RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison.

RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 4:23:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas There is nothing in the First Amendment that says "you have to be a superhero in order to have free speech". In the contrary, free speech means, speech without retribution even against those you are afraid of. That's absolutely wrong. If a celebrity exercises their 'freedom of speech' and people, as a result, no longer watch their movies or go to their concerts, that's a form of retribution and they have to accept those consequences. If you slander someone else, they can sue you. That too is retribution. And your point still doesn't address the original question -- how cameras derail our freedoms.

cadenas -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 7:30:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas There is nothing in the First Amendment that says "you have to be a superhero in order to have free speech". In the contrary, free speech means, speech without retribution even against those you are afraid of. That's absolutely wrong. If a celebrity exercises their 'freedom of speech' and people, as a result, no longer watch their movies or go to their concerts, that's a form of retribution and they have to accept those consequences. Thank you! That's exactly my point; and you came up with a much better example than I had thought about. This is the perfect example to illustrate why anonymous free speech is important. It must be the celebrity's choice to either be identified with the speech (and bear the consequences) or speak their mind freely without that concern (by staying anonymous). quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 If you slander someone else, they can sue you. That too is retribution. Red herring. Slander is not covered by First Amendment to begin with. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 And your point still doesn't address the original question -- how cameras derail our freedoms. By making anonymity impossible (among many other ways).

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 2:05:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Thank you! That's exactly my point; and you came up with a much better example than I had thought about. This is the perfect example to illustrate why anonymous free speech is important. It must be the celebrity's choice to either be identified with the speech (and bear the consequences) or speak their mind freely without that concern (by staying anonymous). If they did that, they wouldn't be using their celebrity for their 'cause.' quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Red herring. Slander is not covered by First Amendment to begin with. It's not a red herring at all. Your speech is more limited than you care to admit. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. You can't defame another person or cause them damage with your words without consequence. Cameras have nothing to do with this. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas By making anonymity impossible (among many other ways). And I say again (and again and again and again) how does that impede your FREEDOM? Can you not go where you like? Think of people who protest the government. Nearly EVERY protest is covered by the media. It's almost always in a public place (many of which have security cameras nearby) and nearly every protest (at least here) is splashed across the nightly news and the front page of the paper. Doesn't seem to anonymous to me. Yet it's done. And no one bitches about it. What does it matter if the street lights in that same area have a couple of extra cameras intended for security purposes? Hell, forget the press. Look at youtube for crying out loud. I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're SURROUNDED by cameras already. If you were to have a fit in a starbucks, you'd probably find yourself splashed across youtube....and subsequently the news and nightly shows. I've seen it happen dozens of times. There's a lady in the news right now for dragging her tantrum-throwing son around a cellphone store by a 'leash.' Someone caught it on camera and put it on youtube. And like many things of that nature on youtube....now it's on the news. Guess what, I bet that store has a security cam as well. What then does it matter if the street light outside has one as well? Nothing. It's simply another angle.

