Government monitoring Twitter

[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.

[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?

[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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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) ....

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

So far, same sex marriage has been successfully in the courts by asserting that the government should have no role in limiting who I choose to marry unless some form of clear and scientifically confirmable danger (e.g. incest between close relatives) exists. It has also been argued that offering "civil unions" smacks of the separate but equal hogwash associated with Jim Crow laws.

[HoreTore]

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

It is my understanding that the US legal system treats sexuality as equal to gender and race(because of, basically, 'born this way'). I didn't attempt to start a scientific debate, I only wanted to state what it is in the eyes of the law.

[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.