*If you are trying to imply that patent infringement is as bad as criminal acts, that you are also saying that criminal acts are no worse than patent infringement.*
Yes, and please note that "patent infringement" is not a criminal act. This is, just as with copyright infringement, a civil matter.
On the other hand, criminal acts are criminal acts because some body (sic) made them criminal. Like enacting a monopoly on printing money and then outlawing replicating it. Not all of these "criminal acts" have an inherent victim, some are more concerned with giving somebody monopolies, producing income for the state, ensure safety, or achieving moral goals.
Bank-Robbers? Difficult to tell. Since the only successful bank-robberies ever were done by banks, it actually decreased competition. Sometimes state-monopolies were transferred to private monopolies with these robberies, such as the robbery of the federal reserve, which was robbed from the public by a consortium of banks. While bank-robbery is probably competition-wise a zero-sum game, we could of course increase competition by getting rid of the monopoly to print money.
For pickpockets its easier to tell, on the condition that not just money is being stolen. Because if goods, like handkerchiefs or purses, or more modern, phones, are getting stolen, chances are they get re-sold. In which case, yes, pick-pockets are good for competition.
The same, by the way, goes for wanton destruction, which increases competition for goods and buildings, because there is now a new market for them, that was initially shut off by the competition by the already existing goods or buildings. Ideally, you want to destroy whatever the customer bought from you immediately, because the goods he already bought are now in competition with the goods you are selling.
And how exactly is this the problem of the US-Junta? That other oligarchies are doing the same?
It's only a problem if you're trying to project an image that does not portray you as fascistoid oligarchy, but as some kind of moral role-model.
But sorry, that went out of the window somewhere in 2001 the latest, after you got rid of the other president because of perjury regarding a blow job, and didn't get rid of that president because of perjury regarding mass surveillance and weapons of mass destruction.
Now the USA is the top bully, and if the top bully can get away with it, all the other micro-bullies will point their fingers at her and say "but she tortured too!".
How come there even is something such as a "gag order"? I can only associate them with the DDR and Juntas and somesuch.
How did the USA even get there, because the existence of a gag order seems to me the total, complete anathema of what the constitution says. It's clearly a violation of the first amendment, since the party served with it isn't the suspect, but at most a witness.
Even more. The US Constitution doesn't talk about citizens when it comes to freedom of speech and such. It talks about people. It only talks about citizens when it comes to voting. So clearly the freedom of religion, speech and assembly are meant to be for everyone. Even foreigners in foreign states.
Yes, weird eh? Why does the USA want to uphold the belief they're a democracy, when they could just say "look, we're a totalitarian oligarchy, we're doing what profits the ruling ones, and not our people, the most".
I very much disagree with you. While I think that derogatory statements might (might!) be a problem, I totally disagree when it comes to swearing. It's what we (Europeans!) do, and I really, really, can't cope with this US-American anti-swearing self-censorship-shit.
It's immature, and it's constantly lamp-shading itself, actually drawing attention to itself by telling me "I would be swearing, but I'm censoring myself now" constantly. In other media, it's even worse: Beeping is just obscene.