DC Inauguration Protestors Are Being Hit With Facebook Data Searches (citylab.com) 341
During the protests over the inauguration of Donald Trump, more than 230 protestors were arrested -- many of which were charged with rioting and had their phones seized by Washington, D.C., police. One of the individuals who was arrested received an email from Facebook's "Law Enforcement Response Team," which raises the question: Did D.C. police ask Facebook to reveal information about this arrestee? CityLab reports: In an emailed response to CityLab's request for more information, Rachel Reid, a spokesperson for the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, responded that "MPD does not comment on investigative tactics." The District of Columbia United States Attorney's Office -- the agency leading the prosecution of Inauguration protesters -- has not yet responded to CityLab's inquiry. CityLab also asked Facebook about the email. "We don't comment on individual requests," company spokesperson Jay Nancarrow said. He referred CityLab to the site's law enforcement guidelines page and to its Government Requests Report database, where the public can see how many legal processes it receives from countries worldwide. According to this database, U.S. law enforcement requested information on the accounts of 38,951 users over January to June of 2016, and they received some type of data in 80 percent of cases. Which "legal process" authorities sent to Facebook for information on the protester matters considerably in terms of how much data they can seize for investigation. According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es)."
"...which begs the question..." (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
questioning is now begging... i think you are just supposed to take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, two "begs the question" summaries in two days. We did better this time [slashdot.org], though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"Begging the question" just doesn't mean what it used to mean any more.
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly, and most people don't even know the correct meaning. But enough people get annoyed by incorrect usage, that it is best to just avoid the phrase entirely in your own speaking or writing.
Use "raise the question" if that is what you mean.
Use "circular reasoning" if that is what you mean.
Or, if you really want to look pretentious, use "assuming the antecedent".
Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score:4, Interesting)
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly...
Unlike, for instance, French (a "dead language spoken by millions"), which has a rule-making body with the force of law that can fine you (in some jurisdictions) for saying "hamburger" in an otherwise French sentence, American English is a living language.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
It is also a Germanic language, not a Romance language.
It's similar to the prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition (which is a rule from Latin which academics keep trying to impose on English speakers, though the grammatical form always was legitimate in English and other Germanic languages). "Begging the Question" began as a mistranslation of a Latin phrase (attributed to Aristotle) that was incorporated as a technical term (for a particular logical fallacy) into a specialized academic vocabulary. But the phrase has ALSO come to be used for other things (which actually match the string of words more closely).
Some academics claim their subculture's first use makes it the only "correct" meaning of the phrase. But like other words and phrases in English, the common usage defines the (set of) "correct" meaning(s).
Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score:5, Insightful)
No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses. Ditto "begging the question".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses. Ditto "begging the question".
While I absolutely agree with you that educated speakers/writers need to simply avoid "begging the question," I also absolutely disagree with you about your use of the word "wrong" here.
Language is about communication of meaning. It's not a "game" where you get to "win" if you check off enough of the "rules." I'm not sure there is ANY English speaker out there familiar with the phrase "begging the question" who is unfamiliar with its meaning to "raise the question," and generally it's clear from context
Re: (Score:3)
I stand by my assessment. This usage is wrong.
Like it or not, right or wrong, people judge you by how you write and speak (and look). If you have good ideas and want them to be heard, the very last thing you should do is hinder that effort by allowing yourself to sound (or look) like an uneducated moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never heard it used that way. You're making shit up again.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer taking it as the original meaning no matter how absurd.
Re:"...which begs the question..." (Score:5, Insightful)
.That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
Yes, and it's also dumbing down the language to the level of the ignorant. And it causes confusion when the listener assumes original usage. I do not believe either a good thing.
Other examples of words and idioms often used to mean something different from the original:
- Literally. Factually. An antonym of figuratively, and not a synonym.
- Evacuate. A synonym for empty. You empty/evacuate buildings and areas of people; you seldom empty the people.
- Push the envelope: Stretch the limits, not pass the buck.
- Peruse: Going over something in detail, not skim over it lightly.
- Nauseous: Noxious. His socks were nauseous, and she became nauseated.
- Noisome. Related to nauseous; it means smelly, not noisy.
- Proscribe: Forbid, not recommend.
