Security by obscurity gives way to security by terrorization, as bad ideas go.
But when they can prosecute people for releasing public records, and governments refuse to officially recognize records released that way, does it really matter that records were released?
Texas law does not distinguish police from private citizens when it comes to criminal trespassing. Having a warrant makes it legal, but the homeowner has no official knowledge of the warrant until it is served… and they didn’t serve it.
He was never served with a warrant. Absent being served with a warrant, they were trespassing and under the laws of the state of Texas, he had a right to use the necessary force to remove them from his property. The fact that they were uniformed police officers is legally irrelevant under Texas law.
There’s also the fact that enforcing a state law that conflicts with the US Constitution does not provide any shield whatsoever from being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished for violating federal law.
Since a citizen’s arrest for a felony is lawful in New Hampshire and a federal citizen’s arrest is lawful anywhere a state citizen’s arrest is, Shupe and his co-conspirators could be arrested, not merely sued, over this one.
Last I checked, gag orders were only (barely) constitutional because they are limited in time, limited in scope, and can be challenged in court.
If they can be extended indefinitely by ex parte proceedings, and the court simply ignores attempts to challenge one, then they lose whatever constitutionality they ever had.
What’s the penalty for ignoring an order a court has no authority to make in a court proceeding you aren’t a party to?
And isn’t it odd how the people who INSIST they have a right to spout bullshit that would make even the KIK turn white as… ahem… in the living rooms of others, equally INSIST that opinions they disagree with cannot be spouted in their own living rooms?
Under the Schenck decision, it became illegal to speak out against any official government policy, to the point that even running for public office, even congressional or presidential office, on a platform of changing policy could see you prosecuted and imprisoned.
It truly was THAT bad a ruling.
That is so far from how things are supposed to work, it’s not hyperbole to say that it is the complete opposite of what the US Constitution in general, and the First amendment specifically, are supposed to be for!
Re: 'Next up an assault charge for forcing me to beat them...'
That has already happened - people have been arrested and charged with battery of an officer for the officer’s knuckles being bruised by their faces.
But it works both ways - or would if prosecutors didn’t protect police from consequence so often. Deprivation of rights under color of law while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony. Two or more officers conspiring to do it is a felony even if both are unarmed. If anyone dies as a result of a cop violating rights, ALL cops present at the time are guilty of felony murder.
Sued? The school board are public officials who conspired, under color of law, to deprive their students of a statutory right in the form of that federal privacy law.
Every student’s parents ought to file a criminal complaint with the FBI for that federal felony the board confessed to in their civil court filing - one felony count per student’s rights violated, and because it’s a conspiracy, ALL board members are equally guilty of all charges.
Furthermore, by violating that privacy law, the board technically committed the same crime Edward Snowden did - unlawful release of confidential documents in a manner that exposed their contents to agents of hostile foreign nations. But unlike Snowden, the members of the board aren’t whistleblowers.
If it’s Cloudflare, it wouldn’t be binding on the dress company because they are not a Cloudflare customer. If it’s the dress company, Cloudflare isn’t their customer either.
Re: 'They're using what they paid for, that's not fair!'
This. Netflix and others aren’t getting their connection to the internet for free. They’re paying telecom customers just like the rest of us. Their plans skew more towards fast uploads and slower downloads than our plans do, but they pay for every bit per second they use.
Why should they have to pay extra, on top of the king’s ransom they are already paying, in order to actually use what they are already paying for?
On the post: Transparency Activists Dump 1.8 Terabytes Of Police Helicopter Surveillance Footage
Re:
Security by obscurity gives way to security by terrorization, as bad ideas go.
But when they can prosecute people for releasing public records, and governments refuse to officially recognize records released that way, does it really matter that records were released?
On the post: Transparency Activists Dump 1.8 Terabytes Of Police Helicopter Surveillance Footage
Re: Re:
That’s also why they don’t fear being sued.
On the post: Transparency Activists Dump 1.8 Terabytes Of Police Helicopter Surveillance Footage
Re: No worries, they'll do it for you
More likely, they’d prosecute the hacker fir espionage for releasing public records.
On the post: Transparency Activists Dump 1.8 Terabytes Of Police Helicopter Surveillance Footage
Re: Re: Re: First rule of data transfer?
The point.
.
.
.
Your head.
Whoosh.
On the post: Killing Website Comment Sections Wasn't The Brilliant Move Many Newsroom Leaders Assumed
Re: ironic
This. If modern news is a conversation, there’s no conversation to be had when the news consists of one person in a locked room monologuing.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
Re: Re: Re:
Texas law does not distinguish police from private citizens when it comes to criminal trespassing. Having a warrant makes it legal, but the homeowner has no official knowledge of the warrant until it is served… and they didn’t serve it.
On the post: Austin Homeowners Association Pitches In To Help Cops Kill A Guy Over Uncut Grass
Re:
He was never served with a warrant. Absent being served with a warrant, they were trespassing and under the laws of the state of Texas, he had a right to use the necessary force to remove them from his property. The fact that they were uniformed police officers is legally irrelevant under Texas law.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Appeals Court Strips Immunity For Officers Who Arrested A Journalist For Asking Questions
Re: Re: Re: I hope their stupid prize hurts them personally.
