Comment by WarOnPrivacy

It’s not the ideal of the system. We shouldn’t have two tiered justice, the top should be being held accountable.

Adams and Jefferson wrestled with another question. J said generations shouldn’t be tied to the decisions of their ancestors. Adams said but surely laws are necessary to maintain stability and order and preserve their fragile democracy for future generations.

Not quite that simple. Laws legitimise and stabilise those in power. If enough people stop believing in the law, it really threatens those in power.

There are other means to gaining power, of course.

maybe we’re inching towards rule by law vs rule of law by making things so abstruse that you need a multiyear education to understand what is allowed, when and where.

I also recommend that podcast but I would suggest balancing it with '5-4' podcast or 'strict scrutiny'. Sara and David do a very good job explaining both sides and the law but there are times I think advisory opinions could spend more time on the arguments made by the other side or the weaker portions of their supported view.

This does nothing to protect anonymity as you are still assigned a unique code that has been tied to your ID at the liquor store.

I got years of their spam without signing up. Only after several years did they add a way to opt out an email address without making an account.

The world is very complex. It's effectively impossible to write laws on most topics that perfectly capture all nuance. Which is why we have a judicial system that can look at a law and a situation and say "nope, this law (or this usage of a law) is incorrect". Which is what's happened here, where the court issued an injunction on enforcement of the Texas law.

Can you back that up? Basically nowhere else I'm aware of do we draw that kind of expansive categorization. A gas station isn't a book store if they have one rack of books next to all the snacks. A book store isn't an electronics shop if they have a rack of e-readers.

Now apply that logic to the whole of the internet..

You might arrive at an old saying, about what the internet is for.

Far from it, but I'd rather not drag things so severely off topic. I'll just point out that you used to be able to mail order some surprising (at least by modern sensibilities) stuff.

Because that's the way our courts have ruled on it.

Nothing more complicated than that. The courts are empowered by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution, and their interpretation says kids can have their rights limited.

That didn't happen until 1968 and by that time the constitution was basically toilet paper. The answer is ever since the progressive (and on some occasions, before that) era the constitution was more of a guideline, occasionally quoted by judges much like you can quote the bible to support pretty much anything if you twist it enough.

It used to be worse, back in the days. See that case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy

> The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution.

This is explicitly the case with voting rights, but other than that? While there a contextual limits where age may be a factor as to whether the context applies (e.g., some of the linitations that are permitted in public schools), I can't think of any explicit Constitutional right where the courts have allowed application of a direct age limit to the right itself. Can you explain specifically what you are referring to here?

> The interpretation of existing jurisprudence is that age limits on the free exercise of rights is Constitutional in many circumstances regardless of if such limits are not explicitly in the Constitution. This is a simple observation of the current state of reality.

> Those age limits are arbitrary and the justification can sometimes be nebulous but they clearly exist in the US.

I mean, kind of, I guess?

States make their own age-related rules. The states are part of the US. So technically sure, you're right. In practice, you're very wrong.

Perhaps if you had examples or decisions to explain what you're talkinh about, you would make your point better?

As is, you are being politely called out as incorrect because you are asserting someone people don't believe and not providing any argument, evidence or justification.

If someone set a bomb using a speech recognition algorithm looking for specific elements of political speech, and I knowingly detonated it with that kind of political speech, would the act of my political speech be protected speech?

Is the act of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater protected speech?

Surely there should be some limits on what constitutes protected speech.

Who cares if you don't like his analogy? His point is that this is a violation of the 1st Amendment. Which, by the way, does not mention anything about content being known or not.

> The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated.

Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge.

The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public.

You don't understand that news item. The police didn't search a specific person's account, they asked Google (who gave it to them voluntarily) anyone who searched the victim's address in the past week. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

>The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history.

How does this work? Does that mean if Pennsylvania police ask google nicely for it, then google isn't breaking the law in complying? Or that Google has to hand over the information even without a warrant?

> The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects.

Do you mean those who rent their homes?

I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it.

To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have.

> The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities

There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment.

The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether.

The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data.

And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can.