Agreed, Chris. In order for there to be freedom, there is going to be the chance that 'bad' things are going to happen, and people just have to learn to live with those risks and chances.
The fact is that Wikileaks is something that is not only good for America and the rest of the world, but necessary for world to move on towards the shining light at the end of the tunnel.
The people who rail against WikiLeaks are, by and large, people who are terrified that their own actions and INACTIONS are going to be made public and they are going to have the mob after their butts.
Sure, the papers were 'stolen' (actually, a better term is LEAKED, in the same way that the Pentagon Papers were), but sometimes you have to do 'bad' things in order to expose worse actions.
Such as the police breaking into people's homes in order to secure evidence. We call that 'seizure due to a warrant' but the former is a more honest description of it.
Actually, the answer to 3 is not as clear cut as you would make it out to be. The courts have been looking leery at things that ban you from recording police officers WHEN THEY ARE ON THE JOB and WHEN YOU HAVE A LEGITIMATE REASON TO BE RECORDING THEM.
The fact is that LEO's are just as likely to lie as the worse mass murdering sociopath on the planet, if they wish to nail you.
That is the reason why I believe that LEO's should NOT be taken anymore as telling the truth as a regular person is, without outside confirmation (which more and more states are doing by having recording equipment on police vehicles).
Actually, I would argue that you don't have privacy in the restroom either, because you could be doing something just as illegal in the restroom as anywhere else.
We have expanded the right to 'not been seen nude without our permission' so much that.... you can basically get away with near anything.
Some of these states need to have these laws amended to say that if you are NOT talking to someone who is required to keep your secrecy (i.e. a doctor, psychologist or lawyer), that person can record your conversation and use it against you period... UNLESS, they are a law enforcement official or acting on orders of a LEO.
Hopefully, the judge will throw this case out as a violation of the woman's right to protect herself. Personally, I was ALWAYS leery of those laws that didn't allow people to record conversations, especially when they were between two people IRL.
Now, if you have to WIRETAP someone (i.e. become a third person with no relevance to the conversation in question), then you are doing something wrong and should be penalized for that.... however, I believe it should be a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.
Russia does not allow sexual slavery, and lets get real here: there is VERY LITTLE that any country can do about that without infringing on other people's rights.
With all due respect, it is part of having a business to MONITOR THE COMPANIES WHO YOU ARE DOING BUSINESS WITH so that things like this do not come back to bite you in the ass.
I am getting tired of companies saying "WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE!" when someone who they are doing business with does something bad that they are directly or indirectly PAYING THEM FOR.
Frankly, the guy is wrong in this case. The editor was just putting out factual information about his son being arrested for a crime.
That's a little different than just putting out someone's personal sexual wiles/preferences for no other reason than to titillate readers.
Jeremy, it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to put those claims to rest totally unless they find another person who actually did it or you are taken to court and found innocent.
That is the bottom line. That's another reason why the press shouldn't use names to describe SUSPECTS in a crime until the suspects are arrested/charged with a crime.
The problem is that adding this would NOT be burdening society or overburdening them. It would give a person a chance to say "WHOA! The public has NO RIGHT to know this information, because I was NOT doing anything illegal!"
I'm personally HARSH on personal privacy. No one has the right to write stories about my personal sexual practices UNLESS they are illegal for some reason AND I have been charged with a crime!
The damage to my personal good name (whatever amount of it I/someone else has) would be too great if the story was in error.
Not in all people's opinion. Personally, I have no problem with pedosexuality and view it as the 'boogie man' of the era, now that homosexuality and heterosexuality outside of marriage is not allowed to be bashed upon.
Need I remind that 40 years ago, pedosexuality was ALLOWED. Child pornography was ALLOWED. It was only after homosexuality was starting to become accepted that they turned to pedosexuality for another 'boogie man' for society and started with the bullplop that "Children cannot make their own sexual choices!"
I know better, because I was as a child, with adults as well as other children.
Exactly what I was pointing out. I have no problem with stories that show that someone is being two faced about subjects by pointing out their own behavior contrary to their stated beliefs.
But if the article in question is just to satisfy prurient (I never thought I would use that term) public interest in a person's life? The articles shouldn't be written.
The fact is that you CANNOT rely on editorial discretion anymore, because newspapers are all about SELLING NEWSPAPERS!
Freedom of speech in some cases has to bow to the rights of a person not to be smeared in the press and personal privacy (I don't think that anyone has the right to know what I am doing sexually, unless it is illegal).
To be blunt, the United States takes freedom of speech WAY too far in some cases, and not far enough in others. The total reverse of what it should be.