Nope. The point of stripping qualified immunity is so the lawsuit can proceed at all. Qualified immunity has NOTHING to do with who pays.
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Seem To Like Much About A Criminal Defamation Law Police Used To Arrest A Critic
Re: It's not 'abuse' if it was the intended use
Enforcing a stare law doesn’t save you from prosecution under federal law.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
On the post: Appeals Court Doesn't Seem To Like Much About A Criminal Defamation Law Police Used To Arrest A Critic
Federal crime, too
There’s also the fact that enforcing a state law that conflicts with the US Constitution does not provide any shield whatsoever from being arrested, prosecuted, convicted and punished for violating federal law.
Since a citizen’s arrest for a felony is lawful in New Hampshire and a federal citizen’s arrest is lawful anywhere a state citizen’s arrest is, Shupe and his co-conspirators could be arrested, not merely sued, over this one.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
On the post: California Prosecutors Are Still Trying To Get Signal To Hand Over User Info It Simply Doesn't Possess
Gag order constitutionality
Last I checked, gag orders were only (barely) constitutional because they are limited in time, limited in scope, and can be challenged in court.
If they can be extended indefinitely by ex parte proceedings, and the court simply ignores attempts to challenge one, then they lose whatever constitutionality they ever had.
What’s the penalty for ignoring an order a court has no authority to make in a court proceeding you aren’t a party to?
On the post: Court: Congressional Reps Making Noise About Social Media Moderation Doesn't Make Platforms Extensions Of The Government
Re: Not Meant to Win in the first place
Too bad there isn’t an anti-SLAPP law for these frivolous lawsuits.
On the post: Court: Congressional Reps Making Noise About Social Media Moderation Doesn't Make Platforms Extensions Of The Government
Re: Re: Re:
WTB edit button, and to know how the heck tapping the K button 3 times resulted in KIK…
On the post: Court: Congressional Reps Making Noise About Social Media Moderation Doesn't Make Platforms Extensions Of The Government
Re: Re:
And isn’t it odd how the people who INSIST they have a right to spout bullshit that would make even the KIK turn white as… ahem… in the living rooms of others, equally INSIST that opinions they disagree with cannot be spouted in their own living rooms?
On the post: Why Falsely Claiming It's Illegal To Shout Fire In A Crowded Theater Distorts Any Conversation About Online Speech
Under the Schenck decision, it became illegal to speak out against any official government policy, to the point that even running for public office, even congressional or presidential office, on a platform of changing policy could see you prosecuted and imprisoned.
It truly was THAT bad a ruling.
That is so far from how things are supposed to work, it’s not hyperbole to say that it is the complete opposite of what the US Constitution in general, and the First amendment specifically, are supposed to be for!
On the post: Judge Dumps Felony Manslaughter Charges Brought Against An Arrestee After A Deputy Ran Over Another Deputy
Re: 'Next up an assault charge for forcing me to beat them...'
That has already happened - people have been arrested and charged with battery of an officer for the officer’s knuckles being bruised by their faces.
But it works both ways - or would if prosecutors didn’t protect police from consequence so often. Deprivation of rights under color of law while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony. Two or more officers conspiring to do it is a felony even if both are unarmed. If anyone dies as a result of a cop violating rights, ALL cops present at the time are guilty of felony murder.
On the post: Virginia School Board Sues FOIA Recipients For Receiving FOIA'ed Documents It Handed To Them
Re:
Sued? The school board are public officials who conspired, under color of law, to deprive their students of a statutory right in the form of that federal privacy law.
Every student’s parents ought to file a criminal complaint with the FBI for that federal felony the board confessed to in their civil court filing - one felony count per student’s rights violated, and because it’s a conspiracy, ALL board members are equally guilty of all charges.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
Furthermore, by violating that privacy law, the board technically committed the same crime Edward Snowden did - unlawful release of confidential documents in a manner that exposed their contents to agents of hostile foreign nations. But unlike Snowden, the members of the board aren’t whistleblowers.
On the post: Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites
Re: Re: Re:
Section 23 of which site’s ToS, exactly?
If it’s Cloudflare, it wouldn’t be binding on the dress company because they are not a Cloudflare customer. If it’s the dress company, Cloudflare isn’t their customer either.
A contract only applies to those who sign it.
On the post: Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option
Re:
And if you can’t RMA without paying a fee, well, that’s what credit card chargebacks are for.
On the post: British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular
Re: 'They're using what they paid for, that's not fair!'
This. Netflix and others aren’t getting their connection to the internet for free. They’re paying telecom customers just like the rest of us. Their plans skew more towards fast uploads and slower downloads than our plans do, but they pay for every bit per second they use.
Why should they have to pay extra, on top of the king’s ransom they are already paying, in order to actually use what they are already paying for?
Next >>