Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href='http://www.game-advertising-online.com/' target='_blank'>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Big Brother Government
Thread: Big Brother Government [ This thread is 2 pages long: (1) 2 ]
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted August 13, 2011 03:42 AM
Edited by Elodin at 09:23, 13 Aug 2011.

Big Brother Government in the Modern Era

Big Brother

Ah, San Francisco, a city known for its tolerance of different viewpoints, right? Hmmmmmm. It seems they are not so very tolerant of free speech. San Fran went into "big brother" mode and shut down the cell phone nodes in the Bay Area Transport System to try to prevent a planned protest. Yep, all citizens were denied cell phone usage while in the mass transport system. People who needed to use their cell phones to make arrangements for child care or to attend to business matters were out of luck.

So what do you think? Was the action justifiable or an infringement of liberties?

Clicky

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Transit officials said Friday they blocked cell phone reception in San Francisco stations for three hours to disrupt a planned demonstrations over a police shooting.

Officials with the Bay Area Rapid Transit system, better known as BART, said they turned off the electricity to cell phone towers in four stations from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Thursday. The move was made after BART learned that protesters planned to use mobile devices to coordinate a demonstration on train platforms.



"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."  William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
B-E-T-A
B-E-T-A


Promising
Legendary Hero
Watching You
posted August 13, 2011 04:05 AM

No, I don't their actions were justified. That's my 2 cents. B-E-T-A out.
____________
There is no good or evil, only madness. The question is "Just how mad are you?"

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 13, 2011 04:29 AM

I heard British gov't was considering this exact same thing to help slow down London riots.  
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
FriendOfGunnar
FriendOfGunnar


Honorable
Supreme Hero
able to speed up time
posted August 13, 2011 06:40 AM

Speaking of big brother government, from 1860 onwards Texas had a statute against sodomy.  In the beginning the punishment was a staggering 5 to 15 years in prison.  It was only ended in 2003 when the Supreme Court declared that people have a right to a certain amount of privacy in their life.

Quote:
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, deciding Lawrence et al. v. Texas, 206 reversed Texas courts207 and, explicitly overruling the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, struck down the state’s “homosexual conduct” statute. Similarly to the Bowers case, John Lawrence and his lover, Tyron Garner, were discovered engaging in consensual sexual activity in their own home via a police visit for an unrelated matter. In their appeal, Lawrence and Garner asked the Court to overrule Bowers, as well as to find the subject statute in violation of both privacy and equal protection provisions of the Constitution. By a vote of 6-3, the Court did strike down the law, though there was not unanimity among the majority.

Speaking for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy (joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) took little time to get to the substance of the case. Reiterating the string of Court decisions involving the right to privacy, which he noted were not limited to married couples, Kennedy silently paid homage to Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent in Bowers in which he noted the great magnitude of rights at stake with sodomy laws. Kennedy said the “penalties and purposes” of the laws “have more far-reaching consequences, touching upon the most private conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.” He added that sodomy statutes “seek to control a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals



you can read the whole stupid history here


lol, I just found this *shaking head*
Quote:
In 1979, Texas enacted a law that outlawed the sale or possession for sale of dildos or artificial vaginas. This law did not outlaw purchase or use of them.


 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted August 13, 2011 09:19 AM

What is your point? Sodomy was illegal in EVERY state as well as in Europe and many other parts of the world.

A human rights organization blames Britian for many of the world's sodomy laws though certainly a number of other places where Britian had no influence had sodomy laws.

Clicky

Quote:

A new Human Rights Watch report has termed ‘sodomy’ laws an oppressive legacy of the British colonialism and Victorian morality. Many erstwhile colonies of Britain still retain the laws, including India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in South Asia.

New York: More than half of the world's remaining "sodomy" laws – criminalising consensual homosexual conduct – are relics of British colonial rule, Human Rights Watch showed in a report published earlier this week.



I made this thread to talk about current big brother activity, really, not about the past.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Shyranis
Shyranis

Hero of Order
posted August 13, 2011 11:37 AM

Hm... copying and touching up from another post of mine elsewhere:

Current laws huh?


How about recording public conversations with police officers in Maryland. (or Massachusetts, Illinois, or 9 other states). That is a felony there and will either get you jailtime or a serious fine even though there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the middle of the street or sidewalk police are abusing wiretapping laws to hide and protect the few officers among them that are corrupt.

That's big government for sure.


In Texas, it's up to a Felony if you own or promote the use of more than 6... dildos.... they actually had to write that as a law. Why??? Either ignore them or ban them entirely. If some Texas artist made some dildo themed superhero they would be arrested and charged with a felony. Basically big brother taking away your right by making it illegal for you to make an ass out of yourself or look like a pervert.