- Ultimate: Last, not greatest. Ultimate position is the opposite of pole position.
- Nonplussed: Dumbstruck and fazed, not unimpressed and unfazed. Only Americans seem to use this one contrary to original usage.
- Comprise: A synonym for contain and not consist. "Comprised of" is almost always wrong. USA comprises 50 states; it is not comprised of 50 states.
If there can be any doubt whether all your readers have switched over to the "new meaning", don't use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nauseous has 2 meanings, queasy and nauseating. For clarity's sake, use nauseating in preference to nauseous when appropriate.
Ultimate: final, farthest, extreme, fundamental, essential, beyond which there is no other. In the context of progress, ultimate may not only be greatest, but the greatest possible
Comprise: To consist of or take in; contain; include; embrace. [Funk & Wagnalls]. I'm still a bit confused on proper usage.
Thanks for peruse and nonplussed; you've enhanced my knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this apply to everything? Like if the bulk of people think the moon is made of cheese?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
English is as much a Nordic and Romance language as it is a Germanic one
In what context? We have very many Romance *words*. The grammar is very much more in the Germanic mould, no matter what a bunch of uptight, stuck up Victorians (and people who inxplicably hold them in very high regard) seem to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree. I avoid "begging the question" in my writing, along with similar phrases like "could care less".
Re: (Score:2)
What is the problem?.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A number of crimes (including violent [reuters.com] ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
Re: (Score:2)
They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
They are using social media to connect these people to others. If you are "friends" with one of these people, you are likely okay. If you are connected to two or more, you are likely going onto a watchlist. I suggest getting a Trump/Pence bumper sticker just to be safe.
Re: (Score:2)
People are committing preplanned crimes while logged into Facebook. It's not newsworthy, but it is pretty outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
A number of crimes (including violent [reuters.com] ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case. How would you feel after getting arrested for DUI if law enforcement searched through you entire house, your office, your vacation cabin, and your parents house, just because you happen to have a set of keys on you? If private data is irrelevant to the crime, then it's fucking irrelevant, and pri
Re: (Score:2)
Bzzz, wrong. Tens (perhaps even hundreds) of thousands were protesting. Two hundred were arrested.
I'd feel crappy about DUI...
Ah, but it is relevant! For example, did these people start to riot spontaneously, or were some of them part of conspiracy? And, in the latter case, who else was part of the same conspiracy — even i
Re: (Score:2)
Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case. ... The root of the issue is the bullshit justification that a search warrant of this kind was even authorized.
What's that got to do with finding evidence for intent and/or conspiracy? Both are legitimate pieces of evidence to search for, in a place that is legitimate to search with a warrant, and
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Soros doesn't fund organizations that organize and encourage people to drink and drive, so your DUI isn't feeding a RICO case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A disgusting stand...
False. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary protesters did not riot. A tiny minority did, of whom an even tinier minority got arrested and are being investigated — for the rioting. Again, they aren't being investigated for being protesters — ordinary or otherwise — they are accused (credibly) of rioting. So, you posted an untruth, which you kne
Re:What is the problem?.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike in certain 2nd and 3rd-world countries, where police could (indeed, are) used by the powerful not to fight real crimes, but to suppress political opposition, this is rarely the case in the US in general, and certainly not the case in TFA.
Thus the negative connotations of the verb "rat" are misplaced.
Not just Facebook — if you are planning to burn a bystander's car, or smash a store-front, or throw a brick at someone, the very Earth should burn under your feet and the Internet too should reject you. Such folks are neither "brave" nor are they "heroes" — they are scumbags abusing the liberties this country affords political protesters.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike in certain 2nd and 3rd-world countries, where police could (indeed, are) used by the powerful not to fight real crimes, but to suppress political opposition, this is rarely the case in the US in general, and certainly not the case in TFA.
Ah, but I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that, and compare our law enforcement to first world countries.
Re:What is the problem?.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I may... the news here is that committing a crime and being arrested for it (might) mean law enforcement get to see every last thing you've ever posted to the Internet, even if you thought those posts were vaguely private and beyond the reach of the likes of a google search. Many of us already knew this, but the point is being made clearly and explicitly here.
