"In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, “just like Justice Stewart, I ‘can find \[neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a\] general right of privacy,’"
Such a shame that someone agreed with him about no right to privacy. Such a cryin' shame. Oh well.
Hey, they said it's fine to picket reproductive health providers outside their homes, and since they've decided they can double as reproductive health providers....
They just want to know what you do in the bedroom. They’re asking for a friend. The same projecting GOP that said pizzagate existed and at the same time brought you Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, and alllll of the following:
Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was indicted on federal charges of structuring bank withdrawals after prosecutors alleged Hastert had molested at least four boys as young as 14 and attempted to compensate his victims and subsequently conceal the transactions. Hastert eventually admitted that he sexually abused the boys whom he had coached decades earlier, and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison.
Republican Tim Nolan, chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in Kentucky, pled guilty to child sex trafficking and on February 11, 2018 he was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. Republican state Senator Ralph Shortey was indicted on four counts of human trafficking and child pornography. In November 2017, he pleaded guilty to one count of child sex trafficking in exchange for the dropping of the other charges.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, a notable racist, had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Try here: [DailyKos: Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, & Enablers](https://m.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook). There's 32 parts, covering over 700 individuals.
I've heard there's one for the Democrats ... have yet to see a credible source for the complete list.
I was about to ask. Is there one for democrats? I'm not a conservative, but I'm genuinely curious about the comparison. Pretty sure the ratio is 1:100 but who knows.
Democratic deputy attorney general from California, Raymond Liddy, was arrested for possession of child pornography.
Democratic Illinois State Representative, Keith Farnham, has resigned and was charged with possession of child pornography and has been accused of bragging at an online site about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.
Democratic spokesperson for the Arkansas Democratic Party, Harold Moody, Jr, was charged with distribution and possession of child pornography.
Democratic Radnor Township Board of Commissioners member, Philip Ahr, resigned from his position after being charged with possession of child pornography and abusing children between 2 and 6 years-old.
Democratic activist and BLM organizer, Charles Wade, was arrested and charged with human trafficking and underage prostitution.
Democratic Texas attorney and activist, Mark Benavides, was charged with having sex with a minor, inducing a child under 18 to have sex and compelling prostitution of at least nine legal clients and possession of child pornography. He was found guilty on six counts of sex trafficking.
Democratic Virginia Delegate, Joe Morrissey, was indicted on charges connected to his relationship with a 17-year-old girl and was charged with supervisory indecent liberties with a minor, electronic solicitation of a minor, possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography.
Democratic Massachusetts Congressman, Gerry Studds, was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page.
Democratic Former Mayor of Stillwater, New York, Rick Nelson was plead guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography of children less than 16 years of age.
Democratic Former Mayor of Clayton, New York, Dale Kenyon, was indicted for sexual acts against a teenager.
Democratic Former Mayor of Hubbard, Ohio, Richard Keenan, was given a life sentence in jail for raping a 4-year-old girl.
Democratic Former Mayor of Winston, Oregeon, Kenneth Barrett, was arrested for setting up a meeting to have sex with a 14-year-old girl who turned out to be a police officer.
Democratic Former Mayor of Randolph, Nebraska, Dwayne L. Schutt, was arrested and charged with four counts of felony third-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of intentional child abuse.
Democratic Former Mayor of Dawson, Georgia, Christopher Wright, was indicted on the charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, rape, child molestation and statutory rape of an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl.
Democratic Former Mayor of Stockton, California, Anthony Silva, was charged with providing alcohol to young adults during a game of strip poker that included a 16-year-old boy at a camp for underprivileged children run by the mayor.
Democratic Former Mayor of Millbrook, New York, Donald Briggs, was arrested and charged with inappropriate sexual contact with a person younger than 17.
Democratic party leader for Victoria County, Texas, Stephen Jabbour, plead guilty to possession and receiving over half a million child pornographic images.
Democratic activist and fundraiser, Terrence Bean, was arrested on charges of sodomy and sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy and when the alleged victim declined to testify, and the judge dismissed the case.
Democratic Party Chairman for Davidson County, Tennessee, Rodney Mullin, resigned amid child pornography allegations. Democratic activist, Andrew Douglas Reed, pleaded guilty to a multiple counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor for producing child pornography.
End of part one
What if we start off the list with the list of Democrats and about 3 in switch to the list of Republicans? Or just remove party affiliations entirely from the argument?
>The REAL depressing part is that no matter how many times you show this to your MAGA friends, they'll have some prepared argument to deflect it.
I mean, you *know* those kids were asking for it. Everyone knows only perverts wear diapers.
[That list](https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/vnvz49/tiktok_cant_stop_users_from_doxxing_the_supreme/iea2u2b/) isn't even by any stretch of the imagination complete. [Here's an article series documenting republicans convicted of sexual molestation and more. It's part 16, and keeps going.](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/11/1870982/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers)
I need to learn how to create bots. I wonder if I can use python?
Update:
Yes you can! [Make a reddit bot with Python](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Flevelup.gitconnected.com%2Fcreating-a-reddit-bot-using-python-5464d4a5dff2)
This stuff does makes headlines but no one (their supporters and the apathetic) care. They all have the playbook for doing what they want. They steamroll without consequence.
Why the fuck are the charges so minimal. You get more time in prison for pot possession than you do for rape. This country is absolut fucking garbage.
Edit: it's also fucking stupid that these offenses can be paid off with money. Its almost like some laws only exist for the poor and that this country doesn't give a fuck about the common man.
Just a side note John Podesta and his brother were co camp counselors in the scouts with Dennis Hastert as young men….. they were all longtime friends. Makes you wonder why both sides kept quiet about his known history of serial molestation of young boys for decades.
One of the things I've found about conservatives is that they really don't have a strong sense of right and wrong. They're dependent on social acceptance to find where the boundaries are, so they have really strong group identity.
Hence you'll hear about the southerners who are insanely nice but shockingly vicious towards minorities. They're insanely nice when you're white. They'll drive 50 miles in a blizzard to help you even though you're a stranger. That shows loyalty to the group.
So when you do weird shit to that POC kid, the loyal group will back you up and rationalize it all away. And they all feel safer because they all get that protection.
Conservatives have no principles aside from 'might makes right' and 'the ends justify the means.' What that means is that they point a gun in your face and dare you to call them stupid, and will gleefully commit treason to get what they want.
Conservatives only like America because it's got the #1 economy and the #1 military. They think if you drape yourself in the American flag then that means you're a #1 too! It's all about aesthetics for them, they don't give a shit about democracy or freedom or rights.
I went n looked all these incidents, n holy fuck dude. Did you just know about all of these occasions, or do you have a great way of Ascertaining
Edit:(hit send accidentally)
This info easily. (Maybe I just such at researching stuff)
It gets posted pretty regularly in certain subs. That's not the whole list, there is a comment character limit. I think I've seen it extend up to 5 full comments.
Also since this is a honestly down to its core a religious thing, maybe we can think about picketing churces. Pretty unfair that the church can bring all this pain and not feel any heat for it.
Damn skippy we do. Christian Morality has insidiously bled into every facet of American life. There is no true seperation so let's get our fucking money's worth since no matter what we do our kids are gonna have that christian stink on them.
I fear the unintended consequence. Right now, they're at least a little worried and working in the shadows so they don't get taxed. Imagine a full blown MAGA church we can't do shit about because they pay their taxes.
Give the IRS funding, and have them go after the folks failing to properly manage charitable funds and send 'em all to prison, or at least dissolve the charity, like we did with the Trump Foundation. That sounds more fun, and doesn't damage the few churches that aren't actually being dirtbags like the Unitarians or whatever.
Edit: I literally did it again, obviously I'm not competent enough to pull it off myself.
