|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
okay at this point the Democrats need to just hire Robert Herjavec to teach them electronic security.
The Pennsylvania Senate Democrats have been hit by a ransomware attack that has locked senators and employees out of their computer network since the early morning hours of Friday, state officials told NBC News.
In a statement, Sen. Jay Costa, the Democratic leader, said the Democrats were working with law enforcement agencies and Microsoft to resolve the problem. He did not say what payment has been demanded to unlock the data, or whether the attackers had suggested any political motive.
In a ransomware attack, hackers inject a network with malware that typically encrypts important data, and then demand payment in exchange for a key that releases the data. They threaten to destroy the data if they aren't paid.
The Democratic senators in the state capital of Harrisburg are on their own computer network and there is no indication that other state agencies of the Republicans have been affected, said a state official who declined to be identified. The official said the Democrats had no idea whether they were targeted for any specific reason.
A spokeswoman for the FBI was looking into whether that agency had been called in. A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Democrats, Stacey Witalec, declined to say whether the data was backed up elsewhere or whether the attackers had identified themselves or any motive.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-democrats-pennsylvania-are-being-held-cyber-hostage-n728901
|
I imagine a "Stop looking at porn at work" would work.
|
United States42009 Posts
On March 04 2017 11:05 Ghostcom wrote:
I imagine a "Stop looking at porn at work" would work.
I suspect it's mostly spoofed emails. That's what I get daily.
|
If the gap between technological realities and politics continues to be this wide I assume people will go back to typewriters in a few years. The state of digital security is really bad. On the other hand you can't really put all the blame on the politicians, it's fairly easy to steal an unlimited amount of information nowadays with very little effort.
Digital voting seems like an increasingly bad idea too
|
On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that.
If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event.
|
On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event.
I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are.
|
On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event.
I seem to miss an important part of the picture.
Why exactly would "the organization" be required to uphold or act on the first amendment in the first place?
edit:
I get the impression that some people actually equal "first amendment" with "i'm allowed to say what i want, where i want, and the government has to protect that right - if not, they're not protecting my rights". Which isn't what the first amendment says. At all.
|
On March 04 2017 11:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are.
While I have some sympathy for your point of view I don't think that this way of expressing it is going to lead to a pleasant discussion.
In other words, can somebody more qualified than me please explain exactly what the First Amendment means, and what it does not mean?
|
On March 04 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are. While I have some sympathy for your point of view I don't think that this way of expressing it is going to lead to a pleasant discussion. In other words, can somebody more qualified than me please explain exactly what the First Amendment means, and what it does not mean?
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.
It's pretty self explanatory, no?
Which is all moot anyway, because it's a public school? Might misunderstand something there, but do they fall under "government institutions"?
|
On March 04 2017 11:47 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 11:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are. While I have some sympathy for your point of view I don't think that this way of expressing it is going to lead to a pleasant discussion. In other words, can somebody more qualified than me please explain exactly what the First Amendment means, and what it does not mean? 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. It's pretty self explanatory, no?
Sermokala, does this post explain to you why the the organization referred to in this post:
On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event.
is under no obligation to protect anybody's first amendment rights?
|
On March 04 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are. While I have some sympathy for your point of view I don't think that this way of expressing it is going to lead to a pleasant discussion. In other words, can somebody more qualified than me please explain exactly what the First Amendment means, and what it does not mean?
I'd be more patient if this exact point hadn't been addressed at least once in each of the last 5 pages, directly to him.
It stops being a matter of ignorance (and I mean that in a lack of knowledge sense, as opposed to stupid) and becomes purely intentional.
|
On March 04 2017 11:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:47 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2017 11:45 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 11:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. I think Sermokala shouldn't be allowed to talk about first amendment rights until he actually figures out what they are. While I have some sympathy for your point of view I don't think that this way of expressing it is going to lead to a pleasant discussion. In other words, can somebody more qualified than me please explain exactly what the First Amendment means, and what it does not mean? 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. It's pretty self explanatory, no? Sermokala, does this post explain to you why the the organization referred to in this post: Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 11:25 Sermokala wrote:On March 04 2017 10:56 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
... The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that. If the organization would simply say "hey we think there is going to be a riot and we don't want to pay for the security beacuse our people don't respect others opinions" we are arguing that the organization is allowing the event to happen and then not protecting peoples first amendment rights when having their event. is under no obligation to protect anybody's first amendment rights?