I can understand the dislike of the criminals in protests, but I'm amazed at the partisan vitriol in most of the modded up comments. It seems that if you're a /.er, you must have huge disdain for criminals who attended a protest against a very controversial (and currently unpopular) president. In order to show how much you dislike said criminals, you must entirely support law enforcement, no matter how invasive they are. You're allowed to voice your dislike of law enforcement's methods and the general loss of privacy the modern age brings in other threads, but not this one.
"Throwing the book at the criminals" seems reasonable enough, but let's leave all their friends, relatives and random acquaintances that they've ever had out if it, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
The news is that Facebook rats you out. So don't use Facebook if you don't want its database wielded against you.
Before you get too smug, think how far this can go - your phone, without Facebook, collects your location constantly, should that be available to any policeman that wants to look? What about all your email history? All the calls you've made? We've already placed limits on what's reasonable to be used by law enforcement, Facebook is just another thing that we will have to make decisions about because it's *not just Facebook*, it's every piece of technology that you interact with that stores personal informat
Re: (Score:2)
These are organized gangs that went to the inauguration with the intent to commit violence. They deserve to be investigated as such.
If if was a fifth (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the reason of that is the opacity with which government treats these things. That makes it hard as hell to be an informed populace and fight overreach. It is also something Obama promised and never delivered, he in fact often did the opposite. This is not a partisan statement, as I have nothing but disdain for or current administration and tend to lean pretty damn liberal. I mention it as a point of fact that few, if any of those in power have your or my interest at heart, regardless of the populist messages they spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what they find in those Facebook postings. Want to bet that I could easily find something to make your life very interesting and busy for the foreseeable future given your social media contents?
Re: (Score:2)
If these were legitimately violent protesters being arrested..for violence..then by all means search.
Wrong.
You should be authorized to search data if and only if it is deemed relevant to the crime. Why people were protesting isn't some kind of fucking mystery to solve, so spare me the lame excuses of justifying a search warrant to dissect the last decade of personal data for someone who was pissed about who got sworn in two weeks ago.
If you got arrested for DUI (cause and effect is rather obvious), the police don't have an automatic right to search your house, your office, your garage, and your vacation h
Re: (Score:2)
The legal standard to get a search warrant is called probable cause. In particular, the officer requesting the search warrant must demonstrate (to the judge or magistrate who signs the warrant) that facts and circumstances known to the officer give a reasonable person a basis to believe that a crime was committed there or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
In this case, the police probably made the (no-brainer) argument that mobs of Black Bloc rioters do not spontaneously condense out of the a
Re: (Score:2)
Stop (Score:3)
Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly, you clowns.
Further:
According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es).
What's the problem, exactly? One arrested individual is making this claim. Facebook says they do so with a court order, subpoena, or actual warrant. You need an actual warrant to get most info.
Now if you had evidence that Facebook was turning over tons of data on anyone who was simply at the protests without a warrant/subpoena/order, then we'd have a story.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly, you clowns.
Further:
According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es).
What's the problem, exactly? One arrested individual is making this claim. Facebook says they do so with a court order, subpoena, or actual warrant. You need an actual warrant to get most info.
The issue is not Facebook responding to a search warrant, because you don't just need a warrant. You need an valid fucking reason to justify one, and I'm not seeing how rioting one night somehow justifies digging through the last decade of someone's online personal life.
THAT is the "problem" here. And before you argue this, imagine this kind of bullshit overreach if you were arrested for shoplifting with a set of house keys on you. Think that automatically gives law enforcement the right to search your e
Re: (Score:3)
You don't see how violent rioting in response to an election is cause for the government to look into someone's background?
Somehow, I bet you support mandatory background checks for buying firearms even for people with no history of violence or crime.
This is good news (Score:4, Informative)
If every single marketing drone in corporate America with the right subscription can mine all this data to sell us useless plastic trinkets that we don't need, then why not let the police mine it to solve crimes that were committed during a large public gathering?
No one is saying they are going after the innocent granny holding a "i would have rather had Hillary" placard but if she happened to share a photo of some anarchists destroying property that can help the police identify them, then hell yes the police should be searching it so long as they had probable cause and got a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Been tracked online is not news (Score:4, Insightful)
Expect all that networking to be collected by some agency and later passed to law enforcement.
