7 ms·

It kinda blows my mind that the US government thinks this is a case they can actually win. If they actually do, it's pretty much all over for democracy in the

by beedogs 12y ago

It kinda blows my mind that the US government thinks this is a case they can actually win. If they actually do, it's pretty much all over for democracy in the US.

spiritplumber 12y ago
I'd like to see their argument, to be honest.
- freedom123 12y ago
  Their argument is simple. "What are you doing to do about it?" The notion of "freedom" or "rights" do not exist today. Schools teach you that capitalism is bad, more regulations are needed to be "free". By the time you are 18-24 you are wishing to be more like EU and socialized. So as our freedoms are taken away... no one will stand up. Twitters attempt is cute but individuals are not aligned to fight for the same vision.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  freedom123, fyi, your comments are showing up as dead.
  - freedom123 12y ago
    what does that mean?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kefka 12y ago
    freedom123 You have been hellbanned. 1. People cannot respond to you. 2. Your posts normally do not show up, unless we choose an option of "showdead". 3. Everything sent to you is as a normal user. There is no indication that anything is wrong. That is what a hellbanning is. Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning
- mcantelon 12y ago
  Likely "national security".
rayiner 12y ago
Democracy survived the Supreme Court upholding internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, and it will survive this. Some kinds of gag orders are undisputably Constitutional. It's not like in 1790 the government couldn't do anything about someone tipping off a suspect in a criminal investigation. The Sedition Act, banning criticism of the government, was passed during the presidency of a Framer in 1789.[1] And Near v. Minnesota noted that national security issues could justify prior restraint even while striking down a restriction as violating the First Amendment. That was in 1931. That said hopefully the government loses this one, and there is good reason for them to lose.[2] The bar for Constitutional prior restraints is very high. [1] The Sedition Act also demonstrates how nobody ever agreed on the definition of "freedom of speech." The Federalist argument in support of the Act relied on the narrow English definition of the concept. [2] This article in the Yale Law Journal has some good coverage of the background to this litigation: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-disclosure-by-design http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-dis....
- baddox 12y ago
  > Democracy survived the Supreme Court upholding internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, and it will survive this. In what sense is that democracy surviving? I suppose it is, given that Japanese Americans were a minority of Americans.
  - pyre 12y ago
    The government has apologized, and society widely recognizes that as something that was wrong, and shouldn't be repeated. I would suggest that Democracy has survived in that sense.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The idea that it's "all over for democracy in the US" is usually undergirded on a belief that civil rights are being chipped away over time. That belief is ignorant of history. In 1789: http://www.fjc.gov/history/docs/seditionacts.pdf http://www.fjc.gov/history/docs/seditionacts.pdf Matthew Lyon, a Republican Congressman, was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned by the Adams government for publishing letters critical of the administration. See also, the stories of Thomas Cooper, James Callender. If Obama acted like the founding fathers, half of Fox News' anchors would be in jail! The history of the republic has been a back-and-forth between the civil rights and security. Heck, the impetus for the Constitutional Convention was the failure of the federal government to put down an insurgency in Massachusetts! Objectively, Americans have more civil liberties today than they were when the ink on the Constitution was still wet. That was before expansive readings of the First Amendment. That was before broad readings of what "due process" requires. Was a time when the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states! The idea that NSL's are a signal of the end of the republic is ludicrous and ahistorical.
istvan__ 12y ago
Are you surprised? I think the problem here is the ignorance of an average voter in US. It's kind of insane to me how much people are not aware of the actions of the US government, especially in subjects like foreign matters. What I see on the social media is that people tend to focus on dividing problems are let politicians to create sides easily. A good example wood be helping out some of the college graduates with tax payers money. I think the sense of doing something for greater good is pretty low here, meaning that people tend to focus on the implications on the individuals rather than focusing on what it gives to the public. This sort of society is an easy target for dividing politicians and politics.
chadpaulson 12y ago
The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
- aceofspades19 12y ago
  a constitutional republic is contained in the set of democratic governments. You could just as well say Canada is not a democracy, its a constitutional monarchy.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    More accurately, constitutional republics make up a set that overlaps the set of democratic governments. A Constitutional republic could have a nondemocratic constitution, so that set is not a subset of democratic governments. The US is, in constitutional form, all of: a federal republic, a democratic republic, and a representative democracy.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
Why do you think the US government thinks it can win? Couldn't it take the exact same actions even if it didn't "think" it could win? [I think it's a bit ridiculous that we are discussing what a non-physical entity thinks.]
- deong 12y ago
  Only if you insist on a ridiculously literal reading. The US Government is composed of people who act on its behalf. Quite obviously, "the US Government thinks" means "those in the US government charged with making decisions about this matter think".
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    Ok, but why do we think that the US Government thinks that it can win the case? Just because it is defending/pursing it?

