Explosions at Boston Marathon (Video) 1 Suspect Dead, 1 Injured and in Custody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

@Jux
I feel sorry for him because from what I've heard, it's quite possible the younger brother was pulled into doing this by his Islamist older brother.

Skeleon:
@Jux
I feel sorry for him because from what I've heard, it's quite possible the younger brother was pulled into doing this by his Islamist older brother.

Aye, people make bad choices, especially when it comes to showing loyalty towards family. Made a few bad choices myself along those lines when I was a teenager. Nothing that ever got anyone seriously hurt or killed, but still things I regreted down the line. Looking at it from that perspective, I can't say with certainty that at that point in my life, I would have had the clarity of mind and conviction, or maybe courage , to have acted differently.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/body-found-in-river-confirmed-as-sunil-tripathi--missing-student-wrongly-linked-to-boston-marathon-bombing-8586850.html

It's confirmed, the body was Sunil Tripathi's.

...

Though, really, it has to be someone's, not a relief if it turned out not to be the missing person falsely blamed for terrorism.

So now the Mayor has confirmed that the brothers were planning another bombing in Times Square, although that one would have used six IEDs. So...yeah.

Also, apparently the FBI's investigation was stopped because a Magistrate came in and took possession of the suspect.

Kopikatsu:
Also, apparently the FBI's investigation was stopped because a Magistrate came in and took possession of the suspect.

Got a source on that? Investigations don't stop just because a suspect is in custody.

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:
Also, apparently the FBI's investigation was stopped because a Magistrate came in and took possession of the suspect.

Got a source on that? Investigations don't stop just because a suspect is in custody.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581382/ap-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-silent-after-read-miranda-rights/

The FBI and Republicans are attacking the Obama administration for allowing their investigation to be interrupted instead of treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, which would have allowed them a longer period of interrogation under the Public Safety Exception. The FBI in particular is claiming that valuable information has potentially been lost because prior to the Magistrate's intervention, they'd received quite a lot of intelligence from Tsarnaev.

thaluikhain:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/body-found-in-river-confirmed-as-sunil-tripathi--missing-student-wrongly-linked-to-boston-marathon-bombing-8586850.html

It's confirmed, the body was Sunil Tripathi's.

...

Though, really, it has to be someone's, not a relief if it turned out not to be the missing person falsely blamed for terrorism.

I was about to launch into a tirade about how much I hate vigilantism, but as yet the article claims there is no indication of foulplay. Although I would like to know their estimates on when he actually died (i. e. before or after the bombing).

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:
Also, apparently the FBI's investigation was stopped because a Magistrate came in and took possession of the suspect.

Got a source on that? Investigations don't stop just because a suspect is in custody.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581382/ap-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-silent-after-read-miranda-rights/

There is nothing in there about the investigation being discontinued, only that the suspect isn't talking.

The FBI and Republicans are attacking the Obama administration for allowing their investigation to be interrupted instead of treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, which would have allowed them a longer period of interrogation under the Public Safety Exception. The FBI in particular is claiming that valuable information has potentially been lost because prior to the Magistrate's intervention, they'd received quite a lot of intelligence from Tsarnaev.

I had heard about a handful of Republicans (who apparently missed Criminal Procedure and that whole "right to not self incriminate oneself" part of the Fifth Amendment) who were complaining, but not the FBI.

And what exactly would be the basis for placing a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil in the category of enemy combatant?

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:

Got a source on that? Investigations don't stop just because a suspect is in custody.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581382/ap-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-silent-after-read-miranda-rights/

There is nothing in there about the investigation being discontinued, only that the suspect isn't talking.

The FBI and Republicans are attacking the Obama administration for allowing their investigation to be interrupted instead of treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, which would have allowed them a longer period of interrogation under the Public Safety Exception. The FBI in particular is claiming that valuable information has potentially been lost because prior to the Magistrate's intervention, they'd received quite a lot of intelligence from Tsarnaev.

I had heard about a handful of Republicans (who apparently missed Criminal Procedure and that whole "right to not self incriminate oneself" part of the Fifth Amendment) who were complaining, but not the FBI.

And what exactly would be the basis for placing a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil in the category of enemy combatant?

I said 'investigation' but I meant 'interrogation'. My bad. However, lack of information from the suspect does make investigation much more difficult.