That is the reason why I push for the 'have to inform a person before you write a article about them', because the damage from the thing CANNOT always (actually, fairly never can be) fixed after the article is put out there.
That is why we have to get rid of that 'employment at will' bullplop and start making businesses give a REASON before they are allowed to fire someone and also have a public organization reviewing these things if the person who was fired wishes that.
Employment 'at will' allows businesses to treat their employees like SLAVES and terrify them into not asking for things like better wages, better insurance, etc.
Well, that is your fault for blocking Facebook and then blocking the legitimate proxy services. There comes a time where you have to say "Benefit not worth cost!" and this is one time where you should have gotten the message.
On the post: UK Intelligence Agencies Ask Court To Say They're Immune From Having To Provide Evidence
Re: Another Example
On the post: Video Of Last Week's Thoughtful Discussion On Wikileaks
The people who rail against WikiLeaks are, by and large, people who are terrified that their own actions and INACTIONS are going to be made public and they are going to have the mob after their butts.
Sure, the papers were 'stolen' (actually, a better term is LEAKED, in the same way that the Pentagon Papers were), but sometimes you have to do 'bad' things in order to expose worse actions.
Such as the police breaking into people's homes in order to secure evidence. We call that 'seizure due to a warrant' but the former is a more honest description of it.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Questions
The fact is that LEO's are just as likely to lie as the worse mass murdering sociopath on the planet, if they wish to nail you.
That is the reason why I believe that LEO's should NOT be taken anymore as telling the truth as a regular person is, without outside confirmation (which more and more states are doing by having recording equipment on police vehicles).
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: i WONDER.
We have expanded the right to 'not been seen nude without our permission' so much that.... you can basically get away with near anything.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Re: Re: Re: 12 Monkeys
Then, they need a warrant.
On the post: Woman Arrested For Recording Attempt To Report Police Officer Who Sexually Assaulted Her
Now, if you have to WIRETAP someone (i.e. become a third person with no relevance to the conversation in question), then you are doing something wrong and should be penalized for that.... however, I believe it should be a CIVIL offense, not a criminal one.
On the post: Upload 18 Songs In Russia... Face Six Years In Prison
Re:
On the post: California Appeals Court Says Company Can Be Held Liable For Spam It Didn't Write Or Know About
I am getting tired of companies saying "WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE!" when someone who they are doing business with does something bad that they are directly or indirectly PAYING THEM FOR.
On the post: Guy Sues Newspaper Editor For Refusing To Remove Articles He Doesn't Like About His Son
That's a little different than just putting out someone's personal sexual wiles/preferences for no other reason than to titillate readers.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
That is the bottom line. That's another reason why the press shouldn't use names to describe SUSPECTS in a crime until the suspects are arrested/charged with a crime.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re:
I'm personally HARSH on personal privacy. No one has the right to write stories about my personal sexual practices UNLESS they are illegal for some reason AND I have been charged with a crime!
The damage to my personal good name (whatever amount of it I/someone else has) would be too great if the story was in error.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Need I remind that 40 years ago, pedosexuality was ALLOWED. Child pornography was ALLOWED. It was only after homosexuality was starting to become accepted that they turned to pedosexuality for another 'boogie man' for society and started with the bullplop that "Children cannot make their own sexual choices!"
I know better, because I was as a child, with adults as well as other children.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re: Re:
But if the article in question is just to satisfy prurient (I never thought I would use that term) public interest in a person's life? The articles shouldn't be written.
The fact is that you CANNOT rely on editorial discretion anymore, because newspapers are all about SELLING NEWSPAPERS!
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re:
To be blunt, the United States takes freedom of speech WAY too far in some cases, and not far enough in others. The total reverse of what it should be.
On the post: Max Mosley Says Newspapers Must Alert Famous People Before Writing Stories About Them
Re: Re:
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Pic is wrong
I mean, LOOK at all the things that have been banned lately, and what do those laws do? N O T H I N G! NOTHING FOR SAFETY!
They just piss people off and make it MORE CLEAR that 'laws' are not 'laws' all the time..... basically, that some laws you SHOULD ignore.
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re:
On the post: US Customs & Border Patrol Protecting America From Chocolate Toy Eggs (And Charging You For The Privilege)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wonder Ball
On the post: Does It Violate The Law To Fire Someone For Their Facebook Comments?
Re: "At will"
Employment 'at will' allows businesses to treat their employees like SLAVES and terrify them into not asking for things like better wages, better insurance, etc.
On the post: Does It Violate The Law To Fire Someone For Their Facebook Comments?
Re:
Next >>