SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some more good news on the Fourth Amendment front, even if it's somewhat jurisdictionally limited: the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has (sort of) decided [PDF] the Supreme Court's Riley decision isn't just for cellphones. (via FourthAmendment.com)
In this case, the search of a robbery suspect's backpack while he was being questioned yielded a ring, a digital camera, and other items. The police warrantlessly searched the digital phone1, discovering a photo of the suspect next to a firearm later determined to have been stolen. This led to two convictions: one for the stolen property and one for carrying a firearm without a license.
The defendant challenged all of the evidence resulting from the warrantless search of the backpack, but the state got to keep most of what it found, along with the conviction for theft. But it didn't get to keep the firearm conviction, as the court here sees digital cameras to be almost no different than cellphones when it comes to warrantless searches and the Riley decision. From the opinion:
The Commonwealth counters that Riley does not apply because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers, are not analogous to cell phones for Fourth Amendment purposes. We decline to address the constitutionality of the search of the digital camera on Fourth Amendment grounds, but we apply the reasoning in Riley in holding that the search of the camera violated art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights].
[1] [I suspect the author meant digital camera, not digital phone - Ed]
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday August 29 2017, @08:40AM (4 children)
Well, no. It has a Bill of Rights, which the courts regularly enforce.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday August 29 2017, @10:40PM (3 children)
Sorry, but the "Bill of Rights" is almost orthogonal to whether or not it's fascist. Fascist largely has to do with economic policy, and the degree to which wealthy interests control it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 30 2017, @08:16AM (2 children)
From Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
The First Amendment directly contradicts the 'forcible suppression of opposition' component.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 30 2017, @04:42PM (1 child)
Forcible suppression of opposition is, indeed, characteristic of all fascist governments that I am aware of...though with varying degrees of force. But it's not a defining characteristic. And if you think it hasn't been common in the US, your history teachers should be fired.
Also, Wikipedia is *not* a reliable primary source. I, also, quote from them occasionally, but always hesitantly. They aren't reliable, and they have in the past had a tendency to explicitly exclude expert reporting. Don't believe them, only consider them as evidence. (Often the Wikipedia pages will have links to more reliable sources.)
Mussolini, who defined the term fascism, considered forcible suppression of opposition a tactic, not a defining quality of fascism. Many forms of government use that tactic. So this cannot be consider a defining feature.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday August 30 2017, @09:32PM
Yes, it is. Wikipedia's description aligns correctly with the way the word is used in reality.
Of course it has, but the First Amendment has its moments, and is a point of national pride. Would not be so under fascism.
That makes no sense. There is no requirement that fascism be the only political system to forcibly suppress political opposition.