Lol, I see what you did there
Like the time the ACLU fought for the KKK's right to protest on the courthouse steps? Or rather, are you making a snap judgement based on a preconceived notion you got not from your own research into the organization, but from some media outlet?
My guess, the latter.
Considering the general working conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if they made the migrants sleep on pallets in the basement.
A) so would a fence
B) cops have no interest in keeping kids off your lawn.
I didn't know Occupy, the Tea Party, gun owners, and people who buy stuff with cash were "barely anybody."
All groups that were put on a terrorist watch list at some point or another, and I know I left a bunch out.
The sort of people who pay slave wages probably consider 6.8 hours of "free time" a day more than adequate for such self-catering needs as sustinance and rest. Don't wanna be too soft on 'em, ya know.
Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.
I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement. Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.
I.e., the last line on every single Bennett Hasselton blog post that gets put on the front page, masquerading as a news item.
Oh, wait, this poll is for "favorite clickbait line," not most stupid.
Numbered lists. I can't get enough of "X crazy things that happen" lists.
Right, because common folk like you or I get a say in the matter, regardless of nationality.
Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.
Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.
"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.
If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."
In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).
Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?
Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?
To you that's what "unauthorized use" means; to the government, it means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.
So, if Aunt Tilly intended to send that emoticon, then she can be prosecuted regardless of whether she intended harm. As the GP noted, she likely wouldn't be, but someone not as sympathetic might be.
Unless, of course, Aunt Tilly got busted for pot once back in the 70's. Then the media will prattle on about how she has an "existing criminal record" and convince the unwashed masses she's a filthy criminal not worthy of compassion.
Most crimes have a "Mens rea" requirement - an intent to commit the crime.
Well, they used to, but sadly that often isn't the case anymore:
This kind of legislation would apply even if nobody died in the carrying out of the activity.
And there's nothing wrong with punishment without someone dying.
True. But there is something wrong with cruel, unusual, and downright insane sentencing guidelines. Life in prison for embarrassing a politico seems a bit over the top, doesn't it?