U.S. Politics - knowing me knowing you, a-haaa

[emberling]

I'll have to do some research on that.

If he is saying that gays should be excluded from employment and admission; that is a very different position than protecting religious students' freedom of exp<b></b>ression.

Well, obviously nobody in public office is coming out and saying "Ban gay students." He's saying that the school administrators cannot have a policy that prohibits their admissions/hiring officers from rejecting [people for being LGBT] (and prohibits housing discrimination, discrimination by teachers, etc etc).

If students are prohibited from deviating from some sort of official pro-gay stance it interferes with their rights.

Where is this coming from? Non-discrimination policies have nothing to do with what students can say or believe. They are policies for staff/teachers/etc to abide by, not for students. For instance, a housing official may balk at putting an openly gay student in a room with a presumed-straight one, requiring the gay student to spend extra for a single-person room; a policy would prevent this. If the roommate turns out to be an anti-gay evangelical Christian - there are already methods in place to switch rooms when roommates find that they cannot peacefully coexist. Neither of the students are required to pretend acceptance of the other. The official is the only one who must do so, and only while on the clock.

[TerraPrime]

A religious believer should be able to say the same to a homosexual- without fear of official reprisals.

Let's expand that a bit.

Let's imagine we're at a state-run university. Let's imagine we have a professor who is a Muslim. Let's imagine that he says, in class, that Christians are infidels and need to be either converted to Islam or be exterminated. Free speech protection for this?

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a written letter to the local school paper. Free speech protection for this?

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a letter to a Muslim-oriented newsletter or blog. Free speech protection?

I'd contend that in scenario 1, the person should indeed fear official reprisal because he's violating his role as an instructor hired by the government.

Scenario 2 is a bit borderline. I can see justifiable action taken against him, and I can also see a free speech argument.

Scenario 3 clearly falls under free speech protection, imo.

[Stag Country]

Let's expand that a bit.

Let's imagine we're at a state-run university. Let's imagine we have a professor who is a Muslim. Let's imagine that he says, in class, that Christians are infidels and need to be either converted to Islam or be exterminated. Free speech protection for this?

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a written letter to the local school paper. Free speech protection for this?

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a letter to a Muslim-oriented newsletter or blog. Free speech protection?

I'd contend that in scenario 1, the person should indeed fear official reprisal because he's violating his role as an instructor hired by the government.

Scenario 2 is a bit borderline. I can see justifiable action taken against him, and I can also see a free speech argument.

Scenario 3 clearly falls under free speech protection, imo.

You seem to be confusing the legal right to free speech with an imagined right to say whatever you want and still retain your job with an employer. An employer can and will fire you for bringing an organization into disrepute. You won't, however, face criminal prosecution for it.

In all of the scenarios you present here, the individual can legally say those things without fear of prosecution. I would, however, argue that in all 3 he/she could find his or herself out of a job.

[TerraPrime]

In all of the scenarios you present here, the individual can legally say those things without fear of prosecution. I would, however, argue that in all 3 he/she could find his or herself out of a job.

In #1, he really cannot, without violating the standard university policy of creating an inclusive learning environment for all students. It'd be wrong for him to single out the Christians, just as it'd be wrong for a Christianist professor to single out Muslims, or for a black professor to single out white students, etc. Some leeways are granted if it's part of a pedagogical approach, because in some cases learning cannot take place without putting the students in some level of social anxiety. But in general, making a classroom hostile to a student based on his/her traits is not acceptable at public universities. And rightfully so.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Let's imagine we're at a state-run university. Let's imagine we have a professor who is a Muslim. Let's imagine that he says, in class, that Christians are infidels and need to be either converted to Islam or be exterminated. Free speech protection for this?

No. Saying it in the guise of a school representative could amount to an establishment of religion.

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a written letter to the local school paper. Free speech protection for this?

Yes. People have a right to say what they want to.

Let's imagine it's the same guy, saying the same thing, but in a letter to a Muslim-oriented newsletter or blog. Free speech protection?

Yes. People have a right to say what they want to.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Telling people they'll go to Hell if they don't change their ways isn't limited to gays. A religious believer can tell an atheist, an alcoholic, and/or an adulterer that they are Hell-bound. A religious believer should be able to say the same to a homosexual- without fear of official reprisals.True, but in my experience the older white men who form the backbone of the Republican Party are much more likely to get out and vote than the Democrats core constituency.

As long as the person doing the speaking isn't the state or acting in the capacity of an agent thereof. . . .

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

http://benswann.com/christie-spends-4-7m-in-sandy-relief-funds-on-pseudo-campaign-ads-featuring-himself/

Chris Christie spends $4.7 million in Hurricane Sandy relief funds on a commercial starring himself.

[Lightsnake]

Well I have to wonder since its a foreign intelligence gathering operation why we let Johnny Foreigners like Shryke into threads like this, since the thread contains keywords that will get flagged by NSA and since he is from Canada the NSA can spy on all of us in periphery to him.

Way to go Shryke thanks for getting the NSA to spy on us.

Ok thats in jest, but not really. How can anyone see what NSA is saying plus all the shit that comes on on a daily basis and still think this is okay in any way? Seriously this shit is worse than 1984 and we shouldnt stand for it, what about malware that is targeting peoples ID's on encrypted sites, just because they are encrypted and then the data is being reported back to a server whos IP is in Reston VA? Golly gee willikers Beeve I wonder who is on the other end of that server?

http://www.washingto...-fbi-behind-it/

Oh and since Raidne isnt registered for VA yet I'm totally voting a single block of Republicans since she cant offset my vote muaahhahahahaaa.

No not really since Cucinelli is nuttier than a squirrel turd.

I'm not upset despite fearmongering probably because I've read Kurt Eichenwald before this stuff broke, because I know all they have is metadata that they never see unless the person has called or communicated with 'hot' numbers (IE: numbers confirmed to be al-Qaeda or other badguys), and then to know anything further they need to get oversight from the Executive branch and the Judicial Branch.

Spare how 'this is worse than 1984!" And you and Tormund both spare me the "they're spying and listening to all your calls and reading all your emails!"

[Stag Country]

In #1, he really cannot, without violating the standard university policy of creating an inclusive learning environment for all students. It'd be wrong for him to single out the Christians, just as it'd be wrong for a Christianist professor to single out Muslims, or for a black professor to single out white students, etc. Some leeways are granted if it's part of a pedagogical approach, because in some cases learning cannot take place without putting the students in some level of social anxiety. But in general, making a classroom hostile to a student based on his/her traits is not acceptable at public universities. And rightfully so.

Again. He can say it. He will not be prosecuted as a criminal for doing so due to the First Amendment. He can, however, (and likely would) be fired.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Spare how 'this is worse than 1984!" And you and Tormund both spare me the "they're spying and listening to all your calls and reading all your emails!"

Well, I would, but that's actually what they are doing. Maybe not yours specifically today. But as Kouran says, this board is full of NSA trigger-words and topics. This board has persons from every continent. That is sufficient rationale (according to the government) for them to then listen to everything you say and read everything you type. After all you are in constant communications with foreigners.

[Lightsnake]

And that demonstrates an enormous misunderstanding of the program and how it works. No, Tormund, they are not reading your emails or listening to your calls.

Those rules are very specific. The targeting can only be of foreign nationals outside the United States. These are the restrictions:

[The N.S.A.] (1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States; (2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;&#8232; (3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; (4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and&#8232; (5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

They run anonymous metadata through a filter to see who communicated with a hot number, and then have to get further permission from both the executive and the courts to find out anything else. Big Brother that is not.

And if you think the government gives a single fuck about people on a politic subpage of a fantasy book series message board, you vastly overrate their capabilities and interest

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Oh well, if the rules say that then my bad.

I offer a full apology and retract any statement or accusations I have made.

[Shryke]

Well I have to wonder since its a foreign intelligence gathering operation why we let Johnny Foreigners like Shryke into threads like this, since the thread contains keywords that will get flagged by NSA and since he is from Canada the NSA can spy on all of us in periphery to him.

Way to go Shryke thanks for getting the NSA to spy on us.

Ok thats in jest, but not really. How can anyone see what NSA is saying plus all the shit that comes on on a daily basis and still think this is okay in any way? Seriously this shit is worse than 1984 and we shouldnt stand for it, what about malware that is targeting peoples ID's on encrypted sites, just because they are encrypted and then the data is being reported back to a server whos IP is in Reston VA? Golly gee willikers Beeve I wonder who is on the other end of that server?

http://www.washingto...-fbi-behind-it/

I consider the fact that of everyone in this argument, I'm the one most likely to be spied on by the NSA, and 100% uncontestedly legally so, pretty funny honestly.

Also, I can't bring myself to care one iota that the FBI is ripping apart giant child pornography distribution rings. Boo-fucking-hoo.

[Lightsnake]

Oh well, if the rules say that then my bad.

I offer a full apology and retract any statement or accusations I have made.

I'm just curious if this is code for "I have zero evidence what I say is true but the government is evil so I can't believe otherwise" here?

To date, the 'leaks' have shown a perfectly legal program that had already been written about without evidence they've been 'reading your emails and listening to your calls." So really. Spare me the cries of "you're all oppressed and like it" if I don't agree with you on your pet issues and hatred of the government, it's seriously tiresome.

And EDIT: Yeah, I'm with Shryke on the whole "Boo hoo, poor child porn rings" thing here.

[Lightsnake]

It's nice how the security state's watercarriers always selectively quote the newspeak sections of the rulebook while leaving out the important stuff. Yes, the NSA's rules states that they cannot "target" a "U.S. person". However, that same rulebook also says that the NSA can do pretty much whatever the fuck it wants with the foreign communication between a U.S. person and any foreigner, as long as the U.S. person is not specifically identified.

If you're going to quote rules, quote the whole fucking rulebook.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gwzrg4ex8ini2q3/prismblogfixes1.doc

Here is the law and the restrictions. Feel free to point them out. targeting in this system isn't done willy-nilly. It has to go through the attorney-general, the NSA Director to determine if the person is a foreign national whose activities raise a national security concern. Then the courts have to review the determination.

[Inigima]

Also, I can't bring myself to care one iota that the FBI is ripping apart giant child pornography distribution rings. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Fuck you for trotting out this canard. Of course no one is upset that they're busting kiddie porn rings. But that's how it always starts, something no one could possibly object to as a foot in the door, and expanded constantly thereafter. It's constructed slowly, piece by piece, so you won't object to it as it happens. Until one day it's been established practice for years and no one thinks anything of it anymore.

[Inigima]

https://www.dropbox....mblogfixes1.doc

Here is the law and the restrictions. Feel free to point them out. targeting in this system isn't done willy-nilly. It has to go through the attorney-general, the NSA Director to determine if the person is a foreign national whose activities raise a national security concern. Then the courts have to review the determination.

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you suddenly believe that these people do exactly what they're supposed to?

[Lightsnake]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you suddenly believe that these people do exactly what they're supposed to?

If there was something in Ed Snowden's leaks that they were abusing their power, we'd talk. If I see them violating the law on a wide scale and abusing their power, we'll talk. Until then, I need more than supposition.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you suddenly believe that these people do exactly what they're supposed to?

Don't worry dude. They have a copy of the rulebook. It's cool.

[Shryke]

Fuck you for trotting out this canard. Of course no one is upset that they're busting kiddie porn rings. But that's how it always starts, something no one could possibly object to as a foot in the door, and expanded constantly thereafter. It's constructed slowly, piece by piece, so you won't object to it as it happens. Until one day it's been established practice for years and no one thinks anything of it anymore.

No, sorry Inigima, but it's not a fucknig canard. That's exactly what's going on with the FBI and TOR. TOR networks are a haven for child porn and as far as any information we have, they are simply busting the network open and pulling in names of child porno distributers.

Here's a good article:

http://gawker.com/da...rest-1030239391

And another:

http://www.dailydot.com/news/eric-marques-tor-freedom-hosting-child-porn-arrest/

So yeah, no tears here and read up before you throw a fucking hissy fit. This is them busting a guy hosting massive amounts of child porn and grabbing a list of their customers.