So far I've resisted extremism, but having exhausted all other options, it's clear now that only one choice remains. It'll be difficult, and dangerous, and not all of us will survive, but we've been left with no other course of action.
So this is it: We have to change the jury pool -- We have to move to East Texas.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
At this point, Poe's Law applies to just about anything related to the NSA and its cheerleaders. Unfortuantely, the NSA's documented actions really are that bad and their defenders' statements are so outrageous that something like this seems entirely plausible (as evidenced by several of the article's comments here and over at Popehat).
In the film, a fake cable industry representative (Nick Smith) promises poor service, underwhelming broadband speeds, and a "plethora of hidden fees," before educating viewers on the finer points of what being an oligopoly really means.
I thought truth was an absolute defense to defamation.
Yes, the school district tried to put forward this policy (which is bad), but the students fought back, recruited legal help, and won. So, I'll put this in the "good news" column (and we could use some good news).
Here's a quote from one of the KRCA stories linked above, from student Jacob Williams:
I will not give up my rights for any reason. I may be a minor, but I will not waive rights as an American citizen.
It is true that there are differences between many of those old school journalists and the new school who are breaking all of this news.
I don't know that it's so much "old school vs new school", as it is "middle school vs new school". Plenty of old-school journalists believed in the importance of "speaking truth to power"; sadly, their kind of journalism died out in the past few decades as news media became increasingly more indebted to the Washington and Wall Street elite. In their place we got the "middle school" journalists who are more about developing powerful connections than challenging power. (Bill Moyers had an excellent interview and essay last week that dealt with this. billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-the-end-game-for-democracy/ ) Now, we have the new school come to challenge them, so naturally they're feeling threatened.
And of course there's always the "hey-you-punk-kids-get-off-my-lawn" factor, which seems to happen with every generation.
Such treaties are a result of the moral justification, not the origin of it. The rights are moral rights, but laws can provide a remedy -- a framework and a system for redress -- for those whose rights have been violated.
Now, you could say again: "Well, where did this right come from?" You can keep moving the goalposts with each response, coming back to the question of why do we have human rights?
Which is a long philosophical discussion, but for me it comes back to an understanding by human beings of what is just. It's not static by any means (See "evolving standards of decency".), but is rooted in the right to physical integrity -- a belief in the inherent dignity of human beings.
Where does that come from? That's a VERY long discussion, and I don't think we know the answer yet, but most creatures (human and otherwise) have some sense of fair and unfair, and know when they've been wronged.