Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday December 11 2016, @02:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the better-take-the-car dept.

The Economist has an interesting story about how the DEA has been paying transportation employees a percentage of the results of any seizures or confiscations.

There are many reasons why you might have been stopped at an American transport hub and your bag searched by officials. You might have be[sic] chosen at random. Perhaps you matched a profile. Or you could have been flagged by an airline, railroad or security employee who was being secretly paid by the government as a confidential informant to uncover evidence of drug smuggling.

A committee of Congress heard remarkable testimony last week about a long-running programme by the Drug Enforcement Administration. For years, officials from the Department of Justice testified, the DEA has paid millions of dollars to a variety of confidential sources to provide tips on travellers who may be transporting drugs or large sums of money. Those sources include staff at airlines, Amtrak, parcel services and even the Transportation Safety Administration.

The testimony follows a report by the Justice Department that uncovered the DEA programme and detailed its many potential violations. According to that report, airline employees and other informers had an incentive to search more travellers' bags, since they received payment whenever their actions resulted in DEA seizures of cash or contraband.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @07:46PM (#440036)

    Anybody still denying that the US is a police state?

    Well, no, at least not based upon your damning evidence of "I'm pretty sure".

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 11 2016, @08:53PM (#440055)

    Oooh great burn! Not.

    The US has a very strict limit on freedoms, and the LEOs can violate your rights in a dozen ways just for being in their way. Yes we're a police state, a happy dark pretending-its-not-really-happening type of police state.

    Total freedom in the US, right up until you do something that someone more powerful doesn't like. Are you a bum? Get ready to be hassled every morning when shop owners call the cops to make you move. Are you a minority? Prepare to get pulled over more than anyone else for minor bullshit. Are you a peaceful protester? Enjoy freezing water, flashbangs, and riot police with batons arresting protesters for "breaking the law" by sitting in some place deemed inappropriate for various reasons.

    For me the clear death knell of freedom (I know it happened long before) was the creation of "Free Speech Zones". That's when I knew shit was already really bad, the constitution only applied in designated areas... not creepy at all!!! /s

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 11 2016, @10:39PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday December 11 2016, @10:39PM (#440095) Journal

      For me the clear death knell of freedom (I know it happened long before) was the creation of "Free Speech Zones". That's when I knew shit was already really bad, the constitution only applied in designated areas...

      You don't have the right to protest anywhere you like. You don't have the right to force other people to stop what they doing. And of course, you don't have the right to force other people to listen to you.

      Enjoy freezing water, flashbangs, and riot police with batons arresting protesters for "breaking the law" by sitting in some place deemed inappropriate for various reasons.

      No need for the scare quotes. Trespassing is breaking the law, particularly in the implied South Dakota example. And it still looks like [bearingarms.com] Sophia Wilansky's injuries are due to an IED going off prematurely than due to some flash bang grenade that no one can seem to find evidence for.

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @06:21AM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @06:21AM (#440237)

        You don't have the right to protest anywhere you like. You don't have the right to force other people to stop what they doing. And of course, you don't have the right to force other people to listen to you.

        What does any of that have to do with unconstitutional free speech zones?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:10AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @07:10AM (#440243) Journal

          What does any of that have to do with unconstitutional free speech zones?

          It has everything to do with constitutional free speech zones. If you're protesting in a region that has a lot of other stuff going on, like say Manhattan, then protesting just anywhere can create all sorts of hazards, obstructions to other peoples' lawful activities, etc. Free speech zones in such situations allow a protest to be embedded without killing people or getting in the way.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @08:01AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @08:01AM (#440256)

            It has everything to do with constitutional free speech zones.

            It really doesn't, and they're not constitutional. Even protests on public property are oftentimes forced to move to "free speech zones". If it was just about trespassing, the protesters could simply be arrested for doing so. Forcing protesters to go to a specific designated area to continue exercising their constitutional right to free speech is blatantly unconstitutional. They could go to public parks, be on sidewalks, etc., so why the (usually awful) nearly invisible free speech zones? Likewise, the first amendment does not allow the government to force people to have protest permits. If an individual protester breaks the law, then they and they alone should be dealt with. Sacrificing freedom for security is intolerable.

