Those two things aren't mutually exclusive

Patriot act was written before 9/11

Patriot Act was a wishlist of shit the LE / Intel community wanted but knew they would get flayed alive for asking for. When The 11 September attacks happened they just used the moment to pass it

Agreed.

Never let a good tragedy go to waste

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=_pCJ5KVPkS8

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead or incapacitated, change my mind.

She can remain on the court unless she is dead can't she?

Fox News already leaked her death

let's get that confirmed or denied

fox alone isn't enough confirmation, but still enough to check

Lets look at the probability.

what was the last you heard about RBG?
And when did you hear the last of RBG?

Last I heard was a lung removal operation, wich is said to be a higher risk one.

And that was months ago.

So the conclusion can only be that she's either dead or on her way to be dead.

If that wasn't the case, we'd hear about something of her in da News.

probably

so let's get her checked up

Health and Safety Check

$10 that she has been dead and has just controlled by a ventriloquist.

@halfthink Not sure where the hell I would fall into the spectrum of left or right, but I basically argue that a wall will do it's job of making it harder for people to cross the border. Im indifferent but if I had to pick would support a wall. I just hate how people think a wall will do nothing. If you mount a camera or some detection unit, it will literally buy time for an investigation team to get to the area. People say just go under it. I saw , once you find a tunnel, you collapse it or fill it up with cement. Pretty sure closing up a tunnel is faster and easier than digging a new one. You keep doing this until people get the clue that it becomes too much work to do. You can make a wall tall enough for it to become dangerous to go over. So it people climbed over it they are likely injured or tired. You don't need a continuous wall, you can make it break out into the middle of nowhere. So if people want to go around it you can let the natural barriers do the work for you. This basically makes it hard enough that only young men would be able to cross consistently.

Then people argue about cost of maintenance . Since a wall is something simple , you wouldn't even need much to maintain it. I simply see the wall more like a permanent fixture with a fixed cost that will pay itself over time. Better than a variable cost of buying high tech shit and more manpower. Which would basically make the wall a metered wall where you can count how many people crossed. I do think the wall would need this surveillance but nowhere to the degree needed if there was no wall. You see someone trying to cross. You send people to that area to investigate. Since the wall slowed them down enough, you have a higher likelihood of catching them. People catch on, and alot more people would give up attempting to cross. This frees up resources and could be allocated to ICE or something to then go after the people in the country. If people start abusing visas more, you start giving out less visas, if you can't track these people.

these are all good points I THINK most of us are aware of. I agree myself.

I have an interesting hypothetical situation for you lads

So. I'm part of a grand strategy sci-fi roleplaying game, and I run a nation who uphold the value of liberty in the law; blatant violations of the principle of liberty are met with martial law, but the government is socially libertarian, e.g. drug use is legal as long as it only affects the self; this is done to pacify the highly criminal population, as the country is descended from a prison colony

An intergalactic megacorporation broke broadcasting violations by showing unedited, uncensored footage of dead soldiers with no warning and no permission from either the government or the families of the deceased

Now, my government sent a cease and desist to the newsgroup, asking them to retract the story and apologise. This was met with an accusation of suppression of the free media

However, the news organisation broke multiple broadcasting laws, and slandered law enforcement when they tried to enforce the law

The current course of action is to attempt to arrest the individuals behind filming and airing the footage, as well as whoever wrote the libellous letter

Here's where the dilemma comes in

If they refuse to co-operate in the investigation, I argue that the organisation is hiding criminals, and therefore seeing as they previously broke broadcasting regulations, my government are looking to close their offices in my territory

However, the point of contention from the DM's point of view is that a) the organisation will be free to slander my government however they wish to the rest of the universe, and b) by suppressing the corporation I am violating their freedom of speech

Who would you guys say is in the right or wrong here? Is it that black and white? I know this might seem like a silly situation to some of you due to the format, but I think it raises some interesting questions about how a government should respond to the news media breaking the law

your hypothetical scenario is that there a multiple broadcasting laws that the company violated with a premise that the nation upholds a value of liberty in the law. this is a situation of interpriation of freedom which one group does not agree with while another group does agree to. this is likely to be due to the contradictory libertys of privacy and freedom of expression. if the nation has agreed there is limitation of the freedom of expression where it runs into the liberty of privacy which is covered specificly in this scenario than the nation agreed to it, thats law, and breaking the law means challanging the agreement the nation made (Which there may be more context like the decition to make legislation like that origenally was not unanimus). but they certainly cant argue ignorence of the law, what they are doing is arguing hypocracy of the state by singling out one provision of the law over another where a clear contradiction MUST exist (not mearly does exist).

It's more that they broke multiple laws- not only did they violate freedom of association/privacy for the families and the deceased, there is a reasonable assumption that you should warn someone before showing them shocking material as they have the freedom to choose not to see it. Showing the footage was not necessary to the purpose of the broadcast. As well as this, the slanderous comments made are highly damaging as they're essentially telling the universe that my government are invalid. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that it is okay in this society to air unedited footage of a gruesome battlefield with mutilated soldiers' corpses- this is why the argument of "freedom of expression" fails, from my point of view, in the example; because they violated multiple other laws in the process

specification for law is challanged while the constitution remains unchallangible. in a country like the united states we have this conflict of liberty between multiple rights given to people and corporations within the united states. verious actors use these contradictions against eachother to abuse one or the other freedoms in order to get tangible power, either silencing speech for privacy or abusing privacy for speech (or protection which isint a right but a fuction of the state). specific laws and boundrys to this are flexible, the court decides where these conflict of libertys meet and that changes depending on case by case.

the corporation could leevy that the state is supressing their freedom of expression in order for the state to get away with using the liberty of privacy to hide what the government is doing to the nations citizines in the war. also is the company slandering the nation by saying they believe the state is abusing its power and their freedom of speech? as already expressed the point at which the 2 rights meet is subjective even if the court has argued where it should be, that can change and the corporation is within its right to try and change that while arguing what it thinks the state is doing in its attempt to stop them.

theres a fine line between slander, libal, and accusation of intent

This all assumes that they have the right to freedom of the press

Because it would be very strange for a police state like nation to allow freedom of the press