>> ^Solid_Muldoon:

What nonsense. Does Ron Paul actually think No Muslims Allowed signs wouldn't pop up all over the country if it were not illegal?


no...

What nonsense. Does Ron Paul actually think No Muslims Allowed signs wouldn't pop up all over the country if it were not illegal?

Almost getting violent is not illegal.

Your link and your examples support my point completely. There are limits to free speech: when they cause harm to others. Libel, slander, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, or my examples of inciting violence or causing discrimination, all cause harm.

Being an asshole on the subway does not cause harm.

She never threatened anyone (so there goes any "uttering threats" charge) and harassment is almost by definition a repetitive act (which means this likely can't be called that either, legally).

With regards to freedom of speech not superseding other rights, here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Please point out which one her freedom of speech was superseding. There is no "everyone has the right to never be offended and to be sheltered from the opinions of others."
>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^Skeeve:
While her tirade makes me sick, the fact that she was arrested for this makes me even more sick.
Freedom of speech means nothing if you don't have the freedom to offend people. The aim should be to draw the line where it causes harm - whether by inciting violence or by denying someone a job, etc.

This line of thinking always puzzles me. Freedom of speech always has (and always should have) limitations. It doesn't supersede other rights--it exists in relation to them and is not any more "special," which is why (for example) there are laws against libel and slander, laws against yelling "fire" in a crowded theater in order to start a panic, etc.
The lady in this video is clearly going beyond just voicing her opinion and harassing the other passengers. At one point she seems ready to get physical (at about the 1:00 part she's screaming that she dares someone to try to remove her from the train). She's entitled to her opinion about immigrants and she's also entitled to express her opinion, but she's not entitled to repeatedly verbally attack or threaten the people around her, who have no chance to avoid or get away from her since they're all trapped on the tram together. In other words, her right to free speech does not supersede the other passengers' rights to travel on the tram in peace.
I'm glad she was arrested and, as mentioned above by @Boise_Lib, that no violence was involved. She should be prosecuted not for expressing an offensive opinion but for repeatedly and intentionally harassing the other passengers. This is not the kind of behavior that should be rewarded with a "Oh, it's her right to free speech" pass.

No, it's not "illegal" to fire an employee for refusing to do their job.
>> ^Sketch:

The practice of making people wear the sticker is stupid, them firing him for not wearing it is downright illegal, but he's a complete moron for believing such superstitious nonsense. There isn't an innocent party in this entire story.

No...

Post as many links as you want. An endless supply of horseshit doesn't support your point at all.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ohio-public-employees-overcompensated-senate-bill-5/

Here, you can do some reading for a change. Because you obviously didn't read any part of the actual studies that the "articles" in your links refer to.

Arbitrarily adding on dollars to the wage amount to account for job security? Counting the money that public employees pay into their benefits as part of the benefits package? Completely making shit up out of thin air to satisfy your corporate agenda? They actually state right in their abstract that job security is worth "17 percent of pay", let's forget for a second that that statement doesn't mean anything. If they're implying what I think they're implying, then McDonald's workers are making millions. It's practically impossible to get fired from McDonald's. So why doesn't the study account for all those extra millionaires, hmmm?
Give me a fucking break.

And you're right that the aei study "mentions" education. I thought we were having a conversation about actual facts, not whether or not the word was included in the paper. You're dead wrong in that it uses comparable education levels to determine its conclusions. Making up a number to increase the appearance of public employee pay is not a comparison. Neither is only taking into account firms with one thousand or more people. Just because it says the word education in the paper does not mean it conforms to any scientific standard at all.

Oh, now now it's the union bosses who make "shady" deals behind closed doors. Well, I might agree with you there, but what happened to "the myth of the underpaid public employee"? And what about the fact that it's the politician who makes the deal in the end? If you're talking about thousands of areas where the government overspends, then why do you only focus on "entitlement programs" here on the Sift? You must be rallying about that other stuff on facebook eh?

And speaking of entitlement programs, when did the idea of "helping people" become "communism"? I wasn't aware that Jesus was a commie, but I sure was under the impression that governments existed to help all the members of a society, not just the ones with stock portfolios.

It's not un-American to want to help people. I think you might be the only person under that impression. But it sure is un-American to try and legislate away the right of a group of people to free speech. If you don't like what someone has to say, or if you don't like them sticking up for themselves, there are ways you can deal with them without taking away their rights.

And it's certainly looked down upon, (if not illegal) to make a contract with someone, and then back out because you can't cover your end of the bargain. And you're damn straight the taxpayers have to answer for the decisions of the people they elect to office. It's called accountability, in case you're wondering:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=accountability

Two dollar bills are still in circulation and are still considered legal tender. Odd but true.
>> ^Tokoki:

Someone else can probably confirm - but since there are no legal $2 bills...it is not illegal to print your own $2 bill.

Someone else can probably confirm - but since there are no legal $2 bills...it is not illegal to print your own $2 bill. Whether you can manage to convince someone to take that as money...that's a different story - and also not illegal.

It'd be like me writing "$2" on a piece of paper...I can make as many of these pieces of paper as I want...nothing illegal about that.

If I can buy stuff with these handwritten pieces of paper...again, nothing illegal...

>> ^kurtdh:

Can someone explain to me why this isn't illegal?

How the fuck is that not illegal? How the fuck can they not be sued into the stone-age for shit like this? It's amazing to me this is obviously done on purpose...they need to pay.

I have so many issues with this video, I don't think I'll be able to recall all of them to write down. I'll preface all of this by saying that I'm an avid poker player and during my senior year of college ('04-'05) & the year after I graduated, online poker was my sole source of income. I now make trips to AC from NYC when my hectic work/social schedule allows.

1 - You think US casinos didn't want in on online gambling from jump street? Wrong. This is a HUGE industry. Casinos aren't the RIAA; they're willing to adapt to new sources of revenue & have wanted in since online gambling started started gaining traction in the US. I don't know what happened recently with Caesar's, but I assure you that casinos have been lobbying for a long time to get a piece of the action. There have been stories for at least the last 7 years about US casinos wanting to operate online gambling sites.

2 - I'm pretty sure that online gambling is not actually illegal. What's illegal is running an online gambling site. Very important distinction. What's also illegal is US financial institutions transferring money to gambling sites. None of this has any bearing on the players. If you can manage to get money to a site, you haven't broken any laws, the bank or credit card company has. This too is a very important distinction from "online gambling is illegal." Online gambling isn't illegal. Operating an online gambling site in the US is illegal. A bank giving money to an offshore site is illegal (this law was only passed ~4 years ago). But gambling online is not illegal.

3 - Are TYT really arguing that gambling should be legal everywhere and that antigambling legislature is a purely moral issue? This is sort of ridiculous. It's just good sense. I believe poker rooms should be legalized nationwide, but I don't agree that all gambling should be. Providing every member of the population the opportunity to play the slots after a hard day of work is a very, very bad idea. Not because the bible says it's wrong, but just from