            Also, there have been numerous cases of the government singling out certain speech while allowing supporters of a candidate to remain in the area. If one is dangerous and/or trespassing, it's likely the other is as well. This isn't only on private property; people have been suppressed for protesting on public property.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @08:09AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @08:09AM (#440260) Journal

              Forcing protesters to go to a specific designated area to continue exercising their constitutional right to free speech is blatantly unconstitutional.

              Ok, what's the legal justification for why that is unconstitutional?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @08:21AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @08:21AM (#440263)

                It violates the spirit of the first amendment. Using legalese to weasel your way out of the letter so you can blatantly ignore the letter is exactly how our rights have eroded so much over the past 40 years. Now its to the point where they don't give a shit about the spirit or letter.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @08:23AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @08:23AM (#440265)

                  Shit, should've previewed. Should be "Using legalize to weasel your way out of the letter so you can blatantly ignore the spirit".

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @09:21AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @09:21AM (#440280) Journal

                  It violates the spirit of the first amendment.

                  So do protesters who use the shield of the First Amendment to prevent other people from doing things, often completely unrelated to the protest. I suppose my concern here is that I see a protest culture which wields influence out of proportion to its size. And part of the reason it can do that is that it gums up a society's workings.

                  And I note that no one here has yet explained why free speech zones should be considered automatically unconstitutional.

                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:07PM

                    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:07PM (#441034) Journal

                    And I note that no one here has yet explained why free speech zones should be considered automatically unconstitutional.

                    Seriously? You don't understand why a law which abridges the right to free speech violates the Constitution which states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"? I don't understand how that can be made any more obvious...

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @08:31AM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @08:31AM (#440268)

                The first amendment explicitly forbids Congress from restricting people's right to freedom of speech, and the fourteenth amendment extends this to other areas of government. It doesn't say anything about the government being able to restrict the locations in which you can exercise the right, and forbidding trespassing is an entirely different matter from freedom of speech. In order for the government to have the power to restrict the areas in which people can speak freely, the Constitution would have to explicitly give them such a power. In the absence of that, and due to the fact that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech without any qualifiers on what or when, free speech zones are unconstitutional. If the courts have ruled otherwise, they are simply wrong and must be corrected.

                You could use weasel logic to ignore any part of the Constitution--including the second amendment--but it would be just that: Weasel logic.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @08:56AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @08:56AM (#440274) Journal

                  In the absence of that, and due to the fact that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech without any qualifiers on what or when, free speech zones are unconstitutional.

                  Before you wrote:

                  If it was just about trespassing, the protesters could simply be arrested for doing so.

                  There's a qualifier right there which you put in. You claim the government has the "power to restrict the areas in which people can speak freely", when it is private property over which the owner hasn't given permission for the protest. The owner of the property isn't the one making the arrests after all and arrests wouldn't be involved in the usual civil court proceedings by which an owner would privately pursue redress for trespassing. So your claim of a absolute right is wrong by your own prior admission of a counterexample.

                  So let's start this over again. Since you have admitted that the government does have some constitutionally granted power to restrict where free speech of a protest group can be conducted, what constitutional restrictions will preclude setting up "free speech zones"?

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @08:59AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @08:59AM (#440275) Journal
                  Sigh, I forgot to preview too.

                  In the absence of that, and due to the fact that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech without any qualifiers on what or when, free speech zones are unconstitutional.

                  Before you wrote:

                  If it was just about trespassing, the protesters could simply be arrested for doing so.

                  There's a qualifier right there which you put in. You claim the government has the "power to restrict the areas in which people can speak freely", when it is private property over which the owner hasn't given permission for the protest. The owner of the property isn't the one making the arrests after all and arrests wouldn't be involved in the usual civil court proceedings by which an owner would privately pursue redress for trespassing. So your claim of a absolute right is wrong by your own prior admission of a counterexample.

                  So let's start this over again. Since you have admitted that the government does have some constitutionally granted power to restrict where free speech of a protest group can be conducted, what constitutional restrictions will preclude setting up "free speech zones"?

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @09:24AM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @09:24AM (#440282)

                    Since you have admitted that the government does have some constitutionally granted power to restrict where free speech of a protest group can be conducted

                    Trespassing has nothing to do with free speech specifically. You could be standing around doing nothing and still be trespassing. You could just as easily say that the government has a constitutionally granted power to restrict where you can bear arms. You could do this with practically any right. You're missing the point entirely.