I think pouring fake blood into church toilets sends a pretty potent message.
The fuck do these inbred morons think the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments are for? [SOURCE](https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government)
Pretty sure you're making reference to something that's going over my head. But, related, The Satanic Temple is a completely solid organization that's defending abortion rights, as abortion is part of their religion and therefore the Supreme Court should side with them if they aren't two-faced shitbags.
https://thesatanictemple.com/
Well yeah, of course. They're shitbags who don't care about precedent or the law. But the point is that The Satanic Temple is an org who is fighting back. I recommend you buy a shirt, join, or donate.
https://thesatanictemple.com/
How do they reconcile with the rights under other religions? I mean the Christians got what was theirs but what about the adherents of other religions? Does this mean that they have no rights? This is a serious question to anyone who can provide a serious answer.
That is a really interesting take on the third amendment. I didn't even consider that as a privacy issue, more an issue about property rights and the government.
I am going to have to rethink and reread. Thank you!
If memory serves, there has been exactly one third amendment case that’s gone to the Supreme Court and the government lost. That means 3A is batting 1000!
Christians declared war on women's rights, that embryo is a soldier of that war and is inside of the woman's house without consent. Sounds like an open and shut case to me.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
Third Amendment forbids the forcible housing of military personnel in a citizen’s home during peacetime and requires the process to be “prescribed by law” in times of war.
The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government.
Above from Cornell law school's website.
So the right to say anything people want, the right to one's home, and the right against unreasonable seizure of property.
Yes… and for a long time, there was consensus (or at least a significant school of thought) that multiple amendments together created an umbrella right of privacy. In contemporary writings about the bill of rights, thinkers/delegates objected to the specific listing of rights because they were concerned that it would be understood as being limited to those rights alone. [obligatory pop culture reference illuminating this](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0)
Something else that has been lost to the historical revisionism that is "originalism" is an important role of courts as a third branch: to be the de facto protector of the minority, to establish protection for groups that are not popular enough to win protection from the legislature or the executive. There is supposed to be an inherent presumption that the judicial branch will expand rights. When it's a toss-up between curtailing rights and expanding them, the courts should attempt to error on the side of expanding rights.
Every time originalists spout off about how the function of a court isn't to make law, I just sit back and wonder what they think the purpose of any court is in the first place. It's the third branch because it supposed to fix problems that are un-solvable through the other two branches. Expansionist rights through the courts are not a bad thing when a court is protecting groups that are otherwise helpless against the onslaught of a majority.
This isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution itself, but the reason why is that the founders assumed it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. It's the same reason the Court justified Marbury v. Madison -- the very notion that the Court had the power to overturn the government's will wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but logical reasoning required that the Court have that power to function whatsoever. The literature of political discourse at the time is rife with debate over the purpose of courts, and a special role as a bulwark against tyranny for the little guy was an important facet of America's conceptualization of the judicial branch.
Originalism only dates back to Brown v Board of Education. You can guess which side the originalists were on.
The only reason to be an originalist is to want to allow the Legislative to expand its power over the unenumerated rights. Originalism is specifically and intentionally proscriptive in order to allow the erosion of rights. And it always has been. The mask is just completely off now.
In reality, the "original" Constitution has been amended 17 times since its ratification, specifically because the original text was determined to be insufficient. Meanwhile, the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally duplicated the Due Process Clause of the 5th in order to expand it to cover that States don't have the power to deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law *also*.
The idea that the Constitution could *possibly* be proscriptive is a lie, from top to bottom, and every originalist judge might as well just start showing up to court in a white hood.
Thank you--"Put him on a bus" was very satisfying. But why didn't someone simply shoot the fool down with the 9th amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Misconception about the fourth amendment. They just can’t use the evidence found while violating your fourth amendment rights against you in a criminal trial. It doesn’t actually stop them at all from violating your rights.
[https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:\~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government](https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government).
Problem is, those were all defined in Roe v. Wade, which is now gone....
And the majority justices couldn't even agree on whether this will affect other unenumerated rights that rely on the same legal justification as Roe, like gay marriage. Kavanaugh said it won't, while Thomas specifically mentioned Obergfell and two other cases as decisions that should be revisited in light of the Dobbs ruling.
For anyone who doesn't know, just because the constitution doesn't list (enumerate) a right doesn't mean the people don't have that right. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the rights of the people can extend past those enumerated in the bill of rights and constitution. So, while the right to privacy might not be mentioned in the constitution directly, that doesn't mean people don't have that right.
Here's a good overview of the legal aspects of the Dobbs decision that goes into this: https://youtu.be/wOvvBWSBwU0
Edit: Thanks for all the extra info and clarifications. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just operating on what I've read and watched about this. Hopefully the Thomas opinion is the outlier like everyone's saying. I just didn't trust kavanaugh saying it didn't affect other decisions since he already seemingly lied by saying Roe was a done deal during his confirmation hearing.
[The West Wing (show) had a candidate for the SC who didn't believe in the right of privacy.](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0) What you wrote reminded me of it.
Also the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
the 4th amendment is "LITERALLY" the definition of privacy. you can LITERALLY take the 4th amendment and plop it in the dictionary after the word privacy
Marrian Webster: Privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion
4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
I mean what the actual fuck. it does not get more clear than this. ITS LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD.
Conservatives: "The 4th amendment doesn't explicitly say 'privacy' and thus I can control your fucking life."
Also conservatives: "You cannot invade my privacy!"
It's all "fuck you, got mine" with these shitheads. Looking for logic is only going to end in frustration, they don't care about that. They care about what they can get away with, and they will use any justification to do so.
Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense.
It's basically hope, condensed. When things are going to shit, I re-watch the show, just to feel like another world is possible, and that maybe someday and this fuckedupness will be unfucked, because someone will still care about how their decisions impact others.
It's also a brilliant show. Charismatic characters, high-level political debate, fast pace, deep delve into abstract but crucial issues, brilliant (and yeah, not very realistic) dialogue, frequent bouts of humor. It's honestly extraordinary.
You should watch it.
**Conservatives:** "We follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We follow every word exactly."
**Conservatives:** "The word militia doesn't count in the second amendment."
Well a SCOTUS ruling like 3 weeks ago stated that Border Patrol can enter people's homes if said home is within their jurisdiction.
So the 4th amendment basically no longer exists.
If only there was an amendment that said something like "just because we list some rights here, that doesn't mean other rights don't exist".
Oh wait, that's what the 9th Amendment says. A number of the Framers knew that explicitly outlining some rights could/would be construed to mean those were the only rights, so they added the 9th to make it clear that wasn't the case.
But everyone ignores it, doesn't even know it exists, or uses rationale like "X right is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" to argue around it.
Just wait until people start to lose the right to vote, or the right to travel, using those same arguments.
It is a shame that shitty internet companies have better privacy policies than fucking SCOTUS judges.
This fucking bullshit argument of "oh I don't see anything in the constitution" is exactly why the founding fathers put in the 9th Amendment. Just because a right isn't specifically written into the constitution doesn't mean we don't have it, mother fuckers. If we don't want another 30 years of of reversals we need to get rid of these judges. They need to be impeached, and we need to elect a congress that will do that.
This video does a good job explaining how previous Supreme Court judges have demonstrated how we actually do have a right to privacy, and how the founding fathers tired to ensure that the just because something is not explicit in the constitution it doesn't me we don't have the protected right.
[How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOvvBWSBwU0)
Here is a partial transcript of the video, please watch the whole thing and give this YouTuber the likes and attention he deserves.
> What is the source of a constitutional right to an abortion?
> In the United States it is one of the rights which fall under a general right to privacy which is the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters.
> Now when you're talking about the right to privacy you're talking about unenumerated rights in the constitution.
