Government monitoring Twitter

[Vincent Butler]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

[Montmorency]

So much for the freedom of speech.

Um...lol?

[Vincent Butler]

So much for the freedom of speech.

Correct, that was sarcasm. Yet one more right our government is attempting to trample on.

[HoreTore]

Yes, because someone listening to what you say is apparently removing your right to say stuff.

[Greyblades]

...It's freaking twitter. If you didnt want the government reading something, why the hell are you putting it on twitter?

[Husar]

Oh really?

Now that really bothers me given that the NSA is collecting all my information and I don't even have a Twitter account.
You should be happy that America is better than China because that is really the only other option.

[Vincent Butler]

I don't mind them seeing what is on stuff like Facebook or Twitter, though I am not on either one of those. The Org is as close as I come to social media. If you put it on social media, don't complain when the government reads it. It is their monitoring what people say, and keeping a database of it, that I object to. I fully believe that they will try to use it to wrest more freedoms away. Look, they have been spying on Brazil, Germany, and other countries, they have been tapping phones illegally in this country, keeping a database of phone calls, they have been using the IRS to pressure the opposition into irrelevance. They have been calling professional sports stars before Congress, even though those matters are outside of Congress's jurisdiction. As Jefferson predicted, liberty is yielding, government is gaining ground. Contrary to what many people seem to think (I'm not saying people on this forum are thinking this way), government is not all-powerful and does not have the right to do whatever it wants.

[Pannonian]

site:twitter.com "david cameron" "idiot"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

Errr....any tweet you make that is made as a public tweet is collected by the Library of Congress in an open and searchable database....a condition you have agreed to in your EULA.

[HoreTore]

I don't mind them seeing what is on stuff like Facebook or Twitter, though I am not on either one of those. The Org is as close as I come to social media. If you put it on social media, don't complain when the government reads it. It is their monitoring what people say, and keeping a database of it, that I object to. I fully believe that they will try to use it to wrest more freedoms away. Look, they have been spying on Brazil, Germany, and other countries, they have been tapping phones illegally in this country, keeping a database of phone calls, they have been using the IRS to pressure the opposition into irrelevance. They have been calling professional sports stars before Congress, even though those matters are outside of Congress's jurisdiction. As Jefferson predicted, liberty is yielding, government is gaining ground. Contrary to what many people seem to think (I'm not saying people on this forum are thinking this way), government is not all-powerful and does not have the right to do whatever it wants.

You need to be more specific than "they will take away our freedumz!!!11"

What right, specifically, do you fear the government is planning to take away? And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?

....And how has the taxman been abused...? Do you believe that politicians are not skimping on taxes like everyone else?

[Kadagar_AV]

Twitter can be read by anyone, so why be bothered by the state tracking you?

Unless of course you have a anonymous twitter account, and the government actually tracks who the person behind it is. Now that I would deem problematic.

Keep the internet free and anonymous

[Vincent Butler]

What right, specifically, do you fear the government is planning to take away? And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?

I am concerned about them taking away any freedom. To name a few freedoms lost, look at the private bakery owners who have been ordered to bake cakes for homosexual weddings. Freedom of religion lost. Most states require a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Freedom to bear arms infringed. Pennsylvania now says their cops don't need a warrant to search private vehicles. Freedom to be secure in our effects lost. Now maybe you don't mind your government controlling freedoms that much, but I do. All three instances I mentioned are acknowledged rights in our Constitution.

And why do you believe that keeping a twitter database is the ultimate way to achieve that goal?

That is where it starts, or is continuing, if you ask me. They will crack down on what they deem offensive. Nobody has the right to not be offended. And look, nobody cares if Christians are offended. Removal of Ten Commandments and nativity scenes, same-sex marriage being voted against by the people and then upheld by the courts, mind-altering drugs being legalized...yeah, how bright is that? Do you see my point? They preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of like-minded views, and totally intolerant of Christianity.

[HoreTore]

Quite the stretch from Nazi Germany.

As for not being tolerant of Christian views and the supposed crackdown on religious freedom: the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong. As long as they are running with few restrictions, claiming that religious freedom in general, and christian freedom specifically, is in any danger is ridiculous.

Hate speech is restricted, as it should be. As the WBC is not affected by that, the US treshold for what constitutes hate speech is ridiculously low.