                    The problem is the fact that the government is forcing people to go to specific areas to protest, instead of simply kicking them off private property. Instead of saying 'Go protest somewhere where you're allowed to protest.' (which is mostly location neutral), they force them to protest at a specific place, and it's usually in a run-down area where no one will see them. Furthermore, in a number of cases, the government has suppressed protests taking place on public property and tried to force them to go free speech zones. This is absolutely not just about trespassing, and even if it was, the free speech zones would still be 100% unnecessary and unconstitutional.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @09:43AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @09:43AM (#440288) Journal

                      Trespassing has nothing to do with free speech specifically.

                      Nor does the idea of setting up free speech zones. They're about the physical location of the people who want to exercise mass speech, not about the speech itself. And while one can set up physical locations (such as the bottom of a pool of piranha) that are inimical to the exercise of speech, it is not automatically a feature of free speech zones.

                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @09:59AM

                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @09:59AM (#440295)

                        Nor does the idea of setting up free speech zones.

                        Free speech zones are necessarily about speech; it's right in the name of the term, and it's evident due to how they are used (in matters relating to speech). What nonsense.

                        They're about the physical location of the people who want to exercise mass speech, not about the speech itself.

                        Suppressing people en masse is still suppressing individuals. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that people lose their right to free speech once they join a group, or that the government can force individuals into designated areas to continue exercising their freedom of speech if the group is sufficiently large and may arrest people who don't comply. Mass speech is still speech; it's just a bunch of individuals speaking.

                        If you want it this way, then fine. The government can arbitrarily create designated areas where people may bear arms if they are in a group of more than X amount of people, and those people may not carry firearms in other public places. Where the fuck do you even get this shit? This is the same kind of bullshit logic they use to limit other rights, including the second amendment, and now you've become a cheerleader for it.

                        And, as I said, they have often singled out specific messages (i.e. content). But that's a small matter when compared to the rest of this.

                        it is not automatically a feature of free speech zones.

                        Doesn't matter. The entire idea of forcing people into designated areas is unconstitutional.

                        Also, it's practically a feature of free speech zones. Don't ignore what happens in practice. But again, this is just a small problem with free speech zones; the real problem is that they exist.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @10:44AM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @10:44AM (#440300) Journal

                          Free speech zones are necessarily about speech

                          There's a nice example of this from my neck of the woods: bear management areas [nps.gov]. It's about managing bears, right? No, it's about keeping people out of certain areas of Yellowstone National Park at certain times of the year. Sure, these are about improving the lot of bears in the park, but the only thing being managed is the people.

                          Similarly, free speech zones are about putting a bunch of people in a place that won't disrupt the rest of society. To wit, a right to protest (which is also granted by the First Amendment) is not a right to disrupt.

                          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @11:43AM

                            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @11:43AM (#440313)

                            There's a nice example of this from my neck of the woods: bear management areas. It's about managing bears, right?

                            Free speech zones are speech. While some names can be deceiving, the term "free speech zone" is not; they are exactly as they sound. People exercising their right to freedom of speech are placed in these zones because they were doing so.

                            Similarly, free speech zones are about putting a bunch of people in a place that won't disrupt the rest of society.

                            The government has no power to limit the areas in which people may exercise their right to freedom of speech to specific locations, even if it is done in the name of preventing disruption and even if many people are speaking. Where, specifically, in the Constitution does it say otherwise?

                            To wit, a right to protest (which is also granted by the First Amendment) is not a right to disrupt.

                            Individuals in protests who do illegal things may be punished for doing those things, but you may not punish all of the protesters merely because some do illegal things. And restricting the locations in which they can speak freely to designated zones is not constitutional. Simply kick them off the private property or arrest them, and then they can continue their protests on public property or on private property if they have permission to do so.

                            You also ignore all the cases of the government trying to limit specific types of speech, and you act like the only uses of free speech zones are to prevent disruption.