by beedogs 12y ago

It kinda blows my mind that the US government thinks this is a case they can actually win. If they actually do, it's pretty much all over for democracy in the US.

spiritplumber 12y ago

I'd like to see their argument, to be honest.

freedom123 12y ago
Their argument is simple. "What are you doing to do about it?" The notion of "freedom" or "rights" do not exist today. Schools teach you that capitalism is bad, more regulations are needed to be "free". By the time you are 18-24 you are wishing to be more like EU and socialized. So as our freedoms are taken away... no one will stand up. Twitters attempt is cute but individuals are not aligned to fight for the same vision.
FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
freedom123, fyi, your comments are showing up as dead.
- freedom123 12y ago
  what does that mean?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- kefka 12y ago
  freedom123 You have been hellbanned. 1. People cannot respond to you. 2. Your posts normally do not show up, unless we choose an option of "showdead". 3. Everything sent to you is as a normal user. There is no indication that anything is wrong. That is what a hellbanning is. Or here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning
mcantelon 12y ago
Likely "national security".

rayiner 12y ago

Democracy survived the Supreme Court upholding internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, and it will survive this. Some kinds of gag orders are undisputably Constitutional. It's not like in 1790 the government couldn't do anything about someone tipping off a suspect in a criminal investigation. The Sedition Act, banning criticism of the government, was passed during the presidency of a Framer in 1789.[1] And Near v. Minnesota noted that national security issues could justify prior restraint even while striking down a restriction as violating the First Amendment. That was in 1931. That said hopefully the government loses this one, and there is good reason for them to lose.[2] The bar for Constitutional prior restraints is very high. [1] The Sedition Act also demonstrates how nobody ever agreed on the definition of "freedom of speech." The Federalist argument in support of the Act relied on the narrow English definition of the concept. [2] This article in the Yale Law Journal has some good coverage of the background to this litigation: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-disclosure-by-design http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/warrant-canaries-and-dis....

baddox 12y ago
> Democracy survived the Supreme Court upholding internment of US citizens of Japanese descent, and it will survive this. In what sense is that democracy surviving? I suppose it is, given that Japanese Americans were a minority of Americans.
- pyre 12y ago
  The government has apologized, and society widely recognizes that as something that was wrong, and shouldn't be repeated. I would suggest that Democracy has survived in that sense.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The idea that it's "all over for democracy in the US" is usually undergirded on a belief that civil rights are being chipped away over time. That belief is ignorant of history. In 1789: http://www.fjc.gov/history/docs/seditionacts.pdf http://www.fjc.gov/history/docs/seditionacts.pdf Matthew Lyon, a Republican Congressman, was prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned by the Adams government for publishing letters critical of the administration. See also, the stories of Thomas Cooper, James Callender. If Obama acted like the founding fathers, half of Fox News' anchors would be in jail! The history of the republic has been a back-and-forth between the civil rights and security. Heck, the impetus for the Constitutional Convention was the failure of the federal government to put down an insurgency in Massachusetts! Objectively, Americans have more civil liberties today than they were when the ink on the Constitution was still wet. That was before expansive readings of the First Amendment. That was before broad readings of what "due process" requires. Was a time when the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states! The idea that NSL's are a signal of the end of the republic is ludicrous and ahistorical.

istvan__ 12y ago

Are you surprised? I think the problem here is the ignorance of an average voter in US. It's kind of insane to me how much people are not aware of the actions of the US government, especially in subjects like foreign matters. What I see on the social media is that people tend to focus on dividing problems are let politicians to create sides easily. A good example wood be helping out some of the college graduates with tax payers money. I think the sense of doing something for greater good is pretty low here, meaning that people tend to focus on the implications on the individuals rather than focusing on what it gives to the public. This sort of society is an easy target for dividing politicians and politics.

chadpaulson 12y ago

The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

aceofspades19 12y ago
a constitutional republic is contained in the set of democratic governments. You could just as well say Canada is not a democracy, its a constitutional monarchy.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  More accurately, constitutional republics make up a set that overlaps the set of democratic governments. A Constitutional republic could have a nondemocratic constitution, so that set is not a subset of democratic governments. The US is, in constitutional form, all of: a federal republic, a democratic republic, and a representative democracy.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

Why do you think the US government thinks it can win? Couldn't it take the exact same actions even if it didn't "think" it could win? [I think it's a bit ridiculous that we are discussing what a non-physical entity thinks.]

deong 12y ago
Only if you insist on a ridiculously literal reading. The US Government is composed of people who act on its behalf. Quite obviously, "the US Government thinks" means "those in the US government charged with making decisions about this matter think".
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Ok, but why do we think that the US Government thinks that it can win the case? Just because it is defending/pursing it?