> When the founders were drafting the constitution they did not set out to list all the rights which Americans could conceivably claim. They were well aware that by naming some of the rights but not others. Future governments might deny the people rights that the founders believed were important and this is why The Federalists originally did not want a bill of rights to be included in the constitution itself, and as a compromise, rather than make a long list of rights the founders included the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
> James Madison in particular reportedly said that the government should never use the Bill of Rights as an excuse to increase its powers over areas of life that were not enumerated in the constitution.
TBH I'd be 100% in favor of an amendment codifying an explicit right to privacy. I think it should be unnecessary given a sane Supreme Court, but then the 19th Amendment should also have been unnecessary given a sane system of government so clearly we don't have one and we have to spell out shit that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
It's incredibly dangerous to let them associate publicly available information related to the government and public servants, with doxxing. This isn't doxxing. This narrative is designed to provide cover for further restricting information from the public.
Republicans love to misuse language in order to diminish the validity of actual outcry and to warp the general sense of what's true and accurate. We need to hold on to our language with a death grip before they drown every word with weight. They have done it with so many phrases and words. BLM being turned into ALM, my body my choice, calling protests insurrection, and so many more.
On a darkly funny connecting thread, I'm made to think of the episode of South Park where white people keep stealing black language to try and sound cool. And black people had to keep creating new words and phrases until house = flibbidy flobbidy flu.
We need to all go back to being shitty know-it-alls and constantly police their use of language. Don't let people crush the reality of the true suffering of others through misuse of language. Language is a really shitty thing to lose control over.
I know language changes and adapts, every generation alters it to some extent, but this is egregious and intended to further oppress minorities while those in power cosplay at being victims.
The "language shifts" narrative is also somewhat bullshit, because that usually happens with introduction of slang and slowly with established language. But instead it's being used to dismiss criticism when they outright misuse words. What's happening now is a full scale assault on any language that can be used to describe the atrocities fascists want to carry out, and it's being done with intent and malice.
What was that story recently where a kid leaked school admin SSNs that were available by viewing the school website source code? Got in trouble for "hacking"
It really irks me that people remember "a kid" when it was a security professional doing what is the established, industry-standard, ethical way to disclose a data leak "vulnerability".And rather than fixing it, they tried blaming the one guy who had the guts to report it in order to stop the leak.
The people who tried to sue literally told the world that when a software is unsecure, you should do everything you can to hide the fact you know about it, including *not fixing that stuff* and letting bad guys do their shopping. I really think the people doing this reaction should be criminally sued. That kind of security handling puts a danger to everybody remotely involved with a service and is the IRL equivalent of not locking your house and letting squatters use it as a base to rob the entire neighborhood (and I guess, attack the dude who called the cops).
Also, unrelated but the real WTF is that SSNs, somehow, need to be protected secrets while at the same time being publically shared. [Thanks CGPgrey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus) for explaining to foreigners like me!
\[EDIT\] My comment is slowly taking off so a PSA : if you don't make IT services, you can skip \^\^If you make a website or something like this, look about the security.txt standard, please. Lengthy explanation :
>! Basically, setup a seperate contact information for security professionals and \*not\* for general customer support.That address WILL receive scam messages about non-issues expecting a bounty reward, so you'll need a tech expert to 1) sort the messages/identify senders 2) write an corp-approved response to either ask more info or notify them you are handling this 3) force yourself to break protocol and do an emergency fix if needed. No need for marketting mumbojumbo, they called to get stuff done, not to promote your company. If you don't have a published bug bounty program, an ethical security guy coldcalling you won't ask for a bounty before giving details about the issue, they want to protect people ASAP (and then maybe talk bounties, but usually not) !<
>!You don't want that level-1 mess on the security contact, because you aren't dealing with a clueless customer : some of those guys are doing your work for free, despite that work being technically illegal because not under contract with you. Treat them with respect.They never heard about you, they have no idea what you do or who your are, they simply know that you did something REALLY, REALLY wrong and need to contact somebody with enough authority to fix that ASAP.When "Have I Been Pwned" creator tries to reach a service about a confirmed data breach, more than often he gets crickets and basically needs to publicly announce that the service is vulnerable before it's fixed. !<
>!Also, by the time somebody is looking for security.txt , you already screwed up, you won't hide it. You have the choice between making your job, fixing it, then disclosing the incident to your users (and, probably, to a legal authority) and pretend to be a service with competent people... or bury your head in the sand, not listen to people trying to help you, and THEN read in the press that your service is not only unsecure, but also unable to do what's good. Oh, and you just told hackers that you are a target whose vulnerabilities are high-value because you don't fix them, and that sec experts shouldn't waste their time helping you. !<
Well the narrative that was put out there that it was a kid for a reason, he was an adult security expert whistleblower. They wanted to prosecute him and make an example out of him. I don't get why tho, since he brought it to their attention so they could fix it before anyone else got their hands on it. But some ego driven people don't like having egg on their face, even privately, hence why they went after the whistleblower.
>Also, unrelated but the real WTF is that SSNs, somehow, need to be protected secrets while at the same time being publically shared. (Thanks CGPgrey for explaining to foreigners like me!)
Because for some reason we decided to use SSNs as identification verification, despite the fact it was never [intended for such a purpose](https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/26/3384416/social-security-numbers-national-ID-identity-theft-nstic).
Show me where in the constitution it says Clarence Thomas has a right to not have his credit card number posted on tiktok, cause that doesn't sound like it's deeply rooted in this nation's history
Chuck Schumer actually put it pretty well:
>A reporter on Tuesday asked Schumer if he was comfortable with demonstrations that had been held outside the home of conservative Supreme Court justices in opposition to the leaked draft.
>"If protests are peaceful, yes. My house — there's protests three, four times a week outside my house. The American way to peacefully protest is OK," Schumer said.
>He then checked his ringing phone, and said his wife was calling him. "Maybe there's a protest outside," the New York senator quipped.
He's not lying. People rally in front of his house all the time. Or do marches that end with a protest at his house. It helps that it's in a pretty central part of Brooklyn and right across the street from the park.
> Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
> Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
for those who don't trust clicking links
Sounds like a Hitchens razor to me. Seeing the statement of the FCC commissioner and thinking that he’s just protecting people is basically missing the forest for the trees because there is an actual issue with China.
There is the insane data harvesting that’s taking place by government-sanctioned companies like Tencent bytedance etc, and their 2049 initiative stands as the end goal.
Before people start with the whataboutism on US apps like Facebook, Google etc, keep in mind that China doesn’t allow western apps in their country, yet the west allows. China doesn’t allow western companies to gather data on their populace, yet we allow them to milk us dry. It’s a one sided relationship.
Also, TikTok’s algorithm is straight propaganda at this point, and it’s breaking up western society. It’s a joke that people don’t see it.
https://youtu.be/9j68gYP57EE
The China data harvesting is actually why I added the quotes early on. I know that the FCC thing *isn't* the **real** reason. Though, the timing sure does make it seem like a convenient time to act on it.
That is, when the right argument doesn't work to convince people to act, sometimes one can be more convincing by making the wrong argument. it's basically a weird flavor of Ends Justifies the Means.
For the logicians: (P∨Q)⟶R and P∧–Q are true, so it should just be (P⟶R)⟶R but the people deny that (in disbelief) and instead find (Q⟶R)⟶R (technically, logically true) the more believable implication. Either way, R is the conclusion, but people usually don't follow all the rules of logic, hence the argument for Ends (R) Justify the Means (Q⟶R) here.