                            While we're at it, even if the government has the power to stop illegal acts like trespassing, that doesn't mean they can do so by any means necessary. You seem to take a 'the ends justify the means' approach to this situation, where if you perceive that X stops disruption, then doing X must be justified and constitutional. That is false. The government may have the power to investigate crimes, but they must still abide by the fourth amendment. The government may also have the power to stop trespassing, but it doesn't follow that free speech zones are a constitutional way to prevent disruption.

                            This all reminds me of the twisted logic that I sometimes see where some gun control advocates will argue that banning the sale of ammunition is fine because the second amendment doesn't specifically mention that doing so is forbidden. A different type of twisted logic, but still, you have some nice companions.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @06:24PM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @06:24PM (#440490) Journal

                              The government has no power to limit the areas in which people may exercise their right to freedom of speech to specific locations, even if it is done in the name of preventing disruption and even if many people are speaking. Where, specifically, in the Constitution does it say otherwise?

                              And you have already stated that the government has the power to arrest people for trespassing who are exercising their freedom of speech on private land without the permission of the landowner. So this assertion is already incorrect by your own words.

                              You also ignore all the cases of the government trying to limit specific types of speech, and you act like the only uses of free speech zones are to prevent disruption.

                              No, I do not. I merely point out that free speech zones do have a constitutional justification. Tools have good and bad uses. It makes no sense to ignore the reason such tools are proposed and used in the first place just because the tools are misused elsewhere.

                              While we're at it, even if the government has the power to stop illegal acts like trespassing, that doesn't mean they can do so by any means necessary. You seem to take a 'the ends justify the means' approach to this situation, where if you perceive that X stops disruption, then doing X must be justified and constitutional.

                              Or I don't do that. That's the problem with unfounded assertions. They can be false as well as true. Here, I have yet to do that. It doesn't "seem" that way to me.

                              The government may also have the power to stop trespassing, but it doesn't follow that free speech zones are a constitutional way to prevent disruption.

                              I agree. But we seem to have this mysterious inability to articulate why free speech zones are unconstitutional. I assert it's because they aren't actually unconstitutional. No one's speech is actually being infringed on.

                              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @06:58PM

                                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @06:58PM (#440503)

                                And you have already stated that the government has the power to arrest people for trespassing who are exercising their freedom of speech on private land without the permission of the landowner.

                                Which has nothing to do with speech. As I said, you could be standing around doing nothing and still be trespassing. They don't put people in free speech zones for standing around and doing nothing.

                                Tools have good and bad uses.

                                There are zero justifications for restricting protesters to specific areas when there are other places they are allowed to be (public property). If you merely wanted to prevent trespassing, you could kick people off of private property without forcing them to go to specific locations.

                                And these zones are often used to crush dissent. Many of the charges have even been thrown out, but government thugs still managed to successfully suppress and intimidate people.

                                Or I don't do that. That's the problem with unfounded assertions. They can be false as well as true. Here, I have yet to do that. It doesn't "seem" that way to me.

                                Well, it sure seems that way to me, at least partly. All the nonsense about disruption wouldn't make sense otherwise, because it's not even relevant to the topic of free speech zones.

                                But we seem to have this mysterious inability to articulate why free speech zones are unconstitutional.

                                What you have is an inability to comprehend why free speech zones are unconstitutional, and an inability to differentiate between escorting someone off private property and forcing them to go to a designated area to be able to continue speaking freely.

                                It's like how many social justice types have an inability to comprehend that insulting language isn't violence and doesn't constitute assault. When someone is that far gone and is mixing up so many unrelated concepts, discussion with them becomes nigh impossible.

                                No one's speech is actually being infringed on.

                                Everyone who was forced to go to a free speech zone has had their speech infringed upon. If they resisted and continued speaking outside of the zone (even, potentially, in areas where they are allowed to be), it would result in their arrest.

                                Now you're thinking like a gun control advocate.

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday December 12 2016, @07:22PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 12 2016, @07:22PM (#440512) Journal

                                  Which has nothing to do with speech. As I said, you could be standing around doing nothing and still be trespassing. They don't put people in free speech zones for standing around and doing nothing.

                                  Ok, why is that relevant? For example, suppose a city has a protest on public land. They hand title to the land over to me. "Kids, get off my lawn". Then after the police disperse or arrest everyone for trespass, I hand title to the land back to the city. Do the laws on trespassing still have nothing to do with speech? Each step in isolation was constitutional, but the whole becomes unconstitutional because it is an obvious, underhanded tactic for breaking up a legitimate protest.