As for him being a terrorist/enemy combatant...http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581350/cia-had-boston-bombing-suspect-tamerlan-tsarnaevs-name-added-to-terror-database-before-attack/. I can't find a written source on the FBI's complaints, but they've been playing them on a few news channels.

There has also been an uproar over the fact that apparently Tsarnaev has been receiving welfare despite being on a terrorist watchlist.

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:

Kopikatsu:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581382/ap-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-silent-after-read-miranda-rights/

There is nothing in there about the investigation being discontinued, only that the suspect isn't talking.

The FBI and Republicans are attacking the Obama administration for allowing their investigation to be interrupted instead of treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant, which would have allowed them a longer period of interrogation under the Public Safety Exception. The FBI in particular is claiming that valuable information has potentially been lost because prior to the Magistrate's intervention, they'd received quite a lot of intelligence from Tsarnaev.

I had heard about a handful of Republicans (who apparently missed Criminal Procedure and that whole "right to not self incriminate oneself" part of the Fifth Amendment) who were complaining, but not the FBI.

And what exactly would be the basis for placing a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil in the category of enemy combatant?

I said 'investigation' but I meant 'interrogation'. My bad. However, lack of information from the suspect does make investigation much more difficult.

Which is funny, because he could barely speak to begin with (if the court transcript is any indication). Regardless, it's his right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent in interrogation.

Again, there's nothing in particular that suggests anything beyond the standard criminal process is warranted (or even allowed under the law). US suspect, US jurisdiction, US criminal charge.

As for him being a terrorist/enemy combatant...http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57581350/cia-had-boston-bombing-suspect-tamerlan-tsarnaevs-name-added-to-terror-database-before-attack/. I can't find a written source on the FBI's complaints, but they've been playing them on a few news channels.

There has also been an uproar over the fact that apparently Tsarnaev has been receiving welfare despite being on a terrorist watchlist.

The FBI interviewed him, most likely concluded that it was the FSB trying to use the US intelligence system to monitor a potential dissident or Chechen supporter, and set it aside.

Linked article:
Those officials pointed to the FSB's habit of treating much behavior by Chechens as suspicious, and nearly all such behavior as terror-related. The Tsarnaev request, they speculated, was likely triggered by the FSB's concern that he would participate in or provide support to Chechen insurrectionists in Russia, rather that by any sense of a threat to American interests.

And why exactly is it a problem that someone was on welfare? Prior to last Monday they had committed no crime or done anything to warrant scrutiny other than a request from the FSB to keep tabs on them (again, should be taken with a grain of salt with how the Russians approach Chechnya). The two are not related whatsoever, and it sounds like some pundit or politicians are just trying to rally support for a pet cause.

Again, there doesn't appear to be any problem with following standard criminal procedure to prosecute him.

Skeleon:
@Jux
I feel sorry for him because from what I've heard, it's quite possible the younger brother was pulled into doing this by his Islamist older brother.

And is Islamist older brother has been pulled into doing it by his Islamist Imam, and that Imam has been pulled into doing it by....

He's 19, he's not a child, he knew very well what his actions would result in and what the consequences will be.
The poor misguided kid defense flies out of the window when you decide to bomb a public event. This isn't a case of some brat acting out by stealing a car and going for a joyride, this was an act of premeditated murder which was executed solely on the bases of hate.

The guy should be put in a cell where images of his victims and their families are projected 24/7 on ever wall until he goes insane enough to claw his own eyes out.

Verbatim:

Skeleon:
@Jux
I feel sorry for him because from what I've heard, it's quite possible the younger brother was pulled into doing this by his Islamist older brother.

And is Islamist older brother has been pulled into doing it by his Islamist Imam, and that Imam has been pulled into doing it by....

Actually, it's increasingly looking like he radicalized himself via the internet. It sure as hell wasn't at his mosque.

He's 19, he's not a child, he knew very well what his actions would result in and what the consequences will be.

Have you been to an American university campus? I swear the men there devolve to six-year-olds for the first few years...

The poor misguided kid defense flies out of the window when you decide to bomb a public event. This isn't a case of some brat acting out by stealing a car and going for a joyride, this was an act of premeditated murder which was executed solely on the bases of hate.

