This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"the worst first amendment case I've ever seen" just had a good ending! You can read his summary (CEO of FIRE who lead the case) or mine.
A while back, a retired police officer Larry Bushart posted a political meme on Facebook mocking conservatives over the concept of not caring about kids who get shot in schools while cancelling people for not caring about Charlie Kirk's death.
In response, Perry County officials where he lived had him arrested and held in jail for 37 days, setting his bond at 2 million dollars. He lost his job from this disruption and missed his granddaughter's birth and his wedding anniversary.
This arrest was obvious bullshit, another case where corrupt abusive officials utilize the legal system itself as punishment. No one would have seriously expected this case to go through, but the process itself is often meant as the attack.
It ends with good news though, as part of the settlement Bushart is getting almost a million dollars. Bad news, like most abuse by officials it gets paid for by the taxpayers and nothing is likely to happen to the corrupt scumbags who were in charge.
But this is a great lesson at least. In the US, you can just be a random guy, upset the most powerful government organizations and draw their ire, and win against them. America is a country where David can take down Goliath, whether it be your local officials or federal ones. Bushart refused to accept the abuse, he stood up to the bullies, and he won.
No, this shows that you can do this against government organizations that have a right-wing bias. It does not show that you can do this against government organizations in general.
It also depends on how big the institution you're fighting is and how much practice they've had doing it. If it had been the FBI instead of the county, they would have questioned him, they would have found or manufactured a felony, he would be jailed, and there would be nothing he could do.
There's been plenty of legal wins against left wing abuse. Here's a recent one involving free speech from a conservative. Her damages were obviously much lower (not flying a flag on a flagpole vs being put in jail for over a month) so she only got about 30k but yes, when government leaders illegally step on your rights you can sue and you can win/force them to settle.
Now it might take a while, especially if you aren't willing to settle after all the court system is slow and backlogged. But that's not because of unfairness, it's just a general court issue. Often the real problem that tends to happen with court is idiots. Idiots who don't realize that actually nothing illegally happened, your rights were not stepped on, and they're just stupid. The law is complex and criminals are stupid, it's why "you have to tell me if you're a cop right?" continues to be a thing. No they don't, and the court will not take you selling drugs to an undercover one as entrapment.
Now hold up, if they conducted a legal search and found a felony and proved it in court then of course he could end up jailed for it.
If they manufactured one, then he would argue for his innocence and try to provide counter evidence it isn't real. Given that isn't many cases even alleging that the FBI or other groups manufactured evidence, especially excluding anything like an obvious schizophrenic representing themselves in court filings saying it, I don't think there's much reason to believe it's actually happened often.
Yes, they would have. They would have come with an electronics search warrant based on the probable cause that he was using a computer to transmit interstate terrorist threats. They would have found an unencrypted hard drive with a terabyte of a particular type of obscene photo which the FBI is allowed to posses but which average people possessing is a serious felony in the United States. They would have dropped the threats charges and proceeded with the incidental charges. They did this to several J6ers.
If there was enough good cause to believe in a threat to get a search warrant, then there's no issue. Even in Bushart's case, the problem wasn't that they investigated him to begin with since there is decent enough cause with the meme he posted for that. The issue is that good faith officials would have accepted that this was a quote of the president and not a threat to shoot up local schools, instead of proceeding ahead with throwing him in jail.
Yes the FBI is allowed to have the data of child porn in the specific context of using it to identify other child porn. Very interesting way to word it.
Yep, that's how the law works. Things found in a legally authorized search are generally permissible evidence. This applies even if the circumstances initially permitting the search change later, like it turns out a witness had lied to the police or something. They don't have to have a valid warrant, as long as the officials executing it reasonably acted on good faith https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause?
It requires the officials themselves to have acted in bad faith or overreached in the limits of the legal search.
That sounds like an odious context, because it doesn't really need to be identified now does it? Unless you're enforcing the extremely severe law on people who accidentally see a 17 year old on some mainstream website. Which is probably the main use case for that.
Anyway AFAIK, they're also allowed to broadly posses it, receive it, distribute it, and even cause the production of it. I have read that they entrap people by sending it to them when asked, and the by asking for photos of family members that they then use to identify the people they entrap. This implies possession by the FBI, knowing reception by the FBI, knowing distribution by the FBI, and encouraging production by the FBI. It almost looks a pedophilic enterprise operating under the thin cover of pedo hunting. The only difference is the badge. Imagine if one of those street hunter people did this. They would be arrested! Personally I think their methods should be reigned in, because makes me sick to see an FBI agent when I know he is quite likely to be someone who trades it on the darknet all day for „justice” or „the greater good” or whatever. I'm glad entrapment is illegal in my country because it must select for some disgusting people to sign up for law enforcement duties.
Yes, yes. It's all legal. That's how your law works. It's wrong, but it's how you made it work. Except for the part where the evidence might be planted. But that's impossible to prove, and defendants are forbidden from alleging it in court. Which means they are not allowed to really defend themselves. Which means it would be very easy for the government to get away with it, when you understand how it all works.
Yep the difference between law enforcement acting in an official capacity to catch criminals is different than a vigilante. The same way you can't be a "street hunter" for drugs and just do it to sell drugs to people.
The justice and greater good of catching pedophiles actively seeking out child abuse material.
Entrapment is an incredibly misunderstood legal doctrine, it is not entrapment that you get caught doing a crime you were already doing. Entrapment is not allowed in the US either.
Yes, they use the same tactics for drugs as well. Which should be illegal.
You can have that without entrapment. Many countries do, including my own.
Americans have redefined it to make it okay in their country. The common sense definition is any act which is meant to entice someone to commit a crime is entrapment. United States law enforcement at all levels commits many such acts of entrapment. If the entrapped person was already doing the crime, then they need to be prosecuted for those acts, not acts that they were pushed to do by law enforcement. If law enforcement can't find evidence, then too bad, that's the point of privacy rights. 99% of the time they can't find evidence because the act is actually not harmful, which is why victims are not lining up to testify about how they have been damaged.
What country are you in? It seems more reasonable that you, like most citizens, misunderstand your local laws than that your country never uses undercover cops at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link