                                  I also want to point out a key word, "zone". While it might be used legally here in the same sense as regular urban zoning, it remains that cities routinely and constitutionally zone land for various uses. Free speech zones in this sense are merely zoning land temporarily for a given use which happens to be the exercise of speech or petitioning for redress. That's why I continue to state that free speech zones aren't about free speech. They're about allotting space temporarily in a city for a given purpose which is a thing that US cities have been doing constitutionally for a while. And we have long recognized that zoning has legitimate reasons for existing, namely, that it allows both for city planning and for separating human activities that aren't compatible with each other.

                                  Everyone who was forced to go to a free speech zone has had their speech infringed upon. If they resisted and continued speaking outside of the zone (even, potentially, in areas where they are allowed to be), it would result in their arrest.

                                  Again, how does that infringe on their rights? You have yet to say.

                                  There is a point to my posts. In order to protect real violations of the US Constitution, you need to understand what is actually constitutional. Merely asserting without support as you have for the past half dozen posts, that free speech zones are unconstitutional, ignores that they are. That weakens arguments for things that really are unconstitutional since it both divides resources of protesters and dilutes the message.

                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @08:33PM

                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @08:33PM (#440538)

                                    Do the laws on trespassing still have nothing to do with speech?

                                    The laws on trespassing would be less worrisome than the government temporarily giving away public land in order to suppress protests. Those specific cases would be about speech, but so what?

                                    I also want to point out a key word, "zone". While it might be used legally here in the same sense as regular urban zoning, it remains that cities routinely and constitutionally zone land for various uses.

                                    Go ahead and create the actual zones, but forcing people to go to them to speak freely is unconstitutional.

                                    They're about allotting space temporarily in a city for a given purpose which is a thing that US cities have been doing constitutionally for a while.

                                    The given purpose here is unconstitutional. Just because something has been done for a while and has been used to do many constitutional things doesn't mean every usage of it is constitutional.

                                    You're ignoring what free speech zones are used for and merely asserting that they're not about speech, which is in direct contradiction with reality.

                                    Again, how does that infringe on their rights? You have yet to say.

                                    How does arresting people for exercising their right to freedom of speech because they didn't go to a specific location to do so infringe upon their rights? It's a mystery.

                                    Merely asserting without support as you have for the past half dozen posts

                                    Merely asserting without support that I merely asserted that free speech zones are unconstitutional without support is laughable, especially since there's direct evidence to the contrary. There's a difference between you being unable to comprehend the arguments being made and the arguments simply not existing.

                                    I have to wonder if you're doing some sort of parody, but you seem sincere.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:02AM

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @12:02AM (#440621) Journal

                                      Merely asserting without support that I merely asserted that free speech zones are unconstitutional without support is laughable, especially since there's direct evidence to the contrary. There's a difference between you being unable to comprehend the arguments being made and the arguments simply not existing.

                                      Then where have you supported your case? You keep saying things like

                                      How does arresting people for exercising their right to freedom of speech because they didn't go to a specific location to do so infringe upon their rights?

                                      Keep in mind that the reason would be that they are disrupting other peoples' lawful activities or creating an unsafe condition, not that they are exercising a right in a designated area. It's once again a non-free speech issue which would be the official trigger just like the trespassing case you have already allowed.

                                      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:10AM

                                        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:10AM (#440735)

                                        Then where have you supported your case?

                                        It's like with the SJWs who claim that insults are literal assaults: You'll never understand because you're using definitions of ordinary terms so radically different from mine that it interferes with normal communication. Free speech zones aren't about speech? You're done.

                                        Keep in mind that the reason would be that they are disrupting other peoples' lawful activities or creating an unsafe condition, not that they are exercising a right in a designated area.

                                        No, that is quite often not the reason. There are documented cases of people being moved to free speech zones merely for expressing certain opinions, which can be easily found with a search engine. Stop asserting that this is just about trespassing and such; that's utter nonsense. You shouldn't just ignore all the abuses by saying 'tools have good and bad uses'.