A US social media brand offering services in the USA has to respond when asked by courts in the USA.
If you want to protest having a device that broadcasts unique data about yourself is not going to go unnoticed by a long list of agencies given the day and event.
Know that all and any public comments on social media are been tracked. Friends of friends joining or showing support for local events and will be connected back by 2 or 3 hops of friends.
In the USA you have freedom of speech, freedom after speech. People can peaceably to assemble and petition the Government.
The protection of been compelled to be a witness is well understood. Any device found may not always enjoy the classic unreasonable searches and seizures protection.
Older cell phone would have unique International Mobile Equipment Identity as part of the device and would often be opened and noted by police as part of a battery protection offer. The request to avoid battery leakage would then allow that IMEI number to be matched over vast US wide call logs.
Modern devices might just work when police turn them on and show apps used.
Any account mentioned or found on the "net" to be public facing can be found or a court request made for more information.
Given the long history of tracking protests online in other nations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "1986, French university students coordinated a national strike using Minitel, demonstrating an early use of digital communication devices for participatory technopolitical ends" expect the same tracking in 2016/17 globally. Police around the world have been tracking people online for decades. Once something is public on line, expect all connections to that account to be tracked back for many hops.
Re:Been tracked online is not news (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with everything you said. But understand in this case we're talking about warrants issued for people who were arrested for rioting, not protesting. There were hundreds of thousands or even millions if you count the nationwide pussy march thing who peaceful protested, chanted, waved signs, etc. There were about 200 rioters who assaulted people, smashed property, torched cars, beat the hell out of a trash bin (???). These are crimes, and you don't have a right to do these things. And since it seems these people were identically dressed and coordinated their actions. An investigation into organized violence is completely reasonable.
This is my surprised face (Score:3)
It's not right, but you still have to expect this crap.
That's why the masks are a good idea.
You can do face paint instead, with patterns designed to fool face recognition systems, and that's less suspicious-looking than a mask — if only slightly. But it's a hell of a lot harder to take off, and go back to looking normal.
Re:This is my surprised face (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why the masks are a good idea.
They wore masks for the rioting. This is an investigation into the few hundred people who were arrested for assault, vandalism, destruction of property, etc. Nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who peacefully waved signs, marched and chanted.
Investigative Tactics (Score:2)
I continue to be outraged at how MPD treats protesters. The phrase "no comment on investigative tactics" says a lot: Our government is using "tactics" against citizens. This is all leading somewhere tragic and dark.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Re: (Score:2)
also why would this even matter... its public data...
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Well, actually it can be a "protesting" tactic.
But being an "act of protest" doesn't make it any less a violent criminal act, or any less subject to prosecution and criminal sanctions.
It also doesn't make planning to do it in a group any less a felonious conspiracy.
= = = =
I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
It could also be the false flag operation. Police used fake protestors at Vietnam War protests to provoke violence and discredit the real protestors. I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support. When Trumpsters see these people rioting, looting, and waving Mexican flags, they feel their intolerance and xenophobia is even more justified.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support.
Funny, I saw the protesters as doing exactly what they said they'd do all along: act like a bunch of spoiled babies who didn't get their way and are now throwing a tantrum. They don't rationalize. They don't listen. They don't engage cognitive thinking skills. They distill it down to "you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover and I'm completely justified in doing whatever my emotions lead me to do and you can't criticize me because criticism is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc."
It's the logical endpoint of the "there is no truth and right/wrong is an illusion" ideology.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't listen.
Seriously? Listen to what? You have a press secretary that doesn't respond to questioning, that spouts obvious bullshit about trivia, making anything he says about anything extremely untrustworthy. You want people to not assume the worst, you need to command trust.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.
Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".
Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:
1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.
2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night
3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before
4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.
5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets
If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.
Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see any actual evidence of that, unless you count pure conjecture by The Young Turks & co.
Meanwhile, I have seen a fair bit of evidence that someone employed by Berkley appears to have admitting to assaulting someone who was unconscious on Twitter, complete with pics of the guy. I suppose that person could've taken a picture of an unconscious person and claimed to have punched them for fun on Twitter without actually doing it, but that sounds even dumber.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Your assertion is at the two year old level: no facts, no logic, just babbling.