That can be said of the dead older brother, but it's unclear if the same can be said of the younger. Several mass-murderer pairs, such as the Columbine, CO high school shooters and the DC sniper, suggest leader-follower dynamics, based on a sense of duty or loyalty. The image of the relationship between the older and younger of the brothers suggests a surrogate-father relationship of the older to the younger (especially when their father was denied asylum in the US). That's going to create the kind of bond where loyalty can trump reason. Imagine having a close relationship with someone to the point you would do anything for them. The follower acts as an extension of the leader, not necessarily independent.

The guy should be put in a cell where images of his victims and their families are projected 24/7 on ever wall until he goes insane enough to claw his own eyes out.

And, as usual, it appears that basic notions of "being the better man" are lost when they are most needed. Put him in prison and let him be forgotten with the other 3 million people you have in there. That's the worst you can do for these kinds of individuals: you make them normal, routine, no different than the guy who killed a clerk while robbing a liquor store. Remove the glory and remove the hate and all that is left is a prisoner whose serving time like everybody else in there, and there is no honor in that.

The Gentleman:
Regardless, it's his right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent in interrogation.

Again, there's nothing in particular that suggests anything beyond the standard criminal process is warranted (or even allowed under the law). US suspect, US jurisdiction, US criminal charge.

Indeed. And I'd much rather him be convicted fair and square in a civilian court of law than see him disappeared by the gubmint. It would be an important victory showing we don't need to erode our freedoms to deal with terrorists.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WbQjn

lol daily show's take on it :P

I think he should be tried as a criminal.

evilneko:

The Gentleman:
Regardless, it's his right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent in interrogation.

Again, there's nothing in particular that suggests anything beyond the standard criminal process is warranted (or even allowed under the law). US suspect, US jurisdiction, US criminal charge.

Indeed. And I'd much rather him be convicted fair and square in a civilian court of law than see him disappeared by the gubmint. It would be an important victory showing we don't need to erode our freedoms to deal with terrorists.

US Patriot Act, signed into law by Dubya and expanded by Obama. You already lost that particular fight.

I never really understood the purpose of a jury trial for federal offenses anyway. A bench trial would be more appropriate, considering...it's a federal offense.

Kopikatsu:

evilneko:

The Gentleman:
Regardless, it's his right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent in interrogation.

Again, there's nothing in particular that suggests anything beyond the standard criminal process is warranted (or even allowed under the law). US suspect, US jurisdiction, US criminal charge.

Indeed. And I'd much rather him be convicted fair and square in a civilian court of law than see him disappeared by the gubmint. It would be an important victory showing we don't need to erode our freedoms to deal with terrorists.

US Patriot Act, signed into law by Dubya and expanded by Obama. You already lost that particular fight.

Not really. 8-1 decision stating the US government cannot hold a U.S. citizen indefinitely without basic due process and that they must at least have the ability to challenge their status as a enemy combatant. Scalia and Stevens went even further and stated that any prosecution must be in civilian courts unless there is an explicit suspension of habius corpus by the US Congress.

Money Quote from Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 US 507 (2004) (plurality opinion by O'Connor):
[W]e necessarily reject the Government's assertion that separation of powers principles mandate a heavily circumscribed role for the courts in such circumstances. Indeed, the position that the courts must forgo any examination of the individual case and focus exclusively on the legality of the broader detention scheme cannot be mandated by any reasonable view of separation of powers, as this approach serves only to condense power into a single branch of government. We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens. 'Youngstown Sheet & Tube,' 343 U. S., at 587. Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake. [...] Likewise, we have made clear that, unless Congress acts to suspend it, the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance, serving as an important judicial check on the Executive's discretion in the realm of detentions. [...] it would turn our system of checks and balances on its head to suggest that a citizen could not make his way to court with a challenge to the factual basis for his detention by his government, simply because the Executive opposes making available such a challenge. Absent suspension of the writ by Congress, a citizen detained as an enemy combatant is entitled to this process.

Kopikatsu:
I never really understood the purpose of a jury trial for federal offenses anyway. A bench trial would be more appropriate, considering...it's a federal offense.

It's the sixth one...

Amendment VI of the US Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The only exceptions to the jury requirement have been for offenses resulting in less than 6 months imprisonment and minors. All other offenses carry a right to a speedy trial by jury.

There's also the much less sexy Article III.

