FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate-687/)
-   -   Court: Provide Password for Computer Files at Border (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/checkpoints-borders-policy-debate/927969-court-provide-password-computer-files-border.html)

Paolo01 Mar 4, 2009 8:06 am

I understand why we want to get in a lather about this case, but the fact of the matter is that we are getting in a lather over an admitted kiddie porn owner. He HAS admitted that there is kiddie porn on the locked volume. Now he will not unlock the volume and we are turning him into a Robin Hood. Lets look for another case.

greggwiggins Mar 4, 2009 8:19 am


Originally Posted by Paolo01 (Post 11358626)
I understand why we want to get in a lather about this case, but the fact of the matter is that we are getting in a lather over an admitted kiddie porn owner. He HAS admitted that there is kiddie porn on the locked volume. Now he will not unlock the volume and we are turning him into a Robin Hood. Lets look for another case.

To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us. I would hate for a legal precedent established against Hustler to be used against Time.

After, all they're both magazines. Or so some prosecutor could say.

sinanju Mar 4, 2009 8:44 am


Originally Posted by greggwiggins (Post 11358689)
To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us

Indeed... I think we'd all like the guy to rot in a hole. We just don't want the 5th amendment tossed into the hole with him.

whirledtraveler Mar 4, 2009 8:45 am


Originally Posted by greggwiggins (Post 11358689)
To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us. I would hate for a legal precedent established against Hustler to be used against Time.

After, all they're both magazines. Or so some prosecutor could say.

Luckily, the system thinks that way too (sometimes). Larry Flynt (the owner of Hustler) has been to the Supreme Court and he's won.

sbrower Mar 4, 2009 12:08 pm

Delete

zippypinhead Mar 4, 2009 8:16 pm


Originally Posted by greggwiggins (Post 11358689)
To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us. I would hate for a legal precedent established against Hustler to be used against Time.

After, all they're both magazines. Or so some prosecutor could say.

I'm sure Hustler would be offended by that.:D

mbstone Mar 4, 2009 8:30 pm


Originally Posted by TexasMiguel (Post 11358368)
And while you are making a fool of yourself what about the rights of those who are in line behind you that you are preventing from exercising their rights?

I don't understand why politely declining to make a statement to an LEO equates to "making a fool of" oneself." I don't understand why the people in line behind me are relevant to the discussion. If everyone understood and politely asserted their rights, the line would move ahead just fine, and there would be no more pointless questions asked.

yyzvoyageur Mar 4, 2009 8:56 pm


Originally Posted by mbstone (Post 11362930)
I don't understand why politely declining to make a statement to an LEO equates to "making a fool of" oneself." I don't understand why the people in line behind me are relevant to the discussion. If everyone understood and politely asserted their rights, the line would move ahead just fine, and there would be no more pointless questions asked.

I suppose the Immigration line would move ahead quite quickly. The lines at Customs, though, would be atrocious as a lot more people would be subjected to further examination.

Trollkiller Mar 4, 2009 9:04 pm


Originally Posted by mbstone (Post 11362930)
I don't understand why politely declining to make a statement to an LEO equates to "making a fool of" oneself." I don't understand why the people in line behind me are relevant to the discussion. If everyone understood and politely asserted their rights, the line would move ahead just fine, and there would be no more pointless questions asked.


I am still trying to figure out what rights of the people behind me would I be violating?

Trollkiller Mar 4, 2009 9:16 pm


Originally Posted by greggwiggins (Post 11358689)
To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us. I would hate for a legal precedent established against Hustler to be used against Time.

After, all they're both magazines. Or so some prosecutor could say.


Originally Posted by sinanju (Post 11358821)
Indeed... I think we'd all like the guy to rot in a hole. We just don't want the 5th amendment tossed into the hole with him.

Amen to both of these posts.

I am not sure if those that don't "see" the problem are being lazy or just ignorant.

Ayn R Key Mar 5, 2009 11:36 pm


Originally Posted by sinanju (Post 11358821)
Indeed... I think we'd all like the guy to rot in a hole. We just don't want the 5th amendment tossed into the hole with him.

Yes. As I've tried to remind people before (on other forums, fortunately not this one), the rights that protect the criminal also protect you and me.

ralfp Mar 6, 2009 2:07 am


Originally Posted by Ayn R Key (Post 11369512)
Yes. As I've tried to remind people before (on other forums, fortunately not this one), the rights that protect the criminal also protect you and me.

We're all criminals, we just have not yet been charged and convicted. Some of us are just not considered worthy of justice, and others have not yet been caught.

e.g. Take a relative's Tylenol #3? That's a crime. If an all-seeing entity were to fully enforce all US laws, we'd all be in jail for a long time.

n4zhg Mar 6, 2009 5:56 am


Originally Posted by greggwiggins (Post 11358689)
To preserve the rights of all of us, sometimes you have to hold your nose and protect the rights of the worst among us. I would hate for a legal precedent established against Hustler to be used against Time.

After, all they're both magazines. Or so some prosecutor could say.

Keep in mind that the affidavit for warrant on the original Waco raid listed Shotgun News as a "subversive publication". We're already more than halfway down the slippery slope.

n4zhg Mar 6, 2009 5:58 am


Originally Posted by ralfp (Post 11369837)
We're all criminals, we just have not yet been charged and convicted. Some of us are just not considered worthy of justice, and others have not yet been caught.

e.g. Take a relative's Tylenol #3? That's a crime. If an all-seeing entity were to fully enforce all US laws, we'd all be in jail for a long time.

I'll go you one better: Ever use a pill organizer? That's a federal felony. You cannot have prescription medicine in a container other than the one it was dispensed in by the pharmacy.

whirledtraveler Mar 6, 2009 6:04 am


Originally Posted by n4zhg (Post 11370316)
I'll go you one better: Ever use a pill organizer? That's a federal felony. You cannot have prescription medicine in a container other than the one it was dispensed in by the pharmacy.

cite?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:27 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.