                                        Also, people aren't moved to free speech zones for doing other things than speaking, so it absolutely is about speech. If someone is doing something that's actually dangerous and illegal, then they should be arrested for doing so or made to stop, not have their free speech rights restricted to a specific location. If they were trespassing, then simply tell them to go to a location where they're allowed to be, and there are many more places people are allowed to be than just free speech zones. Trying to claim that free speech zones aren't about speech is bullshit sophistry of the highest order.

                                        just like the trespassing case you have already allowed.

                                        You're so focused on an irrelevant issue like trespassing. All I've said is that it's okay for the police to escort trespassers off of the property or arrest people for trespassing, and then you came up with some absurd situation where the government gives away public land so that protests can be suppressed. Don't act like that means I agree with you.

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:58PM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @01:58PM (#440779) Journal

                                          You're so focused on an irrelevant issue like trespassing.

                                          You made a blanket claim which you already provided an exception for. As you already noted, you consider it acceptable for the state to remove by force people who are exercising their right of free speech, but violating something else. That's exactly the legal justification for free speech zones where a huge mass of people can normally cause a huge safety or societal disruption issue. This isn't a matter of definitions, but a practical matter of just having a lot of people in one place.

                                          Further, it has precedence. Parades, sports events, and other planned mass gatherings usually have the same sort of zoning and crowd control.

                                          No, that is quite often not the reason. There are documented cases of people being moved to free speech zones merely for expressing certain opinions, which can be easily found with a search engine. Stop asserting that this is just about trespassing and such; that's utter nonsense. You shouldn't just ignore all the abuses by saying 'tools have good and bad uses'.

                                          You should not ignore all the uses just because you can find abuses. I can find cases for any government power where it has been abused. That doesn't mean that those powers are inherently unconstitutional.

                                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:55PM

                                            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 13 2016, @02:55PM (#440795)

                                            You made a blanket claim which you already provided an exception for.

                                            Well, I don't really think it's an exception, barring the ridiculously unlikely scenario you spoke of earlier.

                                            As you already noted, you consider it acceptable for the state to remove by force people who are exercising their right of free speech

                                            But not because they are doing so. The problem with free speech zones is that they arbitrarily limit the locations in which people may exercise their right to free speech to specific zones, and that is simply not a power the government has. Arresting someone for not being in such a zone and exercising their free speech rights infringes upon their right to speak freely, as your first amendment rights do not depend on your location. But this is a complete waste of time, because you appear unable to differentiate between stopping someone from doing something unrelated to speech and the government arresting someone for their speech.

                                            Free speech zones cannot, to me, be justified in the name of safety, even if I assume the safety concerns are real. What truly matters is freedom.

                                            Further, it has precedence.

                                            Only fools who worship authority care about such a thing. It has no effect on the actual constitutionality of free speech zones, so it's irrelevant.

                                            I can find cases for any government power where it has been abused. That doesn't mean that those powers are inherently unconstitutional.

                                            There are a lot of powers the government abuses, and since I value freedom more than safety, I believe it should be stripped of those powers. In many cases, the Constitution does not even grant the government those powers to begin with, making them illegitimate.

                                            If a power is used to abuse people's constitutional rights in practice, then the government should be stripped of that power. But this is besides the point, because free speech zones are unconstitutional for other reasons. The reason I bring it up is because you seem to only want to talk about trespassing and other such nonsense.

                                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:38PM

                                    by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:38PM (#441046) Journal

                                    Ok, why is that relevant? For example, suppose a city has a protest on public land. They hand title to the land over to me. "Kids, get off my lawn". Then after the police disperse or arrest everyone for trespass, I hand title to the land back to the city. Do the laws on trespassing still have nothing to do with speech? Each step in isolation was constitutional, but the whole becomes unconstitutional because it is an obvious, underhanded tactic for breaking up a legitimate protest.

                                    That would be perfectly legal. It would also be perfectly legal for you to just hang on to that title and never give it back. That's a hell of a risk for the city to take.

                                    And it might not work anyway. Even on private property the police generally won't just go hauling people off immediately. (Hell, even when you protest at secure/private government areas like the White House they take a few hours before they'll make any arrests) In a situation like that you might even have to wait for a lawsuit or two to go through before they can do anything. Property rights are rarely that simple, particularly when revoking public access to a property.