US Constitution: Article III, Sec. 2, para. 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Gentleman:

It's the sixth one...

Amendment VI of the US Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The only exceptions to the jury requirement have been for offenses resulting in less than 6 months imprisonment and minors. All other offenses carry a right to a speedy trial by jury.

There's also the much less sexy Article III.

US Constitution: Article III, Sec. 2, para. 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

I'm aware of what it says in the constitution. I just don't see the purpose of it. Why would you even want twelve random people pulled off the street deciding your fate? They couldn't even manage to get out of jury duty for one thing, and it's highly unlikely that any of them have any expertise in law (Unless they're a professional juror, I guess). Jury trials are terrible and should feel terrible for being terrible.

Verbatim:
The poor misguided kid defense flies out of the window when you decide to bomb a public event.

The hell? Who said anything about a defense? Didn't you read Jux' statement earlier about basic empathy being independent of whether or not he should be absolved of his guilt for his crimes?

The guy should be put in a cell where images of his victims and their families are projected 24/7 on ever wall until he goes insane enough to claw his own eyes out.

Pathetic.

Kopikatsu:
I'm aware of what it says in the constitution. I just don't see the purpose of it. Why would you even want twelve random people pulled off the street deciding your fate? They couldn't even manage to get out of jury duty for one thing, and it's highly unlikely that any of them have any expertise in law (Unless they're a professional juror, I guess). Jury trials are terrible and should feel terrible for being terrible.

Setting aside English legal tradition that contained a right to a jury in criminal proceedings, the idea is that a group of average people are best able to digest information and determine what the most reasonable fact pattern emerged from the evidence presented. By placing that burden on a single individual, you increase the likelihood of error in the interpretation of facts and judges are just as fallible as anyone else (one of the reasons why there is a guaranteed right of appeal).

Something that also needs to be clarified: in the English/US legal system, the jury is the trier of fact, whereas the judge is the trier of law. In other words, the jury does not determine guilt or innocence directly, but rather whether all the elements of an action are met. The judge gives the legal framework for the charge being given (for example: the elements of negligence or 1st degree murder) and then, via instructions to the jury, asks them to see whether the facts that they determine fit within that legal framework. Again, the idea is that an impartial jury, assembled from all corners of society, would better be able to consistently determine what happened in a more reasonable manner than a single individual, particularly one exposed to the worst elements of human nature every single day (as lawyers and judges often are).

Is it the best? I don't know. Personally, I think five-judge panels are more well-equipped to deal with civil cases and could streamline the evidence process, but the US already has a shortage of judges at the federal level. But for criminal cases, you want to insure that the state is not the same as the person deciding your fate (and, like it or not, the judge is paid by the state, and are even sometimes elected at the state and local level, so the last thing you want is a politically-motivated verdict), so the jury is the better of the options available.

But, regardless, in the US, this is a matter of almost completely settled law. Everyone outside of a juvenile court and sentences longer than 6 months has a right to a jury trial in criminal cases.

Zooey Deschanel not a suspect.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/zooey-deschanel-apology-captioning-service-erroneously-named-boston-bombing-suspect-article-1.1326431

...

Yeah...someone goofed up rather badly.

Apparently, though, the NY Post still hasn't apologised for sticking that picture of two randoms reddit found on its front cover with the headline "Wanted by the feds".

Someone goofing up rather worse.

Kopikatsu:

The Gentleman:

It's the sixth one...

Amendment VI of the US Constitution:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The only exceptions to the jury requirement have been for offenses resulting in less than 6 months imprisonment and minors. All other offenses carry a right to a speedy trial by jury.

There's also the much less sexy Article III.

US Constitution: Article III, Sec. 2, para. 3:
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

I'm aware of what it says in the constitution. I just don't see the purpose of it. Why would you even want twelve random people pulled off the street deciding your fate? They couldn't even manage to get out of jury duty for one thing, and it's highly unlikely that any of them have any expertise in law (Unless they're a professional juror, I guess). Jury trials are terrible and should feel terrible for being terrible.

The point of Jury Trials is to bring a different perspective into a trial and to distribute the power so there isn't a consolodation of power that could lead to it's abuse.

You also want someone who has as close to a neutral perspective as possible. A judge is going to view every case through the perspective of a judge, and that detatchment can be detremental in some cases.