The few things you mentioned are all issues where your religious freedom brushes against the freedoms of others. I see no reason why religious freedom for Christians should trump the rights of others, like the right to recognition of a partnership.

[Hax]

They preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of like-minded views, and totally intolerant of Christianity.

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

[HoreTore]

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

Playing the victim is mandatory in the looniesphere.

[Vincent Butler]

Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.

the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong

Now I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Hate speech is restricted, as it should be. As the WBC is not affected by that, the US threshold for what constitutes hate speech is ridiculously low.

The few things you mentioned are all issues where your religious freedom brushes against the freedoms of others. I see no reason why religious freedom for Christians should trump the rights of others, like the right to recognition of a partnership.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

[HoreTore]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) is in almost all cases ruled to be opposed by your constitution.

Regarding homosexual marriage, the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority. A clear sign of a civilized and democratic society.

As for what constitutes hate speech: I am in no way claiming to be an expert at US law, but I believe the US courts draw the line at incitement to violence. And yes, the US courts do have a right to tell you what you may or may not do. That's their job. You are free to disagree of course, but any refusal to act according to their will means prison.

[Pannonian]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.
Now I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

Don't US private businesses have a freedom to refuse service to anyone they like, or is this on a state by state basis? I know there's a restaurant somewhere in redneck land that serves whites only, and refuses service to blacks and other coloureds, gays, and other non-Aryan acceptable groups. I know that it's not the case in the UK since the Constantine case, where a hotel owner was ruled to be in the wrong for trying to turn away a black would-be customer.

[Hax]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government

Not so much sarcasm, it was kinda..incredulous really.

In any case, are we still talking about the same country, the one of which the president got into no trouble whatsoever because some people thought he might not be a Christian?

[Vincent Butler]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority

A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

[HoreTore]

The courts are indeed there to interpret law. You do not have the right to interpret law. The US courts have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the constitution.

Democracy does not equal a tyranny of the majority, and the people refers to all people, not just a majority of the people. As homosexuals are a part of 'the people', the government did indeed rule in favour of the people and against the majority oppressing a minority. A proper democracy stops any and all attempts to dictate the lives of minorities when the rights of the majority is not affected. Gay marriage does not affect non-homosexuals in any way whatsoever, and so restricting the rights of the homosexuals is not something a democratic society can do.

Accepting that people live differently from yourself when your own life is not affected by their decisions is a fundamental feature of a free society.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.

[Pannonian]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

Why are you complaining about the courts making law, then complaining that the government is no longer for the people? Aren't the courts and the government separate and kept separate?

[Vincent Butler]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.

I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

[Pannonian]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I don't think it's too controversial a statement to say that the founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling. I believe this view is exactly the definition of tyranny as the founders would have seen it, where one of the arms of the republic overrides another.

Horetore has done military service in the Norwegian army, and is a reservist.

[Major Robert Dump]

The funny thing about Twitter is that users ultimately end up with brain damage and cognitive dysfunction, so all those government agents who listen will suffer the same fate

[Kadagar_AV]

Pannonian, please don't mistake conscript service for military service.

A conscript can spend most of his day fidgeting himself, whereas one doing military service is like in any other professional army. Only arguably tougher and smarter than other armys average training and experience of the personnel.

Heck, to do actually military service in the north, you are on comparable level with "elite" forces around the globe.



ON TOPIC: The only people I know using Twitter are mainly idiots anyway :

[Husar]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy.

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

My race, gender, I cannot help.

You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

[Kadagar_AV]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?



You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Has anybody seen the story that is out now about the federal government in
America creating a database to track down political smears, false and misleading information, and such like, aka hate speech? So much for the freedom of speech.

Sources, man

[Vincent Butler]

Sources, man

I know it will draw ire mentioning I saw it on Fox News.

founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling

Just about everybody was against homosexuality, so there was no need to mention opposition to it. In what culture other than now has it been tolerated? The Constitution defines how the government is to be there for the people. The court should not have made that ruling because the issue is not addressed in the Constitution. If the people had voted it for same-sex marriage, and the court struck that down, that too would be a ruling contrary to the Constitution. That is an issue left for the states to decide.

You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:

Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.