This is such a big problem with societal progress - “debates” where one side is some combination of ignorant and ill-intentioned are passed off as “politics as usual” and give credibility to positions that in no way deserve it, and then apathetic and/or malicious parties take that and run with it. It’s so frustrating to see matters like people’s basic right to exist and those of scientific importance given equal footing as hate and ignorance.
Arguably, there is a debate among the general public. There is no debate among those with expertise in the relevant medical and psychiatric fields, and there hasn’t been for about 50 years.
More proof that this court doesn’t automatically make the conservative ruling. While I want several of them gone, they’re not as bad as lemmy makes out.
They’ve completely annihilated bedrock legal principles like standing and precedent (not to mention ethics of any kind or basic standard) but because they didn’t take this case, you’re making the argument that they aren’t “as bad as lemmy makes out”?
dafuq
They didn’t rule against it homie, they just didn’t take this particular case.
i never downvote as a general rule but goddamn i’m being tested here
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here. Not that I'd feel particularly bent out of shape about it if their images WERE revealed because it was pretty fucking easy to not be in that crowd inadvertently.
But we all know that's not why he's doing this. Mike Johnson doesn't believe in privacy or any other rights. He's a true conservative harnessing the apparatus of state to give comfort to his tribe and punish outsiders. He's using power to enforce his preferences and values on others. He's giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States because he approves of the attempt to undermine democracy and execute a fascists takeover of the nation. Because he's a traitor.
The main objective of releasing unblurred images publicly would be to assist with identification and investigation, right? To recruit the larger American audience to help the cops identify people.
Progressives are suddenly VERY enthusiastic to be deputized as cops when it comes to Jan 6.
That was my initial thought, but then I read the article.
DOJ does have that footage. But online sleuths have proven to be an extremely valuable resource in identifying Jan. 6 participants, using the CCTV footage to determine which rioters entered the building and then building a database with the clearest photos of those suspects. They have often used facial recognition for leads and have aided in hundreds of cases against Jan. 6 defendants.
Blurring the footage isn’t the empty gesture I thought it was. All he’s doing is exposing the layout of the building while protecting insurrectionists. Bear in mind that the building was deliberately designed in a confusing way for security purposes.
I'm against doxxing in all of its forms. Privacy's a right and we should protect it, even when it makes it harder to punish the bad guys. So I'm not really mad about the outcome here
I don't know that I'd agree with characterizing this as doxxing; I'd say it's more in line with reporting. Especially considering many of the terrorists involved in this attack are still at large.
You can have privacy in your private residence or at a private business. If you are in a public space you have never, ever had any expectation of privacy. This is as bad an argument as saying social media removing or censoring posts is against the right to freedom of speech.
That's a cop brain argument. Just because you're out "in public" does not give anyone permission to freely do with your personal information, such as images of you, however they so please. Utter horseshit. Your right to privacy in your affairs travels with you, and having a major political official post images of you which people may use to figuratively and literally attack you for political reasons without due process is about as major a violation as I can imagine, ignoring any other factors or details around that release.
You can make an argument that, this being an honest-to-god protest, maybe these people were conducting them in a fully-public way. I'd maybe buy that. But the burden needs to be pretty damn high on that, and so it's not a stupid little fucker like Mike Johnson's authority to make that decision.
Just because (US) law says that it is OK doesn't mean it is OK. Rights have supremacy over law and when the law stands in the way of rights, the law must change, not the rights. I'll remind you that in other places (e.g., Germany), this "out in public" distinction essentially does not exist.
Removing your rights requires due process, period. The (theoretically) proper agencies to follow that due process have the unredacted footage and so they can go through the procedures to release it justly if they feel it is necessary. Mike Johnson does not get to act as the judge, jury, and executioner in a case like this, no matter how much I expect anyone harmed by that act would be human shit.
We'll have no privacy rights at all in the near future if people keep uncritically accepting the arguments the cops make for when and where privacy exists.
Many rioters were identified by people who knew them based on previous footage. Anyone in the videos is already breaking the law, right? There were dozens of people livestreaming this already… I think you make a good point in general, but in this case I’m not sure I agree. There are places and times with an expectation of privacy, but storming your nation’s capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of a democratic election is probably not one
We don't leave it up to a religious fascist like Mike Johnson to chose who does or doesn't have rights. If a proper investigative body wants help identifying individuals, they can go through the proper procedures to release those images to ask the public for help identifying them. Which includes facing proper costs and consequences if any individuals are inappropriately identified by those efforts.
You're doing what the conservative SCOTUS justices always do when deleting our civil rights -- presuming the crime happened exactly as you believe it did then listing how bad it is in order to justify your conclusion that everyone involved should be drawn and quartered. It's an inversion of due process. Due process happens first, removal of rights second. If you have to remove rights first in order to have due process, there was no due process.