Next, it's in the public's interest to know that people are getting fair trials, hence juries being involved so that lawyers and judges can't just speak in legalise and make decisions the common man can't comprehend. If you can't convince a group of people off the street that someone is guilty with evidence, then there's a good chance that you shouldn't be throwing that person in prison.

Finally, a jury of twelve is statistically less likely to let bias get in the way compared to a single judge. And considering how widespread the Jury system is and how well it's worked so far compared to single-judge systems.

Well, however he is tried, he will never again breathe free air. A fate well deserved.

Until further information surface, little but speculation is possible. It appears to be an example of Islamism spreading to maladjusted young Muslim men in the west, but that's not really new information. There's been warnings about homegrowns for quite some time.

I'd be more concerned about an increase in censorship, as they'd apparently found motivation and instructions for pressure cooker bombs in AQAP's web magazine Inspire. Don't become the UK, which judge for thought.

Imperator_DK:
Don't become the UK[/URL], which judge for thought.

No. That's judging people for possession of illegal material.

It's an uncontroversial practice, carried out by pretty much every country on planet - possibly most notably in the realm of child pornography.

Agema:
...
No. That's judging people for possession of illegal material.

It's an uncontroversial practice, carried out by pretty much every country on planet - possibly most notably in the realm of child pornography.

Possession of thoughts written down on paper.

Nobody have been molested/harmed in the making of Inspire, which is the rationale behind banning child pornography[1]. Thoughts have been put on paper: That is all. To punish people who didn't even think or state these thoughts, but merely wish to know of them - perhaps because they wish to know the nature of the enemy we face - is censorship and attempted thought control.

That Britain of course places itself in a long line of other censorship loving nations doesn't make much of a difference. Banning mere private position of "immoral" material is illiberalist thought policing all the same. Many governments, the UK one among them, have always attempted to suppress controversial religious or political views. This is simply a modern day continuation of book burnings.

[1] The real deal anyway. The UK and its old dependencies obviously also bans fictional cartoon images, because offensiveness! It's rare there's anything to learn from Sweden in regard to free speech. Consensual BDSM is obviously also banned, but I'm sure that's all just "banning illegal actions" too. Which every nation on Earth do, so therefore banning this particular action is perfectly fine.

Imperator_DK:
Thoughts have been put on paper: That is all.

Paper? They've been put over the internet; it's quite hard to buy the Al-Qaida magazine from the average newsagent.

These thoughts can be dangerous things. As clearly demonstrated by an American of Chechnyan heritage who radicalised himself from such "thoughts" over the internet and then blew up over 100 people, some fatally.

To punish people who didn't even think or state these thoughts,

Aha. So you mean she wasn't punished for her thoughts after all, because you now argue she was locked up despite her (self-claimed) thoughts.

If one wishes to know about the thoughts of Islamofascists, there are many legal ways one can do so - such as read the analyses of people who research them. You are allowed to read otherwise prohibited material, of course, if you can demonstrate a good reason to do so such as research.

That Britain of course places itself in a long line of other censorship loving nations...

The fact it is comparable to so many others brings up the question of why you keep picking on it. The obvious implication is some degree of Anglophobia.

Imperator_DK:

Agema:
...
No. That's judging people for possession of illegal material.

It's an uncontroversial practice, carried out by pretty much every country on planet - possibly most notably in the realm of child pornography.

Possession of thoughts written down on paper.

Nobody have been molested/harmed in the making of Inspire, which is the rationale behind banning child pornography[1]. Thoughts have been put on paper: That is all. To punish people who didn't even think or state these thoughts, but merely wish to know of them - perhaps because they wish to know the nature of the enemy we face - is censorship and attempted thought control.

That Britain of course places itself in a long line of other censorship loving nations doesn't make much of a difference. Banning mere private position of "immoral" material is illiberalist thought policing all the same. Many governments, the UK one among them, have always attempted to suppress controversial religious or political views. This is simply a modern day continuation of book burnings.

A few things:

1) The Inspire magazines can be regulated in the US under the test ascribed by Brandenburg v. Ohio. If anything, the bombing confirmed the final part of the test: "likelihood."

2) Obscenity is not protected speech, even in the US's very permissive atmosphere, and can be regulated on the local level.In the UK, such laws have a poor track record for actual convictions under the acts. The NZ case would be the ideal situation for an appeal that could clarify the classifications under NZ.