cadenas -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 4:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Thank you! That's exactly my point; and you came up with a much better example than I had thought about. This is the perfect example to illustrate why anonymous free speech is important. It must be the celebrity's choice to either be identified with the speech (and bear the consequences) or speak their mind freely without that concern (by staying anonymous). If they did that, they wouldn't be using their celebrity for their 'cause.' Exactly. They CHOSE to be non-anonymous. Besides, how do you know that some anonymous flyer wasn't printed by a celebrity? quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Red herring. Slander is not covered by First Amendment to begin with. It's not a red herring at all. Your speech is more limited than you care to admit. You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. You can't defame another person or cause them damage with your words without consequence. Cameras have nothing to do with this. The Supreme Court has decided on that already, multiple times. Free Speech isn't "limited" except in certain very narrow circumstances. And SCOTUS also already decided that Free Speech means, anonymous Free Speech. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas By making anonymity impossible (among many other ways). And I say again (and again and again and again) how does that impede your FREEDOM? Can you not go where you like? Think of people who protest the government. Nearly EVERY protest is covered by the media. It's almost always in a public place (many of which have security cameras nearby) and nearly every protest (at least here) is splashed across the nightly news and the front page of the paper. Doesn't seem to anonymous to me. Yet it's done. And no one bitches about it. What does it matter if the street lights in that same area have a couple of extra cameras intended for security purposes? Hell, forget the press. Look at youtube for crying out loud. I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're SURROUNDED by cameras already. If you were to have a fit in a starbucks, you'd probably find yourself splashed across youtube....and subsequently the news and nightly shows. I've seen it happen dozens of times. There's a lady in the news right now for dragging her tantrum-throwing son around a cellphone store by a 'leash.' Someone caught it on camera and put it on youtube. And like many things of that nature on youtube....now it's on the news. All of these examples are a CHOICE the speaker made that lends zero support to your claim. The right to anonymous free speech does not imply the REQUIREMENT to remain anonymous! quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 hat, I bet that store has a security cam as well. What then does it matter if the street light outside has one as well? Nothing. It's simply another angle. If it didn't matter, the streetlight camera wouldn't serve a purpose. In any case, private entities are not generally bound by Constitutional constraints (unfortunately, but that's the way SCOTUS has ruled quite a few times), and in particular when it comes to privacy. Basically, within the Starbucks there is neither a right to Free Speech, anonymous or not, nor a right to privacy.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 5:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Exactly. They CHOSE to be non-anonymous. And if you step out of your front door or you car, you choose the same. The SCOTUS has already ruled (numerous times) that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside their own home or car. If they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, they have no reasonable expectation of anonymity, either. If the "right to remain anonymous" was as simple as you're trying to make it, news agencies would be out of business because they couldn't run up to an accident scene, a protest or any other news-worthy event because they'd be violating people's rights constantly. However, as I said (and as the SCOTUS has ruled) you have no expectation of privacy outside your own home or car. So by being in 'public' you acknowledge that you may show up on a few dozen cameras throughout your day. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas If it didn't matter, the streetlight camera wouldn't serve a purpose. Security is the best purpose. Though there are already many up for other reasons such as red light runners, speeders, etc.

cadenas -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/5/2009 11:37:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Exactly. They CHOSE to be non-anonymous. And if you step out of your front door or you car, you choose the same. The SCOTUS has already ruled (numerous times) that citizens do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy outside their own home or car. If they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, they have no reasonable expectation of anonymity, either. That standard applies to the fourth Amendment. Different context. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 If the "right to remain anonymous" was as simple as you're trying to make it, news agencies would be out of business because they couldn't run up to an accident scene, a protest or any other news-worthy event because they'd be violating people's rights constantly. However, as I said (and as the SCOTUS has ruled) you have no expectation of privacy outside your own home or car. So by being in 'public' you acknowledge that you may show up on a few dozen cameras throughout your day. Being on "a few dozen" cameras is very fundamentally different from being on cameras almost constantly. And news agencies are private entities, not bound by this Constitutional standard. Except for civil rights, pretty much none of the Constitutional guarantees apply to private entities. So news organizations can invade your privacy all day long (unless other laws restrict them, of course). quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas If it didn't matter, the streetlight camera wouldn't serve a purpose. Security is the best purpose. Though there are already many up for other reasons such as red light runners, speeders, etc. a) It's neither narrowly tailored or specific. Any time you interfere with Constitutional rights, you must have a specific reason AND the intrusion must be narrowly tailored to just address that issue and otherwise leave Constitutional rights intact. If a specific street corner is known to be a common location for drug deals, you'd have such a situation. The crime statistics for that location are very specific evidence. And in that case, a camera can be the least intrusive means to address the issue. b) Cameras everywhere wouldn't even provide security, because it is impossible to watch them sufficiently, as the London experience shows. c) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin d) Who's watching the watchers?

seababy -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/6/2009 3:51:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IrishMist I can't stand it when someone sits here on their high and mighty horse complaining about how unfair the justice/prison system is. Tell you what...let's go talk to the families of victims of those in prison and see what they have to say. Forgiveness? Fuck that. They are in prison for a reason. Let them rot there. Ok I guess I fall under that category. I lost a brother a few years ago. You couldnt find a more gentle, funny, and refined guy. He was beaten to death. The guy who did this is now in jail. My sister has put in time working with juvenile offenders. Im planning to commit to volunteer work visiting jails once I have moved state again. My brothers death was brutal and pointless but I forgive his murderer. (That was a journey to get to that place) I dont believe he has any remorse over his actions apart from the impact to his own life. My only concern is him getting out and putting another family through this. I believe there are people out there that are "evil" they have no conscience and will never feel remorse and will remain a danger to society. However I think scattered amongst the prison population are people who desperately need compassion shown. Maybe we as individuals lose something essential when we are no longer able to exercise compassion to the guilty. I think working on the force would be a very hardening experience. You get to see every evil under the sun, day in day out and little else. I really appreciate the people who worked on my brothers case they were amazing. I couldnt do that job. Sea

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/6/2009 4:29:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas That standard applies to the fourth Amendment. Different context. Doesn't matter which amendment it is. Cameras do not infringe on your rights unless they are in your private home. When you step out the front door, you accept you are not in your own private space. This is true for 4th amendment or any amendment. You can "say" whatever the hell you want behind your front door. When you choose to do so in public, you accept that what you say may have consequences. Period. There is no way around this and there is no way you are going to get me to agree to this because you're just wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas b) Cameras everywhere wouldn't even provide security, because it is impossible to watch them sufficiently, as the London experience shows. Maybe not (though if we 'did' have them and 'did' staff the jobs necessary to watch them, the unemployment rate just might go down a bit). Also, despite our inability to 'monitor' them all, we can record them all. A crime happens, access the time index and viola -- instant damning evidence (the thing that started this line of discussion in the first place....not 'security'). quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas c) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin d) Who's watching the watchers? We can get into a quote war all you like. It doesn't change a thing. The presence of cameras does not infringe on your rights, impede your access or stop you from doing anything.

cadenas -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/6/2009 3:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas That standard applies to the fourth Amendment. Different context. Doesn't matter which amendment it is. Cameras do not infringe on your rights unless they are in your private home. When you step out the front door, you accept you are not in your own private space. This is true for 4th amendment or any amendment. You can "say" whatever the hell you want behind your front door. When you choose to do so in public, you accept that what you say may have consequences. Period. There is no way around this and there is no way you are going to get me to agree to this because you're just wrong. Thanks for explaining that the Constitution only applies in your own home. It's all clear now. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas b) Cameras everywhere wouldn't even provide security, because it is impossible to watch them sufficiently, as the London experience shows. Maybe not (though if we 'did' have them and 'did' staff the jobs necessary to watch them, the unemployment rate just might go down a bit). Actually, it would go up because we'd have spend so many tax $$$ that the country would go bankrupt over it. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter if you spend the money on putting a physical policeman every 20 feet, or a camera and then hire somebody to watch the camera. Except that the cop on the beat will be far more alert and actually notice things happening. quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 Also, despite our inability to 'monitor' them all, we can record them all. A crime happens, access the time index and viola -- instant damning evidence (the thing that started this line of discussion in the first place....not 'security'). Didn't work that way in London, either. It was useless as evidence in 97% of street muggings - that should be particularly obvious on cameras. A large part of the problem is that when you have that many recordings, somebody still has to sit down and watch through the hours or days of tape to find the one that contains the evidence you need.

Loki45 -> RE: Are the times really 'a' changin'? Prison. (8/6/2009 3:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Thanks for explaining that the Constitution only applies in your own home. It's all clear now. Evidently it's not clear enough to you. Because that's not at all what I said. What I said, and what the SCOTUS has said, is that if you are not in your car or in your home, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This goes for things you say, things you do, property you leave out, etc. This is not just a 4th amendment stipulation. This applies to anything you think you can 'get away with' in public that you really can't. You can say "fire" all you like unless you're in a theater. You can say "bomb" anywhere you want but an airport. You can be private and anonymous in your own home or car all you like. But step out and you accept that you might be monitored by a security cam, a traffic cam, hell even a freakin' cell phone cam. It's just the way it is.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125