If you think it's a good point in general but don't agree in this case, I think you need to think about it a lot longer. Protecting rights is hard and sometimes requires letting some bad guys enjoy undue freedom. Privacy rights are under all-out assault right now and won't exist soon enough unless we follow rigorous, real principles around them.
I respect your position on this. I’m not clamoring for them to release the footage, censored or not. What is the difference between a public space and a private one, though? If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated? Did I have a reasonable expectation of privacy? Is it different because the government recorded it in this case? Are your rights being removed by the government releasing footage of a “protest” or otherwise? I’m not sure I buy that any rights are being infringed here. I also don’t think I share much in common with SCOTUS. Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
Sorry for the litany of question marks, just curious!
If I go to a concert and they record footage and later release it with my face in it, has my privacy been violated?
Yes, they need to get you to sign a release. Disseminating your images, ESPECIALLY for commercial purposes, without your express consent violates your rights.
Let’s say the FBI released the uncensored footage asking for the public’s help in identifying potential criminals – is that different because it’s done attempting to solve a crime?
It would be different if they followed due process -- that is, they followed relevant protocols (such as getting a warrant). Whether the current state of law adequately requires law enforcement agencies to go through this process is a separate but also very important discussion.
You’re right, it does. I guess since various law enforcement agencies already have the footage, they can get away with it… but yeah, since public volunteers helped in so many cases, the end result is the same.
Blurring the faces of the protestors may not break the letter of the law, but it definitely violates the spirit. I’d like to see a skilled legal team make an official complaint.
"We don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” the House speaker said. His office later noted that DOJ already has the raw footage.
So he’s blurring faces the DOJ already have and simply claiming he’s doing it to protect them… the dishonesty runs deep in this “christian.”
The vote was 336-95, with 209 Democrats and 127 Republicans voting to support it. Ninety-three Republicans voted against it, more than voted against the last government funding bill in September; two Democrats opposed it: Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts and Mike Quigley of Illinois.
Johnson's so-called laddered continuing resolution, or CR, would fund part of the government — including the Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs departments — through Jan. 19 and fund the Defense Department and other remaining parts of the government through Feb. 2.
Part of me wishes that Dems would squeeze him harder for more concessions. The other part can't wait to see him get tossed by the MAGA.
Clearly you do not understand what am infected anal polyp of a human this man is. He’s going to try and hurt anyone who tried to hold him accountable in any way he can.
Moderates don’t want the shit job, when there’s a daycare pen full of toddlers ready to cry and whine about making compromises, in fucking Congress of all places.
Freedom caucus fuckheads won’t get enough votes from moderates.
I can’t wait until they accidentally vote in Jeffries.
That is currently Russia’s overarching goal with other places, according to American intelligence. The goal is to thrust enough distrust in the voting system to destroy democracy as we know it. There needs to be a full, complete, hard line in the stand here from all Americans, if we’re going to survive this.
If America collapses, that would be good. Yes, Russia is trying to make it happen. No, Russia is not good. Yes, it’s still good that Russia is trying to destroy America.
People should not have trust in the American “democracy”. Just because Russia is trying to foment this distrust does not make it ontologically invalid.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s basic region destabilization, which we’ve used extensively in sabre rattling abroad, just disappointed it’s working so effectively here.
Holy shit I can’t believe the liberals and their fucking Hilary 2016 talking points are still here. Not everything is Russia, in fact most things are not Russia. when people on the internet call you a fucking idiot, for your brain dead takes it’s not Russians doing that.
Also “america” shouldn’t “survive” this at all. America is trash, and american democracy isn’t worth saving.
I mean, it’s China’s too - as well as Saudi Arabia, and others. But Russia seems to be the most effective at it. Hell, for that matter, US intelligence does it abroad too. All first-world nations probably participate in this kind of destabilization tactic to some degree.
Why do you think the Great Firewall of China exists? Same reason – we were filling their heads with anti-communist propaganda and that’s the only way China deemed was possible to keep us out.
I’m actually more worried about Israeli influence in the US government which is well documented, and well funded, and pays huge dividends but no one ever brings them up for some reason.
Meanwhile I’m far more worried about individual private interests like banks and military weapons manufacturers and oil interests controlling US and every other countries interests that is even more well documented and even more detrimental to our countries and the world at large, and can be more easily fixed than complex foreign affairs, but that seems to always be the last thing anybody brings up with these things.
But they’re all issues and playing “my issue is more important than yours” isn’t helpful for any leftist agenda man.
That is a separate issue with capitalism but would be a non-sequitur in the case. When liberals bring up Russia, but ignore Israel who actually do the things they accuse Russia of, it is correct to point out the contradiction.
Of course Capitalism is a problem, but that isn’t what the person I was responding to was defending.
When liberals bring up Russia, but ignore Israel who actually do the things they accuse Russia of, it is correct to point out the contradiction.
You realize that Israel is basically an intelligence arm of the US, operating within range of russia and the middle east right? MOST of our intelligence tools come from Israel. THAT is why nobody is pointing it out, because they’re operating under our umbrella.
That’s even worse. You get that if Israel is actually an arm of the US operating clandestinely and without oversight of the American people that isn’t compatible with democracy right?
Sounds like if the world “works” that way, then Jan 6th was morally correct in all ways and those fighting to preserve the status quo should be hunted down.
Fuck you. Piece of shit fascist apologist. Go die in ukraine with the rest of your capitalist nazis. I don’t care which side you choose to die for they are all the same.
USA is trash, I suggest laying low and not hinting anything helpful to these burgerstanis that could help their genocidal settler colony. If you speak they will come with their shit laced unwashed asses telling you how to behave, while their tax money supports genocide and colonisation elsewhere.
Well it’s certainly not Russians downvoting you through the basement. Its “people on the internet calling you a fucking idiot for your brain dead takes”
We all know the US does bad things. We can say it. That’s not in question.
What is frustrating is when tankies deny obvious facts like this, and think that “but but America” somehow means that totalitarian dictatorships are justified in the shit they do.
Good luck with life dude. Hope you find happiness in a way that doesn’t harm others.
Whataboutism claims are a good sign of pseudo intellectuals dog whistling to attract mob attention, usually a last resort card played by people when they never have good discussion or argument skills. It is also a dog whistle of dishonest Anglo people who want to spread an agenda, to deflect their racism in the name of moral elitism.
What is amusing is fashies like you, laced in liberal coat of paint, pretend to sound convincing and correct, but are just pseudo intellectual hipsters sitting thousands of kilometres away, funding genocides with taxes.
I have no need for your fake empathy, keep it for yourself. You will need a lot of it in the coming years, as the entirety of Anglo empire withers down to breadcrumbs, and fascism becomes a widespread ruling ideology, wiping out the facade of democracy you people have pretended to carry.
Whatever fashies say. Liberals are spineless fascists in sheep clothing. They will protest against a fake genocide in China/Russia, and the very next day support genocide in Palestine. They will support western feminist rhetoric, and the very next day call “all men are bad and should die”. They will source their news from Instagram and MSM, and the next day they will troll and hurl abuses at someone telling historical facts on a discussion website.
Your reply to me was literally “what about ___.” That literally does not answer the question we were talking about. It was a cowardly dodge of the question.
Everyone knows america sucks already, that’s not what this conversation was about. People here can handle the criticism of their own country, and most of us agree it needs to change.
You are using that to dodge the question of “is Russia spreading misinformation.” Can you give an answer to that? A simple yes or no, please.
So what have you, or Americans ever done anything about it, other than funding genocides with taxes and voting genocidal warmongerers every election?
The original quib was you implying “evidence” exists for Russian interference, which is proven false with the Russiagate information by Jeff Gerth. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCkvD7gt89A Using the “evidence exists” trope, you insinuate with full intent and no ambiguity that whatever narrative western media establishes is the undeniable truth and is the narrative I should align myself with, to which my inner response is “fuck off dumbass”. Why? Because before every US election in the past 10-15 years, there comes this “intelligence information” just a year before election about le ebil China/Russia destroying USA democracy, creating a scapegoat out of thin air for economic, social, healthcare, civil order downfalls every single term, and to cover up the genocides caused overseas. Probably happening for longer though… checks 100+ countries list foreign intervention.
The most cowardly act is the one you are doing, selling off your soul to American state and Anglo empire, just for temporary comfort in dystopian capitalist western world. Hence why I said liberals are spineless cowards, which you are, without a shred of a doubt. As for me, I know what’s good for America can almost always never be good for the world and me, because they are the largest settler colonial state with an economy based upon creating war and genocide. Critically reading into a little history and material conditions allows me to orient my compass to what’s the correct approach to anything.
Highly doubt your grammar comprehension capabilities to absorb all this.
Lol this is why talking to you people is pointless. You didn’t give an answer. You pointed fingers, you deflected, you insulted me. But you couldn’t answer the simple question.
Those are tactics a coward uses when they don’t want to answer a question. The fact that you can’t answer the question is the answer in itself though.
I’m done responding now. I’ll let you have the last word or whatever you want to say about me, it’s fine. Just remember when you go to sleep tonight - you couldn’t answer the question. Ask yourself why.
nbcnews.com
Active