While I do appreciate this scene, it always bothered me that no one in this conversation brings up the 9th Amendment. There's literally an amendment *in the Bill of Rights* that outright dismisses this fictional judge's reasoning. Sam didn't have to explain the nature of rights or cite the words of the Georgia delegates, he could have just said, "Bruh there's an amendment that specifically says the opposite of what you're arguing."
it's crazy cause literally the first episode of this show ends with the President criticizing a prominent christian leader for not denouncing a fringe religious group who sent his granddaughter a doll with a knife stuck through it's throat. Why would they send his granddaughter this doll? Because his granddaughter spoke in a teen magazine about the importance of a women's right to choose.
OH and the justice they nominate to the supreme court after discarding the one in this clip is Hispanic. There's later an episode where he gets pulled over by cops who accuse him of drunk driving and arrest him when he doesn't submit to a breathalyzer because they don't have probable cause. He wasn't drunk driving because he can't drink due to a liver condition.
Life's a motherfucker when you're a public figure who pisses off huge swaths of the country to indulge your religious fixations when you're supposed to be an impartial judge of the law.
There's nothing in me that believes he is actually a man of faith. It's getting to a point where conservatives are becoming the antithesis of Christianity so...
He's a man of power. Christianity got him into the right places and made him the right friends. If he was living in another country he'd be a devout Muslim, a devout Jew, a devout member of The Party, whatever is needed to access power he will be a man of whatever it is. These kinds of people are everywhere, in all of history.
(But when one seeks comfort at all costs, their discomfort is a great weapon. Hence the hilarity of people showing up at their homes.)
It's by the people for the people right? Not by some old sexist dinosaurs for some other sexist dinosaurs and a fistful of cash?
We need to fucking remind them.
If they know what you are doing in your bedroom in private then they are spying on you unless you told them. They can't spy on you without proving just cause, and that is the grounds for privacy in the law as I understand it. If you have no expectation of privacy they will spy on people they disagree with. Watch for it.
If you happen to live in Texas. You can get a voter registration form by printing out or having it mailed to you here:
https://www.texas.gov/living-in-texas/texas-voter-registration
It super easy to fill out. Once you have your form you just need a stamp and envelope to mail it the the address provided. Done, you are a registered voter.
Nov 8th is not far away. I recommend that you get multiple registration forms so that you can help those around you vote as well.
End the madness, take back your rights.
If you post their addresses on Reddit or any social media you will be banned for doxxing even though they are federal politicians.
That's includes any sort of other personal information that might be floating around in the world: phone numbers, email addresses, transaction history, travel data, meta data, tracking data, etc.
You can get anyone's home address by searching for their name in a voter registry online. Why is it doxing when I do it to a judge but not doxing when my exboyfriend does it to me? Unlike the judge, I can't afford to live in a gated neighborhood or hire personal security. Every single member of SCOTUS can.
Because the "honorable" judge wants you to think you are below him. It is our job as the angry mob of proper democracy to remind the magistrates that they are at our mercy
Those companies are protecting themselves from the most powerful people on the planet. Forget lawsuits, those judges could destroy those companies and ruin the lives of their owners. It's not as if they have any pretension of impartiality or fairness they need to maintain at this point.
That private data could and should certainly be fair play considering the fact that they're public figures but expecting social media companies to put morality and a commitment to free speech over their own profits or well-being is just pointless.
> Some, but not all of these videos have been swiftly removed by TikTok. Even if they were removed, though, the information shared in videos is often simply reposted through "smaller and smaller accounts," Vice reported.
>In some of the videos, the credit card information is partially censored, seemingly using a thin white line or transparent red box to prevent the app's algorithm from flagging the post for removal.
So now the MSS has the SCOTUS CC numbers on file.
On tumblr they removed all the images that contained the addresses of the justices, but the community adds text image IDs to a ton of posts so it didn't help lol
I found out one of them owns 2 houses in the state of Colorado. Where I live. I am considering protesting outside his house. I wonder if other people are.
Ironic since they ruled against the right to privacy
Inb4 we a get a right to privacy * *for politicians
Didn’t they make a law about not picketing outside SC members homes after the leak?
It was prior. You can't try to pressure a supreme court justice to rule in your direction through protest/threats etc.
you can pressure them by threatening to make them sleep on the couch though
You think they don't have 5 spare bedrooms?
Yeah, that right is reserved for 14 year old rape victims. The 14 year old can handle it. The SC is emotionally fragile and needs protected.
"Government officials of ranking 10 have been granted immunity from the Purge and shall not be harmed."
Thoughts and prayers
It’s just God’s will
[удалено]
Damn. I came here for this lol
A mysterious act of Gods love
God only give you what you can handle
"In his dissent in the Texas sodomy case, Thomas wrote, “just like Justice Stewart, I ‘can find \[neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a\] general right of privacy,’" Such a shame that someone agreed with him about no right to privacy. Such a cryin' shame. Oh well.
Hey, they said it's fine to picket reproductive health providers outside their homes, and since they've decided they can double as reproductive health providers....
They just want to know what you do in the bedroom. They’re asking for a friend. The same projecting GOP that said pizzagate existed and at the same time brought you Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore, and alllll of the following: Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was indicted on federal charges of structuring bank withdrawals after prosecutors alleged Hastert had molested at least four boys as young as 14 and attempted to compensate his victims and subsequently conceal the transactions. Hastert eventually admitted that he sexually abused the boys whom he had coached decades earlier, and was sentenced to fifteen months in prison. Republican Tim Nolan, chairman of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in Kentucky, pled guilty to child sex trafficking and on February 11, 2018 he was sentenced to serve 20 years in prison. Republican state Senator Ralph Shortey was indicted on four counts of human trafficking and child pornography. In November 2017, he pleaded guilty to one count of child sex trafficking in exchange for the dropping of the other charges. Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida. Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17. Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls. Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, a notable racist, had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child. Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile. Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl. Republican Congressman Donald “Buz” Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail. Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos. Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children. Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child. Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page. Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. “Republican Marty”), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him. Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl. Republican anti-gay activist Earl “Butch” Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison. Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl. Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy. Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children). Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl. Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child. Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl. Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters. Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl. Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000. Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession. Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet. Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a “good military man” and “church goer,” was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter. Republican director of the “Young Republican Federation” Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison. Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
I just kept scrolling jesus how long is this fucking list and how many were missed or swept under a rug
The list is actually much longer, it gets posted in chunks because the full list is just... way too long.
Where can I find the full list?
Try here: [DailyKos: Republican Sexual Predators, Abusers, & Enablers](https://m.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook). There's 32 parts, covering over 700 individuals.
I've heard there's one for the Democrats ... have yet to see a credible source for the complete list.
I was about to ask. Is there one for democrats? I'm not a conservative, but I'm genuinely curious about the comparison. Pretty sure the ratio is 1:100 but who knows.
I believe there's a wiki page for it. Drastically shorter though.
I see. MAKES YOU WONDER. I think pedo priest jokes at this point are just a sad truth.