                              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:20PM

                                by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:20PM (#441039) Journal

                                I agree. But we seem to have this mysterious inability to articulate why free speech zones are unconstitutional. I assert it's because they aren't actually unconstitutional. No one's speech is actually being infringed on.

                                I have no right to speak outside of that zone. That in itself is a restriction of my right to free speech. The government can't just say "Free speech is only allowed from 2am - 5am inside the dumpster of the DMV with the lid securely locked". Sure, they aren't restricting what you say, but restricting where and how you can say it is ALSO a restriction on free speech.

                                Trespassing isn't about speech, it's about physical presence. They can't arrest you for *speaking* on someone else's property, but they can arrest you for *being there*. So if they want to say "The only public property is inside the dumpster behind the DMV, all other land is private and we will arrest anyone present no matter what they're doing" -- that's OK, that's not a restriction on speech. It's also going to result in a ton of people getting arrest for trying to drive to work, or walk to the store, or go to school...

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:47PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:47PM (#441076) Journal

                                  Sure, they aren't restricting what you say, but restricting where and how you can say it is ALSO a restriction on free speech.

                                  Just like all things, it is a power that can be abused. But without the power to say "you can protest here, but not there", we have situations like abortion clinics which can't be entered due to protesters on public land surrounding the property, protesters who can legally obstruct or slow traffic during rush hour, protest groups who are violently opposed to each other can intermingle (eg, KKK protesters and counterprotesters mixing it up), protests which create dangerous conditions (too many people packed in too small a space), and protesters who can extort things [theverge.com] by blocking legitimate human activities (describes a fair number of European labor union strikes let us note).

                                  Trespassing isn't about speech, it's about physical presence.

                                  So are free speech zones.

                                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:19PM

                                    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:19PM (#441308) Journal

                                    Sure, they aren't restricting what you say, but restricting where and how you can say it is ALSO a restriction on free speech.

                                    Just like all things, it is a power that can be abused. But without the power to say "you can protest here, but not there", we have situations like abortion clinics which can't be entered due to protesters on public land surrounding the property, protesters who can legally obstruct or slow traffic during rush hour, protest groups who are violently opposed to each other can intermingle (eg, KKK protesters and counterprotesters mixing it up), protests which create dangerous conditions (too many people packed in too small a space), and protesters who can extort things by blocking legitimate human activities (describes a fair number of European labor union strikes let us note).

                                    And that is how it should be. In a democratic society, if a large number of people disagree with what you are doing they can massively inconvenience you -- at the cost of massively inconveniencing themselves as well. That's the price of freedom; in fact, that's practically the definition of the word. If you don't like it, don't live here.

                                    Trespassing isn't about speech, it's about physical presence.

                                    So are free speech zones.

                                    They don't move you there unless you are engaged in specific types of speech, so no, they have nothing to do with physical presence and are entirely about speech. You don't get arrested or moved for standing in front of an abortion clinic. But if you stand there with specific signs or saying specific words, you will.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:24PM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @04:24PM (#440417)

                            And people like khallow are why were in a fascist police state. Smart enough to argue points, stupid enough to believe the really bad ones. Boot licking authoritarian.

                          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:13PM

                            by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:13PM (#441036) Journal

                            Similarly, free speech zones are about putting a bunch of people in a place that won't disrupt the rest of society. To wit, a right to protest (which is also granted by the First Amendment) is not a right to disrupt.

                            Yes it is, it's right there in the First Amendment. Congress may make no law restricting the right to free speech. Put another way, it says the government has no right to prevent disruption. It doesn't say they can't restrict free speech except when necessary to maintain an orderly cohesive society.

                            If it gets disrupted that much, then it needs to be. That's a feature, not a bug.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:13PM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:13PM (#441067) Journal

                              Put another way, it says the government has no right to prevent disruption.

                              You have yet to show that free speech is being restricted.

                              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:24PM

                                by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:24PM (#441312) Journal

                                It's being confined to a specific location. How is that not a restriction?

