New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Go scream fire in a movie theater and see how well you can 'uphold' your First Amendment rights. EVERY right has a limit, it has always been that way.

At best I would be taken out of the movie theater. But if you can't spot a fire in a dark room then that's one thing you have in common with Stevie Wonder.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Its better to scream bomb in an airport.
Or better yet, just randomly take a match to your shoes.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

At best I would be taken out of the movie theater. But if you can't spot a fire in a dark room then that's one thing you have in common with Stevie Wonder.

That's not the most that would likely happen to you.

And movie theatres have more than just one room. It's possible for a fire to start somewhere other than the darkened room filled with hundreds of people, and go completely unnoticed by those individuals until an alarm sounds, or someone tells them what's going on.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Its better to scream bomb in an airport.

Disturbing the peace. Probably interferes with the right to happiness.

Or better yet, just randomly take a match to your shoes.

At best, attempted suicide. Freedom of speech wouldn't really come into play.

That's not the most that would likely happen to you.

And movie theatres have more than just one room. It's possible for a fire to start somewhere other than the darkened room filled with hundreds of people, and go completely unnoticed by those individuals until an alarm sounds, or someone tells them what's going on.

Once again, disturbing the peace.

[Mhurron]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

At best I would be taken out of the movie theater. But if you can't spot a fire in a dark room then that's one thing you have in common with Stevie Wonder.

Actually, you would be arrested and charged for public endangerment, and for any injury or death that resulted because of it. There's a reason I said that.

In the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

[Ziero]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

It's another case of damned if you do damned if you don't. To ensure security there has to be some freedoms that get leaned on. We're free to own guns here, as long as we aquire them in the proper manner. We're free to say *anything* we want here as long as it's not directly causing harm or inciting panic or riots. Listening in on phone calls to try and catch people who may have been hiding in this country for years plotting attacks or commiting crimes is not that big of a deal. You won't be suddenly arrested for saying to a friend in canada that you blew something up.

To get you have to give, to be safe *someone* has to be watching. Because not everyone follows the rules, and because of that *we* have to give up something.

To say that it might be a 'miracle' that this country will have any personal rights left in 20 years, when we've only been gaining more and more over the past two centuries is an ignorant thing to think. In a world where people get shot dead in the street for commenting about their leaders, for someone to claim that possible easdropping is a major infringment on someone's personal rights is just wrong.

[Ziero]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

At best, attempted suicide. Freedom of speech wouldn't really come into play.

Seeing as you didn't really get that comment, it's a statement about how you have to have your shoes check for bombs because someone was caught trying to sneak a bomb, in his shoe, onto an airplane. Because some people want to kill us, we have to be slightly inconvienced. But the other option is to ignore it so that when it does happen, hundreds of people die.

Again, damned if you do damned if you don't, so they decide to err on the side of security for minor inconvience.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

You know, I should stuff plastic explosives up my ass and get on a plane, just to totally kill the airline industry in the US.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Actually, you would be arrested and charged for public endangerment, and for any injury or death that resulted because of it. There's a reason I said that.

If the chaos occurred. My statement relied on the fact that people would think to look around before they started trampling each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Okay. You've proven to me that the Supreme Court can make a decision. It doesn't mean it was the right one.

To get you have to give, to be safe *someone* has to be watching. Because not everyone follows the rules, and because of that *we* have to give up something.

Once again, that's what probable cause is for. This is simply another excuse to let the administration monitor whoever they want.

Seeing as you didn't really get that comment, it's a statement about how you have to have your shoes check for bombs because someone was caught trying to sneak a bomb, in his shoe, onto an airplane. Because some people want to kill us, we have to be slightly inconvienced. But the other option is to ignore it so that when it does happen, hundreds of people die.

Then that's not quite freedom of speech. He would be physically inciting people to panic. The debate would be on freedom of expression. And seeing as the motive of the action would simply be to cause chaos, as opposed to expressing a feasible point, he would be charged with a crime.

What you are all saying is that just because there are cases in which the advocation of rights are debateable, you're using that as an excuse to bypass the whole process for investigations we wouldn't be aware on any matter for no reason. By that logic, we should throw out the concept of checks and balances and let the government proverbially shit all over the Constitution.

[Mhurron]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Okay. You've proven to me that the Supreme Court can make a decision. It doesn't mean it was the right one.

Since you can't seem to wrap your head around it I'll say it plainly again just this once.

There has always been limits to constitutional rights.

Oh, and about SCOTUS making a decision. Right or wrong doesn't matter, what they say is law.

My statement relied on the fact that people would think to look around before they started trampling each other.

Go ahead and try it and see how level headed people are in a dark, crowded closed room. Statements based on fantasy do not a point make.

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Not to mention (except for the fact that I did mention it above) just because the fire isn't in the theatre that those people are in doesn't mean the building isn't on fire. People aren't going to wait around and see. They are going to haul ass out the door so they don't die in a fire.

[Feba]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

They are going to haul ass out the door so they don't die in a fire.

Much to Murphie's disappointment.

Speaking of which, has anyone seen that damn taru?

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

Since you can't rebutt my main argument which are the last two sentences of my last post, there's no reason to continue. So I'll bring it full circle.

There has always been limits to constitutional rights.

Oh, and about SCOTUS making a decision. Right or wrong doesn't matter, what they say is law.

The reason for the limits on our rights is predicated upon real and public threats. What the Bush administration is doing is stirring up panic and paranoia in order to get the people to give up their otherwise inalienable rights to pursue a relatively unknown agenda. And "since you can't seem to wrap your head around it I'll say it plainly again just this once": Inalienable rights cannot be given or taken away, by definition.

The Constitution is the law. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret it. Not dictate it.

Go ahead and try it and see how level headed people are in a dark, crowded closed room. Statements based on fantasy do not a point make.

If "fantastic statements" are pointless then what the hell have you been doing?

[Mythos]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

His statements are based in fact and reality. There is a pretty clear difference. You have a misconceived notion of what would happen in these cases, whereas he doesn't.

[PhiberOpticks]

Re: New law changes U.S. eavesdropping rules

It's all speculation. And frankly, it doesn't matter one damned bit if someone gets charged with disturbing the peace or public endangerment or whether or not people run from a fire they can't see in a dark room. So, if my response to his fantasies are fantasy as well, then that means that he wasn't going anywhere from the start.