Normally the person asserting a claim is supposed to provide the proof. I note that you provided no evidence of a "false flag" and instead pointed out that there are tons of people who hate Trump, lending credence to the idea that some minority thereof might be angry enough to injure someone they believe supports him. You neatly fashion that into some kind of strawman, making claims I did not.
As for the other part about the Berkley employee, I'm perfectly capable of linking it and it's easy to find by searching, but I'll just hold off on naming names until I see a proper police report.
That said, you remember that plot to attack the Deploreaball that PV exposed that certain people were claiming was some kind of sting operation? There have been actual arrests [nbcwashington.com] as a result of that one. If you go back to the actual video, they were planning to put butyric acid in the ventilation systems as well, something NBC did not mention.
Or did you mean the part about the Young Turks (the original ones [wikipedia.org]) throwing the Armenians out of their homes and leaving them to die? Pretty much only Turkey still denies that, for political reasons. Definitely not a group I'd want to name myself after.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. What he's done as Pres has nothing to do with it. They came in feeling and screaming their alienation from the moment he was selected nominee and haven't abated since. If he had instead done other things these last two weeks, they would have *still* felt alienated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"However," replied the universe, ""The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."
On what grounds? As far as I'm aware, there is no constitutional provision which allows for "impeaching the president because I don't like how he behaves on twitter."
In other words - until and unless you can cite a valid legal standing for impeaching him, a poll of this natu
Are you advocating terrorism? (Score:3)
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or so
Re: (Score:3)
I am not making any apology for the left or the protesters. Don't read this that way. I think they are viscous mob opposed to the values that built this nation and make it the greatest on earth.
You have to understand their mindset though, they don't care about opinions and thinking. I and likely you see individualism as being about to explore your own ideas, do you own thing to the extent it allows you to earn a living and lawfully procure the food and shelter you require. You and I probably don't care
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes sense when you have the "problem" in civilized countries that you cannot forcefully end a peaceful protest without looking like the bad guy. Or maybe you can't do it at all because people actually have a right to assemble and protest peacefully.
But if all you need is some to start rioting to get rid of the problem...
Re: (Score:3)
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Actually, it depends on if the targets of destruction are incidental or purposefully selected. If they are incidental then it's a riot. However, if there is a reason behind their choice of targets, it's a violent protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it is.
http://www.pbs.org/ktca/libert... [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And their goal was picking a fight. Which happened.
Not all are guilty (Score:2)
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Agreed. But not all of the people who were arrested were doing those things. Some got arrested for things like turning the corner at the wrong time and finding a riot in front of them. You would need more information about the particular facts in the case to know whether the law enforcement request made sense. Most do; some don't. If they try to charge the person with a crime or if the person decides to sue them, then the person gets to find out more and challenge it in court. That's not perfect, but it's s
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Until they start, they are _all_ asshole fascists.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:4, Funny)
Protesters should just arrest Black Bloc assholes.
"You're a protester, you're under arrest!"
"I'm a vigilante, I'm arresting YOU."
"I protest you arresting me. Therefore I am a vigilante, too."
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, be careful there, you could get arrested for attacking police officers...
Re: (Score:2)
How does your neck feel from holding up such a huge fedora? You must be a real blast when people are having a light conversation until someone makes a grammatical error and you start foaming at the mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Beg The Question - Metapost (Score:3)
"Beg the Question" has one colloquial meaning that is wrong but 80-90% of people believe is correct and one actual meaning that is right but that 90-95% of people don't understand. As a practical result, you should never use "beg the question" in a sentence, except perhaps with a particularly intellectual friend.
Instead, use "raises the question" (the colloquial meaning) or "contains circular reasoning" (the actual meaning).
Posted without Karma bonus due to metapost.
Re: Beg the question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. It begs the question, "Where was the original post?"
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
just because people object to Trump using overreaching laws, doesn't mean that they supported Obama - or more particularly Obama's signing of the enabling law. And even if they did, changing your mind about the proper scope of presidental powers as you see them used, or on any other political issue, being met with derision, "told you so" or "our turn now that we won, ha ha" is the opposite of helpful. It's just being an ass Also, the way you wrote that implies you are okay with Trump using this law, so you may want to be aware of that.
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that it was partisanship. It could simply have been knowledge of the law being passed (use often gets more media coverage), misunderstanding of what the law allowed, or simply a lack of imagination (assuming it would be used for more standard criminal matters).
And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage. That was a anti-liberal smear put forth by an AC who is backing it because Trump is doing it. There's nothing in evidence that suggests that people
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So now under Trump... protesting is illegal.
Hey look! Fake News from the Snowflake News Network.
Please explain, specifically, how you come to this conclusion. Or are you in the "arson is just protest" school of thought? You are? Great. Thanks for demonstrating (so to speak) exactly why liberals have been losing state legislative seats and governorships for the last six years, along with both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Please continue with your way of thinking in advance of the next legislative elections, so this t
Re: So now under Trump... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for demonstrating (so to speak) exactly why liberals have been losing state legislative seats and governorships for the last six years, along with both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Please continue with your way of thinking in advance of the next legislative elections, so this trend can continue.
Gerrymandering, electorate manipulation through mechanisms such as Voter ID, DMV closures, and polling site elimination, along with lying to the public and refusing to do their sworn duty out of a partisan lie they can't even openly take responsibility for, but have to blame on others? That's right, not only could they not muster up the courage to reject Merrick Garland, however transparently, they couldn't even take responsibility for it.
There's a reason why the new elections were ordered in North Carolin
Re: (Score:2)
Like Obama and his cabinet? Particularly his Attorneys General, who refused to prosecute anyone who was black.
Re: (Score:2)
Like Obama and his cabinet? Particularly his Attorneys General, who refused to prosecute anyone who was black.
Well, if you don't like reality, make up alterntive facts as they're now called. Everyone else still knows them as "lies", however. Out of interest are you holding a vigil for the Bowling Green Massacre?
Re: (Score:3)
Are they? Then why keep looking for "evidence"? The whole shit reeks of the school of Cardinal Richelieu and his famous "Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him."
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Informative)
protesting is illegal.
No, but rioting is. You know - burning cars, hurting people, damaging property. Just like it was under Obama and every other president we've had. Protesting and rioting are not the same thing, obviously.
Protest Definition [merriam-webster.com] != Riot Definition [merriam-webster.com]
Re:So now under Trump... (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how, if we're all a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, neo-nazi, fascist, greedy, evil, violent, intolerant bastards like you say we are, we didn't riot, burn shit, threaten to blow up the White House, dress up like vaginas, scream, whine, cry, bitch, moan, and boycott everything when Obama was elected (twice!). I mean, it's not like we AGREED with Obama's policies in the slightest, certainly no more so than you agree with Trump. Yet somehow the only time you see this behavior is when liberals lose. Conservatives...not so much.
It reminds me of the argument that gun owners are some sort of threat to the general public. We've got more than 300 million guns and several trillion rounds of ammunition. Trust us, if we were a threat, you'd know it by now.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't undermine the democratic process to get Trump elected. They undermined it to weaken the position of whoever was elected. Since Trump was elected, his position is weakened by the apparent support of Russia. If Hillary had been elected her position would have been weakened by the information released.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, racism is on the decline, ain't that great? I mean, think about it, of the last three presidents, only the black one has never been compared to some sort of monkey.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that case the American Revolutionary War didn't happen. So when you've finished sucking Donald's cock remind him to drop the keys off when he flies over to visit Her Majesty.
Re: (Score:2)
If the leftist babies really want to go to war over this they would get their asses handed to them. There are between 400 and 600 million civilian owned weapons in the US, primarily owned by red staters, with the majority of the military coming from the same stock.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, you are absolutely right that you usually don't see Conservatives doing this. Instead, you just all pile into your little places of worship and pray that hell-fire and brimstone will fall from the sky, kill all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan and damn them to hell for all eternity until time itself stops.
The vast majority of Theist I know would denounce the sinfull actions, while praying for the immortal souls of the sinners to find salvation and avoid the coming hell-fire and brimstone and damnation to hell for all eternity.
The truth is once you separate out the rabid noisy radical elements, both Theist and Atheists tend to be moderate and excepting people.
Re: (Score:3)
No evidence of such prayers being made was offered. But, even if they were — they are just that, prayers. Words.
Most people would have noticed that key point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)