There actually is a clause called "forum", where the government can restrict speech anyway.
I think this part of the clause is relevant.
The government may limit access to a designated public forum to certain classes or types of speech. In these “limited forums,” although the government may discriminate against classes of speakers or types of speech, it may not exercise viewpoint discrimination. For example, the government may limit access to public school meeting rooms by only allowing speakers conducting school-related activities. It may not, however, exclude speakers from a religious group simply because they intend to express religious views. See Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98.
So, however we spin it, no, there was no infringement of the first amendment. Either the school has no obligation in the first place, or the government actually does have the right to exclude certain speakers for certain reasons.
Which, as most legal stuff, is worded so vague that you can argue for and against it, which makes the legal standpoint moot from both perspectives.
edit: for those interested.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
edit2: to be absolutely clear though: there isn't a "right" to have police protection because your views are so polarising.
Last edit:
This is what a law professor states.
First Amendment protection, however, does not preclude Yiannopoulos from being uninvited.
As far as claiming that uninviting Yiannopoulos would violate his First Amendment rights, states Berkeley Law Professor Ian Haney-Lopez, “…He has no right to be invited to speak, and no right to be immune from being disinvited.”
So, no. No first amendment infringements. Again, the first amendment doesn't state that "something" is required to give you a stage if you need it.
Sidenote: the whole system is ridiculously cluttered with partially conflicting exceptions, regulations and what not. It makes your head spin, it's ridiculous.
|
Obviously they have the right to disinvite Milo. Playing devils advocate, I think the concern is that the motive behind the decision to disinvite was content based. The whole issue of whether a university who receives public funding and uses public police resources constituents a government actor is the other key issue. That one seems more muddled.
|
On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused.
Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity.
|
On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself?
They have the right to demand whatever they want; whether or not CNN or Fox News is obligated to give into their demands is a whole other point.
On the larger point, the exercise of such a core right is so important that if protesters feel emboldened to drown out the speaker or threaten violence to cancel the event, that administrators and state government should prepare to deploy police and the national guard to protect that right until such a time when the proto-fascists decide it's better to give it a hearing than prevent the hearing in the first place.
And again, speakers stand for their own views, and protesters may call Trump a fascist or Obama a socialist, and it doesn't make their speech rights protecting fascism or socialism. The allegations are just extremism of another form to bolster their claims.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 10:54 Falling wrote:
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself?
IMO free speech allows you to say whatever the fuck you want(provided it isn't hate speech and the like). You are not guaranteed a platform for people to listen to you, nor should you be guaranteed government protection to let you speak out at a public venue(this is different if there's a threat to safety). If your message gets drowned out by people who don't want to listen to you or people who disagree with your message, that's also protected, provided it's all done lawfully.
|
On March 04 2017 12:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Your repeated appeal to a first amendment argument when this isn't a first amendment issue isn't doing you any favors. xDaunt's "withholding of police powers" argument has been far more convincing, though I'm not legally well-versed enough to assess it's validity.
Third party's characterization of somebody else's argument isn't germane if he wants to quote and respond to me. Snip-quote and pivot to the side should be grounds to not respond at all (should he think it's been properly addressed).
|
I honestly can't think of anything that would qualify as postable in this forum that would be less important than this faux outrage over the first amendment.
Like holy shit, there are countless people having their constitutional rights systematically violated but conservatives want a pity party for some turd launchers?
Cry me a river, then build a bridge and get over it.
|
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people.
|
On March 04 2017 13:29 Sermokala wrote:
Alright fine the government doesn't have to protect anyone's ability to exercise their ability to any of the constitutional rights. People are allowed to discriminate others ability to assemble and no one really cares if unpopular speech is protected in anyway.
I guess I was hoping for too much out of people.
I'm sorry, was someone preventing from saying something, or were they just denied their desired audience?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