3) I'll believe you when UKIP and the BNP are banned organizations. While suppression of political speech is a common practices in non-democratic nations (past and present), modern developed democracies do not limit political speech until it get's to the destructive point (i.e. incitement of racism and bigotry), something many of them are way too familiar with to allow without intervention.

[1] The real deal anyway. The UK and its old dependencies obviously also bans fictional cartoon images, because offensiveness! It's rare there's anything to learn from Sweden in regard to free speech. Consensual BDSM is obviously also banned, but I'm sure that's all just "banning illegal actions" too. Which every nation on Earth do, so therefore banning this particular action is perfectly fine.

The Gentleman:
...
1) The Inspire magazines can be regulated in the US under the test ascribed by Brandenburg v. Ohio. If anything, the bombing confirmed the final part of the test: "likelihood."

Brandenburg-Ohio concerns limitations on the freedom to spread material in public, i.e. Freedom of Speech.

The UK ban concerns possession of the magazine in private, for one's own personal consumption, i.e. Freedom of Thought.

2) Obscenity is not protected speech, even in the US's very permissive atmosphere, and can be regulated on the local level.In the UK, such laws have a poor track record for actual convictions under the acts. The NZ case would be the ideal situation for an appeal that could clarify the classifications under NZ.

However, in the US possession of obscene material for personal use is legal. The UK and its old colonies, on the other hand, prosecute people for reading/watching fictional stuff in the privacy of their own home. Which is thoughtcrime.

3) I'll believe you when UKIP and the BNP are banned organizations. While suppression of political speech is a common practices in non-democratic nations (past and present), modern developed democracies do not limit political speech until it get's to the destructive point (i.e. incitement of racism and bigotry), something many of them are way too familiar with to allow without intervention.

"The destructive point" to any current society is generally the point of actual political change into a new society.

Agema:
...
Paper? They've been put over the internet; it's quite hard to buy the Al-Qaida magazine from the average newsagent.

And criminalizing uploading them to the public is perfectly fine. Criminalizing people reading them in the privacy of their own home isn't.

These thoughts can be dangerous things. As clearly demonstrated by an American of Chechnyan heritage who radicalised himself from such "thoughts" over the internet and then blew up over 100 people, some fatally.

Most thoughts can be dangerous things. Somebody learning martial arts might use them to kill. Somebody playing GTA might be inspired to go on a road rampage. It's none of society's business to ban either.

Aha. So you mean she wasn't punished for her thoughts after all, because you now argue she was locked up despite her (self-claimed) thoughts.

Not really, I'm simply arguing that the people you're punishing didn't think the thoughts they're punished for possessing on paper. Which actually mean they're punished on the mere possibility of having thoughts that could possibly lead them to commit actions.

If one wishes to know about the thoughts of Islamofascists, there are many legal ways one can do so - such as read the analyses of people who research them. You are allowed to read otherwise prohibited material, of course, if you can demonstrate a good reason to do so such as research.

I doubt a court would be willing to apply the "research" exemption of a private citizen, however much the possession was motivated solely by acquiring knowledge. Being cut off from the actual data, and forced to rely on (government funded) research, without any means of assessing its results, is an example of information control, to steer the thoughts of the population in the right direction.

...of course, it's only a mere attempt. All it'll do is force anyone interested in the magazine to become adept at IP-stealthing, TOR-browsing, VPN's, using unprotected WIFI's, data encryption etc. etc., well before they're potentially radicalized. Making it that much harder to spot them, as they go "off the grid" at a far earlier stage.

Imperator_DK:

The Gentleman:
...
1) The Inspire magazines can be regulated in the US under the test ascribed by Brandenburg v. Ohio. If anything, the bombing confirmed the final part of the test: "likelihood."

Brandenburg-Ohio concerns limitations on the freedom to spread material in public, i.e. Freedom of Speech.

The UK ban concerns possession of the magazine in private, for one's own personal consumption, i.e. Freedom of Thought.

Please elaborate. How is possession of the magazine in private "freedom of thought"? If you're in possession of illegal material, it's the possession they get you for, not whatever you think of it.

Because, last time I checked, my thoughts were made in my head, not in whatever I happened to be reading.

And I doubt that even in UK you get arrested for thinking.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked