Five minutes of hate news

Sobek

Disgusting Scalie
While politicians make big speeches about the dangers of misinformation, how Telegram is fueling the alt-right and websites that call out progressive media are evil, remember that the chinese spyware app is allowed to pretty much get away with simply broadcasting softcore child porn and no one care.

 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
they will be dead of old age when that happens it will be their children and grandchildren who suffer for their actions.

I dunno, the elites seem way too invested in the whole “accelerationism” thing for the countdown to take that long. Again, I doubt it’ll all come crashing down in a few more years, but seeing as the younger cohorts of today’s Woke should at least make it to mid-century before dying of old age… well, the fact I expect the wars to start roaring to life by then doesn’t bode well for them.

The Bushes and the Clintons may be gone by then, but college-aged Bernie Bros who set Portland ablaze with their local Antifa chapter on the weekends? Yeah, lots of those guys will still be around, though considering the kinds of proscriptions and revenge politics that’ll abound by then, odds are they’ll have targets on their backs, as well. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Hmm. This is a thorny one to me. If Project Veritas violated wiretapping laws*, I can see a legit reason for damages there. Wiretapping laws exist for a reason and this is one of those "It will be abused by the next administration" situations. Privacy-protecting rights against unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant is a right I feel should not be infringed, regardless of motives.

I'm aware these rights are infringed frequently but I stand by the principle of the thing. It is wrong no matter who does it. If Project Veritas are allowed to infringe them and this legal precedent is established how much more easily will the CIA or FBI do so?

*I have not examined this case and have no knowledge of it. I'm entirely going off the statement that the jury said they infringed.
 

Skitzyfrenic

Well-known member
Well, how 'public' it is matters. Like if you're on the street, pretty sure that you can record anyone.

If you're in a booth at a bar? That's a reasonable amount of privacy by law in some places.

Simply being outside of your home or a bathroom isn't 'public.'

Two-party consent is a pretty common legal requirement for anything less than literally outside and in full view of everyone.

Edit: Warrants and Police/Federal Agent reasons for why they get to skirt that law. blah blah blah.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
Hmm. This is a thorny one to me. If Project Veritas violated wiretapping laws*
According to the ruling, they didn't violate the law because they were a part of the conversation.
They were just ordered to compensate the people they recorded for their lost revenue.

as for govt abusing the ability to record... historically govts abuse anti recording laws way more.
Two-party consent is a pretty common legal requirement for anything less than literally outside and in full view of everyone.
two party consent for recording is also pretty retarded and exists solely to make whistle blowing illegal
 
Last edited:

Jormungandr

The Midgard Wyrm
Founder
According to the ruling, they didn't violate the law because they were a part of the conversation.
They were just ordered to compensate the people the wiretapped for their lost revenue.

as for govt abusing the ability to record... historically govts abuse anti recording laws way more.

two party consent for recording is also pretty retarded and exists solely to make whistle blowing illegal
It also has the (unintended?) side-effect of having certain pieces of evidence (such as phones recording in pockets, et cetera) become inadmissible in court despite actually helping or even exonerating a defendant.

In cases where such a thing would be critical e.g. rape claims (more like false rape claims), burglaries where the thieving bastards got shot in self-defence, or where someone admits to coercion, they're dismissed because the perpetrator of the crime doesn't know they're being recorded. facepalm

Well, no shit! Do people really think they'd say this in front of a camera or recording device if they'd have known about it? That's like they're signing a fucking confession!

...Er, unless you're a dumbass social-media addict that uploads their crimes to Facebook or YouTube, but those people are so fucking stupid I'm surprised they haven't forgotten to breathe.
 
Last edited:

mrttao

Well-known member
btw we kept on saying wiretapping. but... clearly this isn't wiretapping but just a recording.

wiretapping is when you tap a line of communication to record all conversations that go through it (traditionally a literal wire. less so in modern day)
recording != wiretapping.

Of course the corrupt courts and laws don't care much for accuracy
 

Zyobot

Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
btw we kept on saying wiretapping. but... clearly this isn't wiretapping but just a recording.

wiretapping is when you tap a line of communication to record all conversations that go through it (traditionally a literal wire. less so in modern day)
recording != wiretapping.

Of course the corrupt courts and laws don't care much for accuracy

As I’ve said before: take your lawyers’ advice with a grain of salt, whenever DC displays “interest” in your case.

They may be qualified to brief you on the mechanics of the law and justice system, but in practice, the Establishment has few qualms about rigging, ignoring, and brute-forcing the courts into favoring them while screwing you. They’ll double down on the “brute-forcing” and “screwing you” over time, I fear.
 

Circle of Willis

Well-known member
The FBI can't arrest anyone or conduct even a half-assed investigation into Jane's Revenge for burning down or otherwise vandalizing scores of churches & pregnancy centers around the country, but they absolutely can send a team to forcefully arrest an unarmed pro-life activist at his home for shoving some asshole who kept invading his kid's personal space and spewing profanities at said child months ago - an incident which had already been addressed & thrown out of court when the 'victim' tried to sue him previously. Complete with drawing rifles on him and his wife, scaring the bejeezus out of his children, and even threatening to arrest him without a warrant (which it turns out they actually had, but initially didn't want to take even the most minimal effort to show him because ??? until his wife pointed out that without a warrant, what they're doing amounts to armed kidnapping).

I can't think of any words in the languages I know to describe the absolute contempt I have for the agency at this point.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
The FBI can't arrest anyone or conduct even a half-assed investigation into Jane's Revenge for burning down or otherwise vandalizing scores of churches & pregnancy centers around the country, but they absolutely can send a team to forcefully arrest an unarmed pro-life activist at his home for shoving some asshole who kept invading his kid's personal space and spewing profanities at said child months ago - an incident which had already been addressed & thrown out of court when the 'victim' tried to sue him previously. Complete with drawing rifles on him and his wife, scaring the bejeezus out of his children, and even threatening to arrest him without a warrant (which it turns out they actually had, but initially didn't want to take even the most minimal effort to show him because ??? until his wife pointed out that without a warrant, what they're doing amounts to armed kidnapping).

I can't think of any words in the languages I know to describe the absolute contempt I have for the agency at this point.

we honestly need to just scrap the entire thing and fire the entire lot.

Its that bad.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top