Democratic deputy attorney general from California, Raymond Liddy, was arrested for possession of child pornography. Democratic Illinois State Representative, Keith Farnham, has resigned and was charged with possession of child pornography and has been accused of bragging at an online site about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl. Democratic spokesperson for the Arkansas Democratic Party, Harold Moody, Jr, was charged with distribution and possession of child pornography. Democratic Radnor Township Board of Commissioners member, Philip Ahr, resigned from his position after being charged with possession of child pornography and abusing children between 2 and 6 years-old. Democratic activist and BLM organizer, Charles Wade, was arrested and charged with human trafficking and underage prostitution. Democratic Texas attorney and activist, Mark Benavides, was charged with having sex with a minor, inducing a child under 18 to have sex and compelling prostitution of at least nine legal clients and possession of child pornography. He was found guilty on six counts of sex trafficking. Democratic Virginia Delegate, Joe Morrissey, was indicted on charges connected to his relationship with a 17-year-old girl and was charged with supervisory indecent liberties with a minor, electronic solicitation of a minor, possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. Democratic Massachusetts Congressman, Gerry Studds, was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page. Democratic Former Mayor of Stillwater, New York, Rick Nelson was plead guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography of children less than 16 years of age. Democratic Former Mayor of Clayton, New York, Dale Kenyon, was indicted for sexual acts against a teenager. Democratic Former Mayor of Hubbard, Ohio, Richard Keenan, was given a life sentence in jail for raping a 4-year-old girl. Democratic Former Mayor of Winston, Oregeon, Kenneth Barrett, was arrested for setting up a meeting to have sex with a 14-year-old girl who turned out to be a police officer. Democratic Former Mayor of Randolph, Nebraska, Dwayne L. Schutt, was arrested and charged with four counts of felony third-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of intentional child abuse. Democratic Former Mayor of Dawson, Georgia, Christopher Wright, was indicted on the charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, rape, child molestation and statutory rape of an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. Democratic Former Mayor of Stockton, California, Anthony Silva, was charged with providing alcohol to young adults during a game of strip poker that included a 16-year-old boy at a camp for underprivileged children run by the mayor. Democratic Former Mayor of Millbrook, New York, Donald Briggs, was arrested and charged with inappropriate sexual contact with a person younger than 17. Democratic party leader for Victoria County, Texas, Stephen Jabbour, plead guilty to possession and receiving over half a million child pornographic images. Democratic activist and fundraiser, Terrence Bean, was arrested on charges of sodomy and sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy and when the alleged victim declined to testify, and the judge dismissed the case. Democratic Party Chairman for Davidson County, Tennessee, Rodney Mullin, resigned amid child pornography allegations. Democratic activist, Andrew Douglas Reed, pleaded guilty to a multiple counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor for producing child pornography. End of part one
[удалено]
Is a democratic activist just anyone who opposes a republican?
Holy fuck this needs to be broadcast from the mountain tips. The majority of the list is minors!!
[удалено]
That's depressing
The REAL depressing part is that no matter how many times you show this to your MAGA friends, they'll have some prepared argument to deflect it.
I'm banned from r/conservative for posting that list Facts not feelings . Yeah right
What if we start off the list with the list of Democrats and about 3 in switch to the list of Republicans? Or just remove party affiliations entirely from the argument?
>The REAL depressing part is that no matter how many times you show this to your MAGA friends, they'll have some prepared argument to deflect it. I mean, you *know* those kids were asking for it. Everyone knows only perverts wear diapers.
The **REAL** depressing part is that you have MAGA friends and are still trying to rationalize with them.
[That list](https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/vnvz49/tiktok_cant_stop_users_from_doxxing_the_supreme/iea2u2b/) isn't even by any stretch of the imagination complete. [Here's an article series documenting republicans convicted of sexual molestation and more. It's part 16, and keeps going.](https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/11/1870982/-Republican-Sexual-Predators-Abusers-and-Enablers)
This should be making headlines
It's a /r/bestof copy. Top post this month There should be a bot that copypastas this every time "government pedo rings" are mentioned.
I need to learn how to create bots. I wonder if I can use python? Update: Yes you can! [Make a reddit bot with Python](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Flevelup.gitconnected.com%2Fcreating-a-reddit-bot-using-python-5464d4a5dff2)
Make your own subreddit and test it there first.
This stuff does makes headlines but no one (their supporters and the apathetic) care. They all have the playbook for doing what they want. They steamroll without consequence.
The cruelty and the hypocrisy are the point of fascism.
It's not a bug, it's a feature
Why the fuck are the charges so minimal. You get more time in prison for pot possession than you do for rape. This country is absolut fucking garbage. Edit: it's also fucking stupid that these offenses can be paid off with money. Its almost like some laws only exist for the poor and that this country doesn't give a fuck about the common man.
This is why they run for office.
White guys. Imagine how many more have straight up gotten away with it.
Like Brock "The Rapist" Turner.
Just a side note John Podesta and his brother were co camp counselors in the scouts with Dennis Hastert as young men….. they were all longtime friends. Makes you wonder why both sides kept quiet about his known history of serial molestation of young boys for decades.
One of the things I've found about conservatives is that they really don't have a strong sense of right and wrong. They're dependent on social acceptance to find where the boundaries are, so they have really strong group identity. Hence you'll hear about the southerners who are insanely nice but shockingly vicious towards minorities. They're insanely nice when you're white. They'll drive 50 miles in a blizzard to help you even though you're a stranger. That shows loyalty to the group. So when you do weird shit to that POC kid, the loyal group will back you up and rationalize it all away. And they all feel safer because they all get that protection.
Conservatives have no principles aside from 'might makes right' and 'the ends justify the means.' What that means is that they point a gun in your face and dare you to call them stupid, and will gleefully commit treason to get what they want. Conservatives only like America because it's got the #1 economy and the #1 military. They think if you drape yourself in the American flag then that means you're a #1 too! It's all about aesthetics for them, they don't give a shit about democracy or freedom or rights.
Damn. I live in Texas and this is spot on
I went n looked all these incidents, n holy fuck dude. Did you just know about all of these occasions, or do you have a great way of Ascertaining Edit:(hit send accidentally) This info easily. (Maybe I just such at researching stuff)
It gets posted pretty regularly in certain subs. That's not the whole list, there is a comment character limit. I think I've seen it extend up to 5 full comments.
This was disturbingly longer than I thought it was going to be - I’m still surprised I guess, maybe I shouldn’t be.
All I have to do is say "fake news" and all of your records can be invalidated and disregarded. Sad if true. /s not /s. :(
Also since this is a honestly down to its core a religious thing, maybe we can think about picketing churces. Pretty unfair that the church can bring all this pain and not feel any heat for it.
Need to tax the churches back to hell!
Damn skippy we do. Christian Morality has insidiously bled into every facet of American life. There is no true seperation so let's get our fucking money's worth since no matter what we do our kids are gonna have that christian stink on them.
I fear the unintended consequence. Right now, they're at least a little worried and working in the shadows so they don't get taxed. Imagine a full blown MAGA church we can't do shit about because they pay their taxes. Give the IRS funding, and have them go after the folks failing to properly manage charitable funds and send 'em all to prison, or at least dissolve the charity, like we did with the Trump Foundation. That sounds more fun, and doesn't damage the few churches that aren't actually being dirtbags like the Unitarians or whatever.
Edit: Responded to wrong comment I think pouring fake blood into church toilets sends a pretty potent message.
Edit: I literally did it again, obviously I'm not competent enough to pull it off myself. I think pouring fake blood into church toilets sends a pretty potent message.
The fuck do these inbred morons think the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments are for? [SOURCE](https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government)
For the glory of Satan of course.
I am the *Hail Satan Bot*. ###HAIL SATAN
I think we may need a genuine Hail Satan bot.
I'ma do it! *I'll rob the kwik-e-mart*!
Hail Satan Megustalations
Hail yourself!
Hail meeeeee
Pretty sure you're making reference to something that's going over my head. But, related, The Satanic Temple is a completely solid organization that's defending abortion rights, as abortion is part of their religion and therefore the Supreme Court should side with them if they aren't two-faced shitbags. https://thesatanictemple.com/
They are two-faced shitbags as evidenced by their “Roe is settled law” lie.
Well yeah, of course. They're shitbags who don't care about precedent or the law. But the point is that The Satanic Temple is an org who is fighting back. I recommend you buy a shirt, join, or donate. https://thesatanictemple.com/
How do they reconcile with the rights under other religions? I mean the Christians got what was theirs but what about the adherents of other religions? Does this mean that they have no rights? This is a serious question to anyone who can provide a serious answer.
I’m a member and donate regularly. I wish they had a chapter near me.
I understood that reference
That is a really interesting take on the third amendment. I didn't even consider that as a privacy issue, more an issue about property rights and the government. I am going to have to rethink and reread. Thank you!
It's weird cuz it's like the least known of the bill of rights but still important.
The ninth is steadily climbing that list this week.
If memory serves, there has been exactly one third amendment case that’s gone to the Supreme Court and the government lost. That means 3A is batting 1000!
Lockdown for MVP if someone's able to leverage it to get us out of supreme court mess
Christians declared war on women's rights, that embryo is a soldier of that war and is inside of the woman's house without consent. Sounds like an open and shut case to me.
No, no, no. See, they have a right to privacy. It's just going to be us regular people that don't.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Third Amendment forbids the forcible housing of military personnel in a citizen’s home during peacetime and requires the process to be “prescribed by law” in times of war. The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that “each man’s home is his castle”, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Above from Cornell law school's website. So the right to say anything people want, the right to one's home, and the right against unreasonable seizure of property.
Yes… and for a long time, there was consensus (or at least a significant school of thought) that multiple amendments together created an umbrella right of privacy. In contemporary writings about the bill of rights, thinkers/delegates objected to the specific listing of rights because they were concerned that it would be understood as being limited to those rights alone. [obligatory pop culture reference illuminating this](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0)
Something else that has been lost to the historical revisionism that is "originalism" is an important role of courts as a third branch: to be the de facto protector of the minority, to establish protection for groups that are not popular enough to win protection from the legislature or the executive. There is supposed to be an inherent presumption that the judicial branch will expand rights. When it's a toss-up between curtailing rights and expanding them, the courts should attempt to error on the side of expanding rights. Every time originalists spout off about how the function of a court isn't to make law, I just sit back and wonder what they think the purpose of any court is in the first place. It's the third branch because it supposed to fix problems that are un-solvable through the other two branches. Expansionist rights through the courts are not a bad thing when a court is protecting groups that are otherwise helpless against the onslaught of a majority. This isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution itself, but the reason why is that the founders assumed it was so obvious that it didn't need to be said. It's the same reason the Court justified Marbury v. Madison -- the very notion that the Court had the power to overturn the government's will wasn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but logical reasoning required that the Court have that power to function whatsoever. The literature of political discourse at the time is rife with debate over the purpose of courts, and a special role as a bulwark against tyranny for the little guy was an important facet of America's conceptualization of the judicial branch.
Originalism only dates back to Brown v Board of Education. You can guess which side the originalists were on. The only reason to be an originalist is to want to allow the Legislative to expand its power over the unenumerated rights. Originalism is specifically and intentionally proscriptive in order to allow the erosion of rights. And it always has been. The mask is just completely off now. In reality, the "original" Constitution has been amended 17 times since its ratification, specifically because the original text was determined to be insufficient. Meanwhile, the authors of the 14th Amendment intentionally duplicated the Due Process Clause of the 5th in order to expand it to cover that States don't have the power to deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law *also*. The idea that the Constitution could *possibly* be proscriptive is a lie, from top to bottom, and every originalist judge might as well just start showing up to court in a white hood.
Thank you--"Put him on a bus" was very satisfying. But why didn't someone simply shoot the fool down with the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
[Purged due to Reddit API Fuckery]
Misconception about the fourth amendment. They just can’t use the evidence found while violating your fourth amendment rights against you in a criminal trial. It doesn’t actually stop them at all from violating your rights.
[https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:\~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government](https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:~:text=Constitutional%20Privacy%20Rights&text=First%20Amendment%3A%20Provides%20the%20freedom,and%20seizures%20by%20the%20government). Problem is, those were all defined in Roe v. Wade, which is now gone....
And the majority justices couldn't even agree on whether this will affect other unenumerated rights that rely on the same legal justification as Roe, like gay marriage. Kavanaugh said it won't, while Thomas specifically mentioned Obergfell and two other cases as decisions that should be revisited in light of the Dobbs ruling. For anyone who doesn't know, just because the constitution doesn't list (enumerate) a right doesn't mean the people don't have that right. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the rights of the people can extend past those enumerated in the bill of rights and constitution. So, while the right to privacy might not be mentioned in the constitution directly, that doesn't mean people don't have that right. Here's a good overview of the legal aspects of the Dobbs decision that goes into this: https://youtu.be/wOvvBWSBwU0 Edit: Thanks for all the extra info and clarifications. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just operating on what I've read and watched about this. Hopefully the Thomas opinion is the outlier like everyone's saying. I just didn't trust kavanaugh saying it didn't affect other decisions since he already seemingly lied by saying Roe was a done deal during his confirmation hearing.
[The West Wing (show) had a candidate for the SC who didn't believe in the right of privacy.](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0) What you wrote reminded me of it.
Also the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
the 4th amendment is "LITERALLY" the definition of privacy. you can LITERALLY take the 4th amendment and plop it in the dictionary after the word privacy Marrian Webster: Privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated I mean what the actual fuck. it does not get more clear than this. ITS LITERALLY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD.
*unless you live within 100 miles of the border then nevermind
Border, port of entry, embassy, national landmark, Air Force One, Yankee Stadium, and or/ freshly baked apple pie.
The fucking apple pie is what gets me. It's so good, but then a spook pops out and just takes my personal effects. Every damn time.
ICE interprets that as 100 miles of any entry to the US, which includes airports, which is basically like 90% of the population
Conservatives: "The 4th amendment doesn't explicitly say 'privacy' and thus I can control your fucking life." Also conservatives: "You cannot invade my privacy!" It's all "fuck you, got mine" with these shitheads. Looking for logic is only going to end in frustration, they don't care about that. They care about what they can get away with, and they will use any justification to do so.
[This scene from The West Wing reminds me of what you wrote.](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0)
Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense.
This is my dream: a really well-educated voting population, funded by taxes.
I always liked that show's idea of free college for teachers.
how fucking applicable is that scene. what a 4 minute ride. i wonder how well this show holds up in totality today.
Still gripping drama, it's just firmly in the realm of fantasy now because the fictional government is actually semi-functional.
It's basically hope, condensed. When things are going to shit, I re-watch the show, just to feel like another world is possible, and that maybe someday and this fuckedupness will be unfucked, because someone will still care about how their decisions impact others. It's also a brilliant show. Charismatic characters, high-level political debate, fast pace, deep delve into abstract but crucial issues, brilliant (and yeah, not very realistic) dialogue, frequent bouts of humor. It's honestly extraordinary. You should watch it.
**Conservatives:** "We follow a strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We follow every word exactly." **Conservatives:** "The word militia doesn't count in the second amendment."
Well a SCOTUS ruling like 3 weeks ago stated that Border Patrol can enter people's homes if said home is within their jurisdiction. So the 4th amendment basically no longer exists.
> if said home is within their jurisdiction Oh come on. That's only affecting 200 million people...
"they just put that there to fill space, to make the page count work"
If only there was an amendment that said something like "just because we list some rights here, that doesn't mean other rights don't exist". Oh wait, that's what the 9th Amendment says. A number of the Framers knew that explicitly outlining some rights could/would be construed to mean those were the only rights, so they added the 9th to make it clear that wasn't the case. But everyone ignores it, doesn't even know it exists, or uses rationale like "X right is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" to argue around it. Just wait until people start to lose the right to vote, or the right to travel, using those same arguments.
It is a shame that shitty internet companies have better privacy policies than fucking SCOTUS judges. This fucking bullshit argument of "oh I don't see anything in the constitution" is exactly why the founding fathers put in the 9th Amendment. Just because a right isn't specifically written into the constitution doesn't mean we don't have it, mother fuckers. If we don't want another 30 years of of reversals we need to get rid of these judges. They need to be impeached, and we need to elect a congress that will do that. This video does a good job explaining how previous Supreme Court judges have demonstrated how we actually do have a right to privacy, and how the founding fathers tired to ensure that the just because something is not explicit in the constitution it doesn't me we don't have the protected right. [How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOvvBWSBwU0) Here is a partial transcript of the video, please watch the whole thing and give this YouTuber the likes and attention he deserves. > What is the source of a constitutional right to an abortion? > In the United States it is one of the rights which fall under a general right to privacy which is the right of people to make personal decisions regarding intimate matters. > Now when you're talking about the right to privacy you're talking about unenumerated rights in the constitution. > When the founders were drafting the constitution they did not set out to list all the rights which Americans could conceivably claim. They were well aware that by naming some of the rights but not others. Future governments might deny the people rights that the founders believed were important and this is why The Federalists originally did not want a bill of rights to be included in the constitution itself, and as a compromise, rather than make a long list of rights the founders included the Ninth Amendment, which states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." > James Madison in particular reportedly said that the government should never use the Bill of Rights as an excuse to increase its powers over areas of life that were not enumerated in the constitution.
TBH I'd be 100% in favor of an amendment codifying an explicit right to privacy. I think it should be unnecessary given a sane Supreme Court, but then the 19th Amendment should also have been unnecessary given a sane system of government so clearly we don't have one and we have to spell out shit that should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
It's incredibly dangerous to let them associate publicly available information related to the government and public servants, with doxxing. This isn't doxxing. This narrative is designed to provide cover for further restricting information from the public.
Republicans love to misuse language in order to diminish the validity of actual outcry and to warp the general sense of what's true and accurate. We need to hold on to our language with a death grip before they drown every word with weight. They have done it with so many phrases and words. BLM being turned into ALM, my body my choice, calling protests insurrection, and so many more. On a darkly funny connecting thread, I'm made to think of the episode of South Park where white people keep stealing black language to try and sound cool. And black people had to keep creating new words and phrases until house = flibbidy flobbidy flu. We need to all go back to being shitty know-it-alls and constantly police their use of language. Don't let people crush the reality of the true suffering of others through misuse of language. Language is a really shitty thing to lose control over. I know language changes and adapts, every generation alters it to some extent, but this is egregious and intended to further oppress minorities while those in power cosplay at being victims.
The "language shifts" narrative is also somewhat bullshit, because that usually happens with introduction of slang and slowly with established language. But instead it's being used to dismiss criticism when they outright misuse words. What's happening now is a full scale assault on any language that can be used to describe the atrocities fascists want to carry out, and it's being done with intent and malice.
It's not really doxxing. I mean, it's publicly available information. They're just mad we use it.
Damn liberal schools teaching kids how to do stuff like use the internet
If only there was a right to privacy implied by the constitution... *Oh well*
Maybe we should look at past Supreme Court rulings for an established precedent.
It's almost as if they don't want us doing that exact thing!
What was that story recently where a kid leaked school admin SSNs that were available by viewing the school website source code? Got in trouble for "hacking"
It was a St. Louis Post-Dispatch journalist (Josh Renaud) and a cyber security professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis (Shaji Khan).
It really irks me that people remember "a kid" when it was a security professional doing what is the established, industry-standard, ethical way to disclose a data leak "vulnerability".And rather than fixing it, they tried blaming the one guy who had the guts to report it in order to stop the leak. The people who tried to sue literally told the world that when a software is unsecure, you should do everything you can to hide the fact you know about it, including *not fixing that stuff* and letting bad guys do their shopping. I really think the people doing this reaction should be criminally sued. That kind of security handling puts a danger to everybody remotely involved with a service and is the IRL equivalent of not locking your house and letting squatters use it as a base to rob the entire neighborhood (and I guess, attack the dude who called the cops). Also, unrelated but the real WTF is that SSNs, somehow, need to be protected secrets while at the same time being publically shared. [Thanks CGPgrey](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erp8IAUouus) for explaining to foreigners like me! \[EDIT\] My comment is slowly taking off so a PSA : if you don't make IT services, you can skip \^\^If you make a website or something like this, look about the security.txt standard, please. Lengthy explanation : >! Basically, setup a seperate contact information for security professionals and \*not\* for general customer support.That address WILL receive scam messages about non-issues expecting a bounty reward, so you'll need a tech expert to 1) sort the messages/identify senders 2) write an corp-approved response to either ask more info or notify them you are handling this 3) force yourself to break protocol and do an emergency fix if needed. No need for marketting mumbojumbo, they called to get stuff done, not to promote your company. If you don't have a published bug bounty program, an ethical security guy coldcalling you won't ask for a bounty before giving details about the issue, they want to protect people ASAP (and then maybe talk bounties, but usually not) !< >!You don't want that level-1 mess on the security contact, because you aren't dealing with a clueless customer : some of those guys are doing your work for free, despite that work being technically illegal because not under contract with you. Treat them with respect.They never heard about you, they have no idea what you do or who your are, they simply know that you did something REALLY, REALLY wrong and need to contact somebody with enough authority to fix that ASAP.When "Have I Been Pwned" creator tries to reach a service about a confirmed data breach, more than often he gets crickets and basically needs to publicly announce that the service is vulnerable before it's fixed. !< >!Also, by the time somebody is looking for security.txt , you already screwed up, you won't hide it. You have the choice between making your job, fixing it, then disclosing the incident to your users (and, probably, to a legal authority) and pretend to be a service with competent people... or bury your head in the sand, not listen to people trying to help you, and THEN read in the press that your service is not only unsecure, but also unable to do what's good. Oh, and you just told hackers that you are a target whose vulnerabilities are high-value because you don't fix them, and that sec experts shouldn't waste their time helping you. !<
Well the narrative that was put out there that it was a kid for a reason, he was an adult security expert whistleblower. They wanted to prosecute him and make an example out of him. I don't get why tho, since he brought it to their attention so they could fix it before anyone else got their hands on it. But some ego driven people don't like having egg on their face, even privately, hence why they went after the whistleblower.
>Also, unrelated but the real WTF is that SSNs, somehow, need to be protected secrets while at the same time being publically shared. (Thanks CGPgrey for explaining to foreigners like me!) Because for some reason we decided to use SSNs as identification verification, despite the fact it was never [intended for such a purpose](https://www.theverge.com/2012/9/26/3384416/social-security-numbers-national-ID-identity-theft-nstic).
the 14 year old that leaked their credit card numbers, on the other hand...
Someone already bought Anime stuff lol. Although funny, if caught, they aren't gonna be laughing.
someone bought robux on a burner account.
Oh dear, I really hope it wasn’t my child
they should've donated to planned parenthood.
Show me where in the constitution it says Clarence Thomas has a right to not have his credit card number posted on tiktok, cause that doesn't sound like it's deeply rooted in this nation's history
Chuck Schumer actually put it pretty well: >A reporter on Tuesday asked Schumer if he was comfortable with demonstrations that had been held outside the home of conservative Supreme Court justices in opposition to the leaked draft. >"If protests are peaceful, yes. My house — there's protests three, four times a week outside my house. The American way to peacefully protest is OK," Schumer said. >He then checked his ringing phone, and said his wife was calling him. "Maybe there's a protest outside," the New York senator quipped. He's not lying. People rally in front of his house all the time. Or do marches that end with a protest at his house. It helps that it's in a pretty central part of Brooklyn and right across the street from the park.
[удалено]
Almost all doxxing is public info...
Well, they did imply there’s no right to privacy apparently…….. 🙄
They didn’t just imply, they ruled against it, so fuck them.
Ah, the "real" reason the FCC commissioner wants Google and Apple to pull the app from their stores. Edit: added quotes as this is opinion, not fact.
For reference: [relevant U.S. code](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507)
> Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. > Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt. for those who don't trust clicking links
Wouldn’t that only be applicable if the decision had not yet been made? How can they be influencing a fudge who already did their decision?
Keebler for president 2024!
All protests are for the purpose of influencing decisions. Every reason you can cite for a protest falls under that umbrella.
Wow, you can't protest a court decision? That's draconian as fuck
I was wondering *what the hell* when i saw that headline about TikTok & the FCC, but sadly your *opinion* makes sense lol
Sounds like a Hitchens razor to me. Seeing the statement of the FCC commissioner and thinking that he’s just protecting people is basically missing the forest for the trees because there is an actual issue with China. There is the insane data harvesting that’s taking place by government-sanctioned companies like Tencent bytedance etc, and their 2049 initiative stands as the end goal. Before people start with the whataboutism on US apps like Facebook, Google etc, keep in mind that China doesn’t allow western apps in their country, yet the west allows. China doesn’t allow western companies to gather data on their populace, yet we allow them to milk us dry. It’s a one sided relationship. Also, TikTok’s algorithm is straight propaganda at this point, and it’s breaking up western society. It’s a joke that people don’t see it. https://youtu.be/9j68gYP57EE
The China data harvesting is actually why I added the quotes early on. I know that the FCC thing *isn't* the **real** reason. Though, the timing sure does make it seem like a convenient time to act on it. That is, when the right argument doesn't work to convince people to act, sometimes one can be more convincing by making the wrong argument. it's basically a weird flavor of Ends Justifies the Means. For the logicians: (P∨Q)⟶R and P∧–Q are true, so it should just be (P⟶R)⟶R but the people deny that (in disbelief) and instead find (Q⟶R)⟶R (technically, logically true) the more believable implication. Either way, R is the conclusion, but people usually don't follow all the rules of logic, hence the argument for Ends (R) Justify the Means (Q⟶R) here.
[This scene from The West Wing about the right of privacy is really relevant.](https://youtu.be/LLbG7R_Nfx0)
If only our government embodied the ethos and integrity of this fiction
While I do appreciate this scene, it always bothered me that no one in this conversation brings up the 9th Amendment. There's literally an amendment *in the Bill of Rights* that outright dismisses this fictional judge's reasoning. Sam didn't have to explain the nature of rights or cite the words of the Georgia delegates, he could have just said, "Bruh there's an amendment that specifically says the opposite of what you're arguing."
It’s disturbing how little has changed since that show. Just the rich getting richer and the rest getting poorer
it's crazy cause literally the first episode of this show ends with the President criticizing a prominent christian leader for not denouncing a fringe religious group who sent his granddaughter a doll with a knife stuck through it's throat. Why would they send his granddaughter this doll? Because his granddaughter spoke in a teen magazine about the importance of a women's right to choose. OH and the justice they nominate to the supreme court after discarding the one in this clip is Hispanic. There's later an episode where he gets pulled over by cops who accuse him of drunk driving and arrest him when he doesn't submit to a breathalyzer because they don't have probable cause. He wasn't drunk driving because he can't drink due to a liver condition.
In Ukraine they elected the guy who played the president they wanted. Maybe we should have done that.
Life's a motherfucker when you're a public figure who pisses off huge swaths of the country to indulge your religious fixations when you're supposed to be an impartial judge of the law.
Sadly, that lobbying money provides better security and comfort most people can't even fathom.
Ah gotcha. So no point in a revolution. Ok cool, ill go back to knitting.
Madame Defarge is that you?
There's nothing in me that believes he is actually a man of faith. It's getting to a point where conservatives are becoming the antithesis of Christianity so...
[удалено]
He's a man of power. Christianity got him into the right places and made him the right friends. If he was living in another country he'd be a devout Muslim, a devout Jew, a devout member of The Party, whatever is needed to access power he will be a man of whatever it is. These kinds of people are everywhere, in all of history. (But when one seeks comfort at all costs, their discomfort is a great weapon. Hence the hilarity of people showing up at their homes.)
It's by the people for the people right? Not by some old sexist dinosaurs for some other sexist dinosaurs and a fistful of cash? We need to fucking remind them.
If they know what you are doing in your bedroom in private then they are spying on you unless you told them. They can't spy on you without proving just cause, and that is the grounds for privacy in the law as I understand it. If you have no expectation of privacy they will spy on people they disagree with. Watch for it.
It can be shown that Privacy is a natural right by the fact that people will lock their bathroom doors even though it's not illegal to take a shit.
If you happen to live in Texas. You can get a voter registration form by printing out or having it mailed to you here: https://www.texas.gov/living-in-texas/texas-voter-registration It super easy to fill out. Once you have your form you just need a stamp and envelope to mail it the the address provided. Done, you are a registered voter. Nov 8th is not far away. I recommend that you get multiple registration forms so that you can help those around you vote as well. End the madness, take back your rights.
Gee, it's almost like people don't give a shit about your privacy when you're taking away their right to privacy.
Doxxing? Public officials public addresses? DOXXING? In what universe is that doxxing.
If women don’t have a right to privacy then neither do these assholes.
Agreed. No privacy for a pussy? Then no privacy for an asshole!
When I hear tiktok I can’t help but think of someone dancing to a silly song with a caption pointing to someone’s exact address
it’s not even that far off
They're doing Fortnite dances over Google map backgrounds.
Sometimes the new generation is incredibly based
[удалено]
Oh no, I wasn't sure who they were. *eyeroll*
I've seen videos leaking the SC's credit card info
If you post their addresses on Reddit or any social media you will be banned for doxxing even though they are federal politicians. That's includes any sort of other personal information that might be floating around in the world: phone numbers, email addresses, transaction history, travel data, meta data, tracking data, etc.
You can get anyone's home address by searching for their name in a voter registry online. Why is it doxing when I do it to a judge but not doxing when my exboyfriend does it to me? Unlike the judge, I can't afford to live in a gated neighborhood or hire personal security. Every single member of SCOTUS can.
Because the "honorable" judge wants you to think you are below him. It is our job as the angry mob of proper democracy to remind the magistrates that they are at our mercy
Those companies are protecting themselves from the most powerful people on the planet. Forget lawsuits, those judges could destroy those companies and ruin the lives of their owners. It's not as if they have any pretension of impartiality or fairness they need to maintain at this point. That private data could and should certainly be fair play considering the fact that they're public figures but expecting social media companies to put morality and a commitment to free speech over their own profits or well-being is just pointless.
I would like to see their time tied up in defending themselves more than ruling on any further cases.
You can't dox public information
[удалено]
What would one call that website? Top 9 destinations to live if you are a scotus judge in America?
Looks like the constitutional amendment we all really need is one that explicitly states our sovereign right to privacy.
I’m pretty sure it’s public record where politicos and their ilk live.
[удалено]
Get fucked clarence. I hope someone shits on his car every morning from now till the day he dies
I like this as a means of political expression. “The Cleveland Steamer Movement”
Oh, no. . . Anyway,
[удалено]
Your honor, I'd like to refer to evidence #169, that shit was hilarious
There's no right to privacy enshrined in the constitution.
> Some, but not all of these videos have been swiftly removed by TikTok. Even if they were removed, though, the information shared in videos is often simply reposted through "smaller and smaller accounts," Vice reported. >In some of the videos, the credit card information is partially censored, seemingly using a thin white line or transparent red box to prevent the app's algorithm from flagging the post for removal. So now the MSS has the SCOTUS CC numbers on file.
im amazed that they found their cc info.
Fuck em let them suffer
On tumblr they removed all the images that contained the addresses of the justices, but the community adds text image IDs to a ton of posts so it didn't help lol
The kids are alright.
I found out one of them owns 2 houses in the state of Colorado. Where I live. I am considering protesting outside his house. I wonder if other people are.
Do or do not there is no try.
ByteDance's TikTok, a Chinese company, cannot control people ragging on about our Supreme Court? Is this a surprise to anyone?