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:39PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 14 2016, @04:39PM (#441321) Journal
                                  So are laws against trespassing. Given that they can speak whatever they want, and we have plenty of technologies for distributing that speech globally, you have yet to show that being confined to a location is a restriction on their speech.
                                  • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday December 14 2016, @09:41PM

                                    by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @09:41PM (#441435) Journal

                                    It's a restriction on speech because the restriction is *entirely based on speech*. You have yet to show that it isn't. Gimme an example of people being relocated to free speech zones that wasn't based on them attempting to exercise their right to free speech. You just need one example to disprove the theory, but you can't even come up with a *hypothetical*, let alone an instance from the real world...

                • (Score: 2) by Webweasel on Monday December 12 2016, @11:13AM

                  by Webweasel (567) on Monday December 12 2016, @11:13AM (#440308) Homepage Journal

                  So, what are you trying to say about my logic exactly?

                  --
                  Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @03:30PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 12 2016, @03:30PM (#440389)

                  Not Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Assembly.

                  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                  I believe one could make the case that being directed where you may peaceably assemble is tantamount to restricting the right to assemble. On the other hand, it has long been held that the Constitution is not a suicide pact and all rights may be restricted at times. (Barring truly obvious public safety exceptions - that one may not assemble in the middle of the freeway would seem reasonable as would allowing trespassing laws banning assembly on private property. The trouble is pesky things like "keep off the grass" and occupancy size restriction. Similar to you can have a right to bear arms but the government may require you to hold an ID card - or more restricted like a FOID in Illinois - to purchase them.) So the question would be more if the construction of such zones are a reasonable restriction or an unconscionable denial.

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday December 12 2016, @05:45PM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday December 12 2016, @05:45PM (#440472)

                    Not Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Assembly.

                    No, both.

                    On the other hand, it has long been held that the Constitution is not a suicide pact

                    A line trotted out by authoritarians who wish to ignore the Constitution. I've seen this used to justify mass surveillance, the TSA, the drug war (on the federal level), Japanese internment camps, and countless other horrendous things, so anyone who uses it isn't exactly in good company. If someone doesn't like the Constitution, then they can support amending it. Otherwise, they are opposed to our constitutional form of government and/or are betraying their oath to defend and uphold the Constitution (if they are in such a position of power).

                    Similar to you can have a right to bear arms but the government may require you to hold an ID card

                    No, they may not. The government is simply violating the Constitution by doing so.

                    So the question would be more if the construction of such zones are a reasonable restriction or an unconscionable denial.

                    The only question is whether it's a constitutional restriction, and it blatantly isn't. It isn't even ethical.

                    Also, you're making the same mistake that khallow was making, which is assuming that free speech zones are only about preventing trespassing and/or other illegal behavior, but in reality they are often used to suppress certain speech. For example, people holding up protest signs which criticize a certain politician are forced to go to free speech zones, while those holding up more positive signs are not. And don't assume that free speech zones are even a valid way to stop trespassing or dangerous behavior; you could simply ask someone to go to a safer area on public property. There is no need to force people to go to designated areas to speak freely; the government has no constitutional authority to do so.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:01PM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Tuesday December 13 2016, @10:01PM (#441032) Journal

        For me the clear death knell of freedom (I know it happened long before) was the creation of "Free Speech Zones". That's when I knew shit was already really bad, the constitution only applied in designated areas...

        You don't have the right to protest anywhere you like. You don't have the right to force other people to stop what they doing. And of course, you don't have the right to force other people to listen to you.

        What part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you? The First Amendment says the government CANNOT PASS A LAW REGULATING SPEECH. Period. They can't say where you can speak, they can't say what you can say, they can't say how long you can stand there saying it. If you're on private property that's different because it wouldn't be the government instituting the ban. But on public property, they can't limit your speech in any way.

        Enjoy freezing water, flashbangs, and riot police with batons arresting protesters for "breaking the law" by sitting in some place deemed inappropriate for various reasons.

        No need for the scare quotes. Trespassing is breaking the law, particularly in the implied South Dakota example. And it still looks like [bearingarms.com] Sophia Wilansky's injuries are due to an IED going off prematurely than due to some flash bang grenade that no one can seem to find evidence for.

        How is occupying YOUR OWN LAND trespassing? The location of the protests is land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It is not owned by the US government, it is not owned by the oil company.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:43PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday December 13 2016, @11:43PM (#441075) Journal

          The location of the protests is land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

          They wouldn't build a pipeline on land for which they haven't secured a right of way. The land certainly doesn't belong to the protesters.