Well when there's a common belief that says one thing and in reality the law says another, it should raise question about the validity of the law. Especially if there is a law proscribing x and the common belief is that x is legal, and a juror is being asked to convict someone of x.
Of course, right now, with prosecutory discretion and ridiculous levels of criminalization we just have a system where if someone important doesn't like you, you go to prison. For a long time.
Makes me think of the Espionage act and how the law (somehow) dictates that the defense cannot justify the act, or even discuss it with the jury. We have laws like that?
So yeah, when we talk about whistleblowers having their day in court or facing the consequences, it's not the same day in court one gets when (say) charged with murder.
Our administrations are going to keep secretly interpreting the law whether to render laws they don't like inert, or to give themselves privileges that the people wouldn't approve of.
Secret interpretations didn't stop with Bush and they're not stopping with Obama, and wuthout some immediate reform to halt this crap immediately, it pretty much turns the United States into a polished totalitarian turd.
Felony Disenfranchisement Everyone's a Felon (Three Felonies a Day) Prosecutory Discretion Systemic Pressure to Plea-Bargain + ------------------------------------------------ Systematic disenfranchisement of every unfavored minority group ever.
I suspect because it's less comfortable for Snowden to live in Russia than in South America.
And because Snowden's asylum in Russia is more tentative than his asylum would be, say in Ecuador.
Snowden may become part of some future exchange between the US and Russia, and Putin has no qualms about handing Snowden over. For now, US and Russia are rival nations, and Snowden's presence there serves as a happy embarrassment to the United States.
Frankly, the administration's behavior and continued justification to persecute Snowden appalls me and serves to further justify all action against the current regime in the US.
It may be that being on the opposite side of whistleblowers that Barack Obama has developed empathy for the institutions who would rather handle embarrassments quietly by detecting and purging leaks before they spring.
It would be positively lovely if a press correspondent could ask him but I doubt that will happen without said correspondent being unfriended from the White House. Not this would do anything but create an awkward moment anyway.
So, by the White House's actions should you know it. Considering its opaqueness, the Obama Administration is anti-transparency. Considering its relentless persecution of whistleblowers, the Obama Administration is anti-whistleblower. And Considering he recently called participants in the CIA Detention and Interrogation program patriots the Obama Administration is pro-torture.
Not the man I elected. Not that I would expect any better from the other side.
Not that I expect any better from the next guy either.
There are numerous folks in India who want their Swastika back.
And plenty of people still find the pentacle offensive because to them it's Satanic, rather than neo-pagan.
Numerous dissenting opinions we've seen in recent times have shattered the moral authority that might once have come from a SCOTUS Jurist. You might as well be quoting an SBC television evangelist or a game show host.
Anyhow, my point was to presume for sake of that argument that a symbol was universally recognized and respected for a singular meaning.
Now that we're raising the veracity of symbols, sacred or profane, I think the contemporary controversy over the modern displays of the Second Confederate Navy Jack (*) has demonstrated that even a prevailing symbol of hate speech can and will be tolerated, and its grotesquery denied when there is enough money, power or popularity behind it.
It's a no-win situation. Absolute protection of freedom of speech will be used to protect hate speech and hate symbols. Protections from hate speech or symbols or offensive material (e.g. pornography, mutilation images, goatse, etc.) are going to be used to chill civil rights movements in those counties that don't like certain minorities, and yet, religious institutions will still be allowed to exercise hate-based practices and post hate speech, on the grounds that it is a religious institution.
In order for rich-people progeny to prove they're worthy of their rich-people inheritance they have to achieve a threshold of personal earnings to prove that they too are self-made, which requires a professional degree, typically in law, business or medicine.
But such degrees are not easy to come by, so when an heir is less than academically suitable they throw money and imbicile at a suitable academy until a graduate comes out.
We'll presume for the sake of the argument that the symbolic significance of a burning cross is recognized by all parties, and we're not going to concern ourselves with the hazards that come with fire.
A burning cross is a symbol of hatred of and oppression of a racial minority.
I'm pretty sure, even without knowing a single line of Chief Keef's lyrics that he's not preaching hatred and intolerance of a racial minority.
More likely he's preaching hatred and intolerance of an oppressive authoritarian regime that is supposed to be in the service of the people. Given they keep gunning down Americans with impunity, it pisses me off too.
And I'm not going to get into nuances of a situation where This burning cross, normally a symbol of racial intolerance, represents $70 per second it remains alight to be donated to the local department of education, up to 4,000,000 towards the effort of elevating our impoverished children towards a better future.
Though it would make for an interesting discussion.
So since the admission prices are allegedly going towards positive change (we'll assume that the aggrieved families are getting the proceeds) then any voice that is part of the performance is creating positive change.
Probably not. But the Ukranians who've asked me not to call their territory The Ukraine were specifying protocol for English. It's a national identity thing with deep grudges about occupation by the USSR.
Calling Ukraine The Ukraine is by no means a criminal act or even a severe faux pas, but it is step towards the Ukraine peoples owning their own destinies rather than being walked all over and occupied like poor Poland.
So yes. They'll hire some law enforcement service as a mercenary gang to raid people's houses. I suspect they can do that in Canada as easily as they can do it in New Zealand. They might even be able to hire the local constabulary.
I think they latch onto shooting rampages because the people of the US love to agonize over a good massacre and ponder in panic what single factor went wrong to send this fellow amuck. Such stories may or may not be part of the agenda, but that's certainly the clown circus used to draw people to watch the news show.
I think that all news outlets are biased, even TechDirt and The Christian Science Monitor. The questions are to what degree, about what specific issues, and what efforts they make to disclose their biases. Those are what determine if a given news outlet is still useful regardless of its biases.