago
It is sad to see groups of people who strongly support the Bill of Rights fall for menial tricks for the purpose of splitting them in to marketable groups of voters/donors. All individual rights can be rationalized away in an unlimited number of scenarios, emergency and otherwise. Anyone who believes in those rights absolutely should logically appear insane at least sometimes.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
There's no existing American right to instant mass communications. And its arguable that we should be wary of this - it can cause riots, flash mobs and result in violence. This is the nature of human beings, and we should consider it carefully when expanding human rights.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Absolutely yes there is: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Allowing that "speech" is no less than "communication from one citizen to another", and "press" is a generic term for devices facilitating that communication, there is no reason to believe those who wrote & agreed to the particular enumerative wording of that right meant to exempt "instant mass communications". To the contrary, the specific inclusion of "the press" DID refer to the then-fastest means of communicating with the greatest number of people technologically possible at the time. BTW: the American declaration of that right as fundamental was written by people who had in fact caused riots, impromptu mobs, and perpetrated violence precisely so they could implement a government which would, among other things, enshrine that right.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Arguably, the nascent country's experience with shay's Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation provided momentum for the establishment of a strong federal government; while Thomas Jefferson was sanguine about the rebellion, responding with his famous quote about the Tree of Liberty, George Washington (who was in the more difficult position of actually having to govern) was rather less enthusiastic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Impact_on_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Impact_on_Cons...
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    I'm not sure if it's worth bringing this up anymore, but the California state legislature is not Congress.
    - ctdonath 12y ago

michaelfeathers 12y ago

If this legislation passes (and I hope it doesn't) there will be an immediate First Amendment challenge. One place where we've been lucky is the fact that the FCC has rules against jamming of any sort of radio signal.

danudey 12y ago
This isn't jamming a radio signal, it's disabling a device which has a radio in it. There's no FCC issue here.
- le_meta 12y ago
  "This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. "
- michaelfeathers 12y ago
  I know. My point was that that regulation protected us in absence of having a kill switch on phones.

AJ007 12y ago

It is sad to see groups of people who strongly support the Bill of Rights fall for menial tricks for the purpose of splitting them in to marketable groups of voters/donors. All individual rights can be rationalized away in an unlimited number of scenarios, emergency and otherwise. Anyone who believes in those rights absolutely should logically appear insane at least sometimes.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

There's no existing American right to instant mass communications. And its arguable that we should be wary of this - it can cause riots, flash mobs and result in violence. This is the nature of human beings, and we should consider it carefully when expanding human rights.

ctdonath 12y ago
Absolutely yes there is: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Allowing that "speech" is no less than "communication from one citizen to another", and "press" is a generic term for devices facilitating that communication, there is no reason to believe those who wrote & agreed to the particular enumerative wording of that right meant to exempt "instant mass communications". To the contrary, the specific inclusion of "the press" DID refer to the then-fastest means of communicating with the greatest number of people technologically possible at the time. BTW: the American declaration of that right as fundamental was written by people who had in fact caused riots, impromptu mobs, and perpetrated violence precisely so they could implement a government which would, among other things, enshrine that right.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Arguably, the nascent country's experience with shay's Rebellion under the Articles of Confederation provided momentum for the establishment of a strong federal government; while Thomas Jefferson was sanguine about the rebellion, responding with his famous quote about the Tree of Liberty, George Washington (who was in the more difficult position of actually having to govern) was rather less enthusiastic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Impact_on_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Impact_on_Cons...
- seanflyon 12y ago
  I'm not sure if it's worth bringing this up anymore, but the California state legislature is not Congress.
  - ctdonath 12y ago