If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree
They do. They beat the crap out of glassholes
This is assault, and illegal. Your so-called "right to privacy" does not extend to the right to beat up anybody who you think may be infringing upon it. If someone is breaking the law to infringe on your privacy, your course of action should be to report the crime, not to beat the person up.
I've met Godwin and he'd be horrified that you are trying to shield Trump by invoking his name. The world doesn't need an automatic method to suppress discussion of atrocities, and Mike never meant what he said to be one. In fact, this is a quote of Mike directly:
If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.
There's also Google's Project Shield, which is free for journalists.
That's a really good point. This service sure isn't going to throw someone off for being attacked too much. I'll ask someone at Google to expedite the process.
Your next move, should you choose to make it, is to decry that if we actually had standards for citizenship (like every other goddamn country on Earth) we'd have to kick out all existing citizens that don't meet those standards, which is ludicrous. No one handles birthright citizenship the same way they handle citizenship through naturalization, and the lack of options for stateless citizens makes that idea cruel and untenable.
With all due respect, you're talking to yourself now. I wasn't thinking of this point at all.
The actual statement is "support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States". Now, obviously, you personally do not approve of every law, nor could anyone even know them all. If you swear "true faith and allegiance" to them you are swearing to follow and uphold the law, not to refrain from opposing it in a peaceful political manner as is supported by that very text. The only way as a citizen that you could actually break the first amendment would be if you were in a government position, because it's directed toward congress rather than the people. So, the typical prospective citizen can swear allegiance to that amendment with complete confidence that they will never be in a position for that to matter.
Some people call that "democracy.
Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech. However, this wasn't speech. It was deliberate spreading of falsehood and cheating the moderation system. Who in their right mind would not deplore such corruption?
Just because one is a "public" place doesn't mean everyone should have everything they do and say documented for all time
The people who take exception to this should note that they,. like most other people around them, are not likely to be interesting enough for other people to even *want* to document everything they do or say in a public place for all time in the first place.
The brain is a recording device too... the fact that we happen to consider it fallible is immaterial... you can record something using a device with lossy compression too.
Reasonably, the objection to being recorded in a public place logically reduces to objecting to other people paying attention to them when they don't want to be. Trying to govern it with laws is trying to control what people are even allowed to *THINK*, and that is something I consider infinitely more morally objectionable than somebody eavesdropping on a conversation that was none of their business or even if they were recording it (as long as it was for their own personal use, just as whatever they have remembered in their own head would be).
It doesn't matter if wetware is not coming as soon as I supposedly think... I mention it to point out that if it were even hypothetically a thing, our existing objection to being recorded with devices should mean that it would be equally objectionable to simply have people *observing*... clearly this is absurd, even in an age where mind-machine interfaces are viable, and so by extension, it must be equally absurd to object to the idea of being recorded in the first place when you are in an area where someone might incidentally be observing you. Again, the fact that no such technology exists right now is irrelevant, since we would not object to simple observation even *IF* that observation were being permanently recorded, so there is no real reason to object to permanent recording in the first place.
If a person wants or expects privacy, I believe that the onus is upon them to take measures to sufficient degree that the only way that people will be able to infringe on that privacy is to violate laws allowing people to control who and what is on their own personal property.
It's not that I think if you're doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide, either... everyone has things that they would rather be private, and I believe everyone is entitled to that... but people should deal with the things that they want to be private in environments that *ARE* private... not in places that are public, which is, you know... the very *opposite* of private. Your privacy when you aren't trying to be in a private place is ultimately dependent not on what you might believe or want, but solely on how much other people want to pay attention to you in the first place, and so worrying about it in such circumstances even at best represents what is probably an inflated opinion of oneself, believing oneself to be far more important to other people that they don't know than is realistically likely to be the case.
So when the premise that might otherwise make one care about it is based on a falsehood (that other people are as interested in them as they are), there's no rational basis to be worried about it.
When I want privacy, I go somewhere private. I step outside, however... and it's fair game.
Obviously,. you could still prosecute people that distribute content that was recorded without permission of the subject, but I see no point to the outcries against people who might record for their own personal use, and in all honesty, are probably not actually *that* interested in you in the first place to notice you, specifically, among everything else they might be recording and actually *are* interested in.
The only caveat to this I would suggest is that without clear signage to the effect that states that an area is being monitored or recorded, a person doing the monitoring or recording must be physically at the location the recording is occurring... I do not think it should necessarily be externally obvious that they are recording anything, however... any more than it should be required that if a person is simply observing people as they go by should be carrying sign saying that they are watching you.