From TFA:

That is one of the biggest loads of horse shit I have ever heard. If any part of that statement from the RSA were true then the NSA deal would never have happened and the NSA Formula would never even have been an option, much less the default...

[sarcasm]Yes, because history shows that people who call people "pieces of shit" are SOOOOO much better... especially when they do so anonymously...[/sarcasm]

Why would the NSA crack TOR to spy on terrorists and such like they're supposed to when they can be stalking potential love interests and making sure their Significant Others are faithful?

Or he updates the software, but the old programs are still running? Update doesn't necessarily mean wipe+reinstall.

Wow... That read like enough hipster BS to launch 1000 more Starbucks locations.. Oh, wait, Starbucks is too "mainstream" now... How about "enough hipster BS to launch 1000 [obscure regional coffee shop] locations"?

It was a good, entertaining movie when it came out. It's still a good, entertaining movie today.

You don't have to justify enjoying it with this much "oh, yeah, I totally see the symbolism in that now" BS...

I haven't played Progress Quest in years! Good times ;)

change.org is an independent site. It may have a mostly US focus, but it certainly does not serve solely to petition the US Government... Also once you vote for an issue, they spam you with all sorts of stupid crap like "My Sister got fat eating McDonald's Fries and then got diabetes and then lost a foot to neuropathy! We need to do something about this!".... Sure there are good causes out there, but most of them follow a "I want to complain about my own poor life choices or the poor life choices of a loved one! Find me someone to blame who will pay me millions in damages!" trend...

Maybe you confused it with the White House's "We the People" petition system? The one where the White House has to respond with an official statement (or non-statement) to anything with more than 50,000 unique signatures?

The 5th does apply to 3rd party witnesses, but only in very specific instances. Nobody has argued otherwise... It's just not a catch-all "I don't want to testify at all" move that anyone can use at any time.

Fifth Amendment rights only pertain to specific questions. Questions whose answers would lead the witness to incriminate themselves (regardless of whether the crime is relevant to the given trial). If, in that highly unlikely scenario, someone were to successfully plea the 5th for all questions asked of them, then they still told the truth (unless of course there was no actual crime).

If Alice was involved in an entirely unrelated crime, then said crime has no relevance to the case and she can easily plead the 5th... They cannot force her to admit to committing a crime, even if that crime is unrelated to the trial in question. That is actually one of the reasons the 5th Amendment exists.

Because there was absolutely no press coverage of an impending update and/or new model until just now... They've been speculating wildly about the 6/5S since the 5 came out last year. Even it's release date, which hasn't actually been announced yet, is expected to be later this month. If you bought an iPhone 5 and feel cheated because a new model came out a couple months later? You can really only blame yourself for not doing adequate market research before buying a mobile phone...

Since when has "Freedom of expression" especially in regards to non-expression applied to Court Rooms? If it did than all Perjury laws would be in violation, as false testimony to get a conviction could be deemed "Protected Speech".... Worst case: Someone innocent gets put on Death Row because the testimony that could have cleared them wasn't given because a witness exercised "freedom of expression". I'd say this "worst case scenario" would totally undermine the purpose of the criminal justice system.

So no, you do NOT have the right to remain silent in a courtroom. You must testify, and before you do you must swear a legally binding oath to tell the truth. The issue isn't witness rights, it's defendant and plaintiff rights. Defendants has the right to call witnesses to exonerate themselves. If a defendant isn't particularly popular than witnesses may not tell the whole truth if they had the "freedom of expression" to do so. Plaintiff's have the right to call witnesses to make their case against a Defendant, if the witnesses have "Freedom of Expression" to falsify testimony than a defendant could get away with some crime (ie: vandalism, shoplifting, whatever) just because a witness exercised their "Freedom of Expression".

This. This right here... The whole purpose of the 5th Amendment is that you can't be forced to admit to committing a crime during a trial, especially if that crime is wholly unrelated to the trial. It does apply to witnesses in those cases as well... To use the "Alice & Bob" example from above, if Alice really were an accomplice and not just a witness, she cannot be forced to admit being an accomplice during Bob's trial and can "Plea the 5th".