> Absolutely! I'm with you, btr1701. In fact let's just > fucking kill anyone who expresses "wrongness".
It's not 'wrongness'. What was retweeted were threats of violence against specific individuals. That has *never* been protected speech in this country or any other and it doesn't suddenly change because you use social media to do it.
And who said anything about killing? I said "end up in a cell". You morphed that into a call for execution and pretended I said it. That's what's commonly referred to as "being a complete douchebag".
Even if you want to hand-wave away the ACLU's lack of attention to the 2nd Amendment as due to the NRA's occupation of that space, you still have no explanation for the ACLU's lack of attention to the 10th Amendment, which is also a part of the Bill of Rights.
There's no behemoth analogous to the NRA that's fighting 10th Amendment cases such that the ACLU is free to ignore them. And it's not like there's no shortage of 10th Amendment cases to press. The federal government is like that plant in LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS-- eating up everything in sight and growing larger and larger by the minute. There are 10th Amendment issues in just about everything the federal government does these days, but once again, crickets from the ACLU, because, as a generally leftist/progressive organization, they like the idea of a strong central government running things for everyone. The idea of telling the feds, "No, this bit doesn't belong to you. It belongs to the states and some of the states may not share your agenda" is anathema to the folks who work at the ACLU.
> I appreciate the ACLU organization, and support them, > but I would rather see them focus on the less defended > areas. We got the 2nd covered for now :)
That might be fine if they just left 2nd Amendment cases alone altogether, but in some instances they actually take the pro-government side-- submitting amicus briefs in *favor* of government restriction on 2nd Amendment rights.
> Why should the ACLU get interested in the second > amendment?
Because in their charter-- you know, that thing that provides the basis for an organization's existence?-- they claim their entire reason for existing is to maintain the Bill of Rights against government encroachment.
> Being liable for others' content would almost certainly > force us to shut down. And that's the real concern that > Bartow doesn't seem to acknowledge.
Sure, she does. It's what she and other like her *want*. They want to be able to shut you down for hurting their feelz. They won't come out and say so directly, but that's their holy grail-- the ability to wipe out any contrary opinions or speech. They're right and they know it, and so you shouldn't be allowed to contradict them.
Re: Read the proposal if you can, but this snippet might help
> (8) An obligation specified in regulations under this > section may be imposed on, and a technical capability > notice given to, persons outside the United Kingdom (and > may require things to be done, or not to be done, outside > the United Kingdom).
Good luck with that. If I'm a telecom company in the U.S. and the UK tries to impose one of these "obligations" on me, they're gonna get the big middle finger.
> What I've been reading has been saying that this only > applies to UK companies.
Even if it applies to all companies doing business in the UK, it doesn't even really address the problem.
The "bad guys" who are savvy enough to conduct major terrorist operations are also savvy enough to use 3rd-party encryption software that's already on the market and is every bit as strong as the built-in OS encryption, and no UK law can stop that.
The only people who are left vulnerable with a backdoored encryption system are the ones who *aren't* criminals, and who now have to worry about being affected by data breaches and Orwellian government surveillance.
> Under my understanding, everything that happens > in a business; good, bad, or indifferent is the > manager’s fault whether they are there or not.
Yes, as I said, that works with civil liability, but with criminal liability, the statutes and the Constitution's due process requirement would forbid sending someone to prison for actions they had nothing to do with.
> The story goes that the manager (who was at home in > bed), the bartender, and the server all went to > jail, even though they only served one drink
I would be very interested in knowing how they managed to impose criminal liability-- i.e., prison time-- on someone who wasn't even present when the drink was served.
I can see the manager possibly being held civilly liable under the theory of respondeat superior, but to put someone in prison based on something over which they had zero knowledge and control is not only absurd, but it doesn't even meet the intent element in the statute itself.
> Then again, it does partner with other law > enforcement agencies in criminal investigations, > presumably under the Al Capone Theory of "tax evasion, > if nothing else."
Is that a bad thing? Al Capone was a multiple murderer, after all. If charging him with tax evasion (something for which he was also undeniably guilty) put him in prison where he belongs, how is that a bad thing?
The same would be true of other more modern criminals. If they actually *are* guilty of tax evasion, and that is provable in court, there's certainly nothing wrong with using that to put someone away who's also guilty of other less provable crimes.
> Getting sued affects the bottom line. Getting sued > personally affects your personal bottom line and any > future career choices. Under those circumstances, it's > pretty clear the first amendment rights of students > isn't going to be a high priority.
That's why people need to start fighting back and suing the crap out of universities that do this. Make *not* standing up for free speech more expensive than caving to the social justice warriors and the government bureaucrats in the Dept. of Education.
I can't figure out how this actually will work in practice. (And of course none of the articles on the story actually answer that question. Typical.)
Even if this plan didn't have serious 1st Amendment problems, how would a university manage to ban an app? Declare that everyone enrolled is prohibited from using it or even downloading it? Do they think they can tell people what apps they are and aren't allowed to have on their personal phones (personal property)? How will they know if someone violates the rule? The whole objection is the anonymity, so presumably the university would have no idea who the violators are. Will there be random spot inspections of people's cell phones by campus security, with punishment if the app is found on the phone?