How about this Obamas government wants to make streaming a felony. How about a kid who gets charged with a felony for watching a youtube video of copyrighted material, even if the material was in fair use. This is basically a continuation of the policies of every American Federal gov't every though because the RIAA and MPAA have so, soooo many lobbyists corrupting or seducing politicians. The two parties both basically agree to this draconian garbage. Obama is the one who would avoid putting his veto on it though.



Of course there are issues with Free Speech Zones which have been around since the Reagan era but have really become more prominent post 9/11.




There are tons of stupid laws in place or powerful forces are trying to force on people.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.

Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
FriendOfGunnar
FriendOfGunnar


Honorable
Supreme Hero
able to speed up time
posted August 14, 2011 05:02 AM

Oh look, here's some more big brother government, the Texas Marijuana Laws

In Texas if you give somebody 1/4 ounce of marijuana (without taking any payment) it's considered the same as if you have 2 ounces of marijuana in your possession.  I have a really hard time seeing any type of crime in either one of those circumstances but apparently the intrusive government of Texas believes that you deserve:  "incarceration for a period of 180 days with a fine of $2,000."


some commentary:
Quote:
Texas. On an annual basis, no state arrests and criminally prosecutes more of its citizens for pot than does Texas. Marijuana arrests comprise over half of all annual arrests in the Lone Star State. It is easy to see why. In 2009, more than 97 percent of all Texas marijuana arrests—over 77,000 people—were for possession only. Those convicted face up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine, even upon a first conviction.

Despite Texas’ dubious distinction as the #1 pot prosecuting state in America, police and lawmakers have little interest in exploring alternatives. In 2007, Gov. Rick Perry signed legislation (HB 2391) into law granting police the option of issuing a summons in lieu of an arrest in minor marijuana possession cases. Yet aside from police in Austin, long considered to be the state’s lone bastion of liberalism, law enforcement have continued to fervently make arrests in even the most trivial of pot cases.

In 2011, Houston Democrat Harold Dutton introduced House Bill 458, which sought to reduce penalties for the adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana to a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 and no criminal record. Within weeks, over 2,500 Texans contacted their House members in support of the measure. Nonetheless, House lawmakers refused to even consider bringing the measure to a vote.


Source

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted August 14, 2011 05:12 AM

All US states have stupid laws.  I don't really think pointing this out has any bearing on the topic at hand.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted August 14, 2011 06:27 AM

Wait, wait. STUPID law is not the correct term, is it? The regulation may be stupid, but the punishment that comes with breaking it, isn't stupid at all, right? If you were fined with 1$, it would be a stupid law. As it is, it's a dangerous law.

Anyway - this discussion is rather pointless. Had there been a demonstration and had there been "incidents", all would have cried, why the hell the autorities wasn't doing something to prevent the forseeable riots.

Now, what a wicked move by the authorties - switching off transmission towers for cell phones, how DARE they?
If people are not able to organize a legal demonstration without using their cell phones in bus and train terminals, they should ask themselves how people did it before the age of the cellphone. That's a somewhat pitiful display.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted August 14, 2011 06:51 AM

Quote:

Anyway - this discussion is rather pointless. Had there been a demonstration and had there been "incidents", all would have cried, why the hell the autorities wasn't doing something to prevent the forseeable riots.

Now, what a wicked move by the authorties - switching off transmission towers for cell phones, how DARE they?
If people are not able to organize a legal demonstration without using their cell phones in bus and train terminals, they should ask themselves how people did it before the age of the cellphone. That's a somewhat pitiful display.



So you are in favor of the government being able to shut down cell phones for an entire population in order to prevent a demonstration from occurring even if there is no indication that the protest will be violent in nature?
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted August 14, 2011 07:47 AM

Well, the real question is, whether the government is ALLOWED to do it, legally. It's not a question ofg whether you are for or against it.
If it is allowed, they could do it and did it. If you don't like that, the law has to be changed.
If they were not allowed to, they overstepped their borders, and legal action should be taken.
If there is a regulation that they CAN do it in special situations there should be an investigation whether they were justified to do it, to create legal clarity and certainty.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted August 14, 2011 11:38 AM

Quote:
Anyway - this discussion is rather pointless. Had there been a demonstration and had there been "incidents", all would have cried, why the hell the autorities wasn't doing something to prevent the forseeable riots.

Now, what a wicked move by the authorties - switching off transmission towers for cell phones, how DARE they?
If people are not able to organize a legal demonstration without using their cell phones in bus and train terminals, they should ask themselves how people did it before the age of the cellphone. That's a somewhat pitiful display.




You see, there is a extremely fine and thin line there.
On one hand a demonstrating turning into a major riot results in 30-90% of the population joining the pillaging and stealing.
On the other hand nothing is wrong with allowing the demonstration, and having a large enough bunch of riot police on standby to directly hault any riots if they are started.
There is also the minor question about "do we have a right to stop legally correct protests?".

On the other hand: Turning off the cellphone network opens a window for potential collabrative damage, on such a high level that anybody suggeting it should be shot merely for the suggestion.
If there is as much as 1 911 call that has been denyied due turning of the cell network, whoever authorized it should be sent to jail, quick.
There is many better ways to stop the protests, like taking advantage of the fact your city is suppose to have a policeforce in the first place.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
william
william


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
posted August 14, 2011 01:13 PM
Edited by william at 13:15, 14 Aug 2011.

They did the exact same thing, sort of, with the London Riots, however,, it was just the Blackberry. Blackberry phones are the most popular phones in England. They were also being used by most of the rioters to plot where they were going to hit next. So yes, turning that off was a great idea. For any other circumstance, I still think it's a good idea. You can still use your house phone to call emergency services, right?

But in terms f this thread, it's absolutely fine. If it stops crime from happening then what is the problem. God forbid having no phone. What did people do before that? lol
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted August 14, 2011 04:39 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 16:40, 14 Aug 2011.

No surprise to find apologists for statism here.

JJ:
Quote:
Anyway - this discussion is rather pointless. Had there been a demonstration and had there been "incidents", all would have cried, why the hell the autorities wasn't doing something to prevent the forseeable riots.
Who are "all"? Stopping a riot is the police's job, but not by infringing on people's civil liberties and private property rights. If a riot starts, the rioters should be beaten and arrested, but people shouldn't have their cell phone usage restricted by the government. It both hurts truly innocent people and a violation of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". Not to mention the danger of letting government shut off cell phone usage whenever it wants to.

william:
Quote:
If it stops crime from happening then what is the problem.
The fact that people who paid for their cell phone usage aren't getting service because of government intervention and are being punished for something they haven't done.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
william
william


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
posted August 14, 2011 05:24 PM
Edited by william at 17:26, 14 Aug 2011.

Oh god, you fool Mvass. It'd only be for a few hours. I'd much rather have no mobile phone than for businesses to potentially be looted and/or burnt down because people are using mobile phones to get their mates to potential target places. That is EXACTLY what happened with the London Riots and why Blackberry, the most popular phone in England, was turned off temporarily. If they have no way to communicate when they are out, then how are they going to get all their mates to go to a particular business and overrun it? Simple, they can't and therefore it was a good way to stop the rioters. It was one of the many reasons why it stopped. But, of course, you don't think about that, you much rather think about yourself than others, my mistake.

I'd also be willing to wager that most sane people would rather their phone service be disconnected temporarily than for people to loot places or burn them down. Most people want their town or city to be safe and if turning off mobile phone service will help that then most people will happily oblige like they did with London.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted August 14, 2011 05:31 PM

william: You say that until you need to call some emergency service, and the entire cell network is turned off due "lol lets stop riots".
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted August 14, 2011 05:57 PM

Quote:
I'd much rather have no mobile phone than for businesses to potentially be looted and/or burnt down because people are using mobile phones to get their mates to potential target places.
And I'm sure you'd rather have your phone functional and not have rioters overrunning shops. That can be done - the police just needs to be more active and hold back less. As soon as they start something, break out the riot gear. And property rights and civil liberties wouldn't be violated in that case. We can't allow the government to do whatever it wants in the name of "safety".
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted August 14, 2011 06:07 PM

The question is still, what the actual law says.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
william
william


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
posted August 14, 2011 07:44 PM

Quote:
william: You say that until you need to call some emergency service, and the entire cell network is turned off due "lol lets stop riots".


And why can't shop keepers use phones? I'm not talking about Mobile Phones either. I was told that that wasn't a problem. Have we become so dependent on mobile phones that we forgot what life was like without them and act as if it's the end of the world when they're gone? Geez..
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Seraphim
Seraphim


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted August 14, 2011 09:47 PM

Dudes,what europe needs now is communist style anti riot police with tanks,helis amd artillery,not these crappy "no cell phone" measures.
I mean,look at Syria.Those guys who want to protest there get to face these.You should be glad that your government does not use those...or not.


Nowadays,society is heading towards a "more security" stance which means that governments pecking on liberties will be the norm,whether justified or not is another issue.

Though,I would like to see measures that affects only the criminals,not the indifferent populus.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 2 pages long: (1) 2 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1335 seconds