The UK is becoming a police state.
-
@xaade said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@boomzilla It's yet again thinking of rights as things that the government grants, rather than limitations on the government.
I'm not sure that's the error being made here. It seems like he's thinking that speech regulation was an enumerated power for the Feds and therefore not one reserved for the States.
-
@gwowen said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@RaceProUK said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
You are aware CCTV is being increasingly used as a substitute for actual police, right?
How is that relevant to the question asked? Also [citation needed].
You want a citation ?
There you go@gwowen said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers per 1,000,000 residents:
UK: 2,000
USA: 3,000
-
@RaceProUK said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@gwowen You are aware CCTV is being increasingly used as a substitute for actual police, right?
This is really disturbing.
It's basically not law enforcement. Just a recoupment program if you manage to catch the perpetrator at some regulatory checkpoint.
No wonder UK is becoming "racist". They have shrinking guarantee from their government for any kind of justice. Going vigilante is just an inevitability.
-
@boomzilla said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@powerlord said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@boomzilla said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
Additionally, I can't believe that you actually believe that. There are a lot of people confused about what sorts of speech are not protected, but you'd be the first person I've heard who believes that States aren't subject to the First Amendment.
Actually, I can't believe how badly you misinterpreted what I said.
What I said was that states can't pass laws regarding free speech because the 1st Amendment makes it a Federal issue and therefore the 10th Amendment doesn't grant states the right to pass laws about it.
This is all sorts of wrong, and now I'm pretty sure you only read @ben_lubar's completely wrong description of the law, let alone your weird Constitutional legal theories.While I may have gone by Ben Lubar's description of the law, that doesn't make my Constitutional theories "weird."
What would be weird would be expecting the Federal Government to have a bunch of rights its restricted from passing laws on, but letting the states run roughshod over those same rights.
@xaade said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@boomzilla It's yet again thinking of rights as things that the government grants, rather than limitations on the government.
There are governments out there that don't believe that people have rights.
Knowing this, the people who wrote the US Constitution spelled out a bunch of rights the Federal government can't abridge in its amendments, including the more generic 9th Amendment.
Or did you forget that I was talking about the US Constitution, which is a document that spells out what the US Government (and due to the 10th Amendment, the US State governments) can and can't do?
-
@powerlord said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
What would be weird would be expecting the Federal Government to have a bunch of rights its restricted from passing laws on, but letting the states run roughshod over those same rights.
I agree, but that's how we started out. It's not how things are now, at least WRT speech.
-
@boomzilla Agreed. I'll explain further for those who may be foreign or not versed in current constitutional doctrine:
The 1st amendment originally applied only to the federal government. The 14th amendment is considered to have incorporated this against the states as well. In essence says that no arm of government has the power to abridge the Freedom of Speech[1] of the citizens. Note that most states have had state-level (constitutional or statutory) protections for the Freedom of Speech and the 1st amendment thus provides a floor of protection below which states are not allowed to drop. They can, however, protect things that are not covered at the federal level.
[1] Note that Freedom of Speech is a term of art--not all speech is covered (think true threats and conspiracy) and there are things covered that are not speech. It is effectively the freedom to communicate, especially on matters of public concern.
As applied at the university or city level there are a few different possibilities for rule sets that apply. These rule sets are called fora (the plural of forum). Private businesses and private universities (for this purpose) are considered private fora.
- Private fora: Here the government-as-landowner is paramount. There are basically no 1st amendment restrictions. The government can decide who can speak, about what, to whom, and how. They can do this in any way they decide to. Entrance usually requires authorization (a ticket, a student id, etc). Examples: classrooms and lecture halls.
- Limited public fora: Here the government has some restrictions. It can require permits in advance and compliance with certain measures. It cannot discriminate in permitting on the content of the speech. This is called prior restraint and is will get the government agency that tries it slapped down in court. The measures allowed are what are called time-place-manner restrictions--it can say you can't protest at 3AM outside a dorm with bullhorns and drums. It must be content neutral though. Examples of these are most streets, large sections of college campuses, etc. These are places where anyone can go but public safety requires managing large groups of people.
- Traditional public fora: Here the 1st amendment is in full force. No permits are needed (or allowed to be required). Only the most basic of time-place-manner restrictions are allowed. Examples: Sidewalks on public streets. Public parks (mostly).
Note that non-blocking rules (forbidding people to block doorways and the free passage of people in general) are allowed even in traditional public fora. This came out of the anti-abortion protest cases. You can't claim 1st amendment protection if your protest is blocking the doorway to an abortion clinic (or other place you don't personally own). Violence is never protected speech.
In this context, invited speakers are generally in private fora. Yes, the university is well within its rights to eject and penalize those who disrupt the invited speakers. The 1st amendment basically does not apply here.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah, except that this bill is specifically about state-funded universities, and it also explicitly says that non-violent speech intended to discourage the invited speaker is also something you can get expelled from the university for, regardless of the specific university's policies.
The board that decides whether you can stay at the university under the proposed system is a single board for the entire state, not the board that usually determines that kind of thing for the university.
-
@ben_lubar State universities are creatures of the state. They exist at the sole discretion of the state legislature. That is, the state legislature IS the ultimate governing body of the university. This was pointed out in sharp detail when some Texas universities wanted to ban concealed carry even after the legislature said they couldn't. Hint--the university lost handily in court.
As a result, the state legislature trumps (heh) the university policy in all possible ways. There's not even a question about that. The university (nor the students) have any actionable right to stay if the legislature says they're out. Full stop. This is as close to settled law as it gets.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
As a result, the state legislature trumps (heh)
I was playing a card game with some relatives this one time, and it was very hard to stop laughing when 'Trump is the best' and 'Trump always wins' were common reminders. Probably the most fun I've ever had with traditional playing cards.
-
@ben_lubar said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
Yeah, except that this bill is specifically about state-funded universities, and it also explicitly says that non-violent speech intended to discourage the invited speaker is also something you can get expelled from the university for, regardless of the specific university's policies.
Hmm...I don't remember seeing that when I first
readskimmed TFB. Could you quote the language where it says that? That sounds like it might be an unconstitutional restraint on speech.
-
@boomzilla The relevant section starts on page 3, line 13. It's nice that they have line numbers turned on in their text editor.
-
@ben_lubar said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@boomzilla The relevant section starts on page 3, line 13. It's nice that they have line numbers turned on in their text editor.
OK, now I've looked at it and the bottom line is you're wrong, because threats are not protected speech.
No person may threaten an invited speaker or threaten to organize protests
or riots or to incite violence with the purpose to dissuade or intimidate an invited
speaker from attending a campus event.Ahem:
@boomzilla said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
Of course, there are illegal sorts of speech, like true threats, and this bill would reaffirm that, but I don't think anyone has a problem with that sort of thing, unless they're the sorts of cognitively dissonant fascists who do that sort of thing.
The "threaten to organize protests" is not like the others, though at this point it's probably not totally unreasonable to assume that protests of these sorts of things are nonviolent.
-
Theresa May: Human rights laws could change for terror fight
Laws could be changed to tackle terror suspects but Labour says basic rights must not be "ripped up".
-
@TimeBandit she might find it hard to do with a hung parliament.
-
-
Always wanted to included in the fun Japan has just passed a new "anti-conspiracy" law.
https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/06/new-law-japan-lets-police-arrest-surveil-merely-planning-discussing-certain-acts-like-copyright-violation/
-
@Dragoon It's been pitched as a law against terrorism, but it covers stuff like the following:
- Copying music
- Conducting sit-ins to protest against the construction of apartment buildings
- Using forged stamps
- Competing in a motor boat race without a licence
- Mushroom picking in conservation forests
- Avoiding paying consumption tax
I'm sure we can all think of a terrorist organisation that just loves competing in illicit motorboat races and picking mushrooms.
-
@RaceProUK
Oh, they cover that:"The stated rationale of the government is that these now-illegal acts, such as copying music to CDs or foraging for mushrooms in conservation forests, could be used to fund terrorist activities."
Because, these are clearly huge ticket items and will generate enormous amounts of currency. Their poppy production,slave trade,etc... can't hope to keep pace.
-
@RaceProUK said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
picking mushrooms
Depends on the mushroom type, I guess
-
@TimeBandit said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
@RaceProUK said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
picking mushrooms
Depends on the mushroom type, I guess
Those are a little hard to pick...
-
@dcon said in The UK is becoming a police state.:
Those are a little hard to pick...
Not really, I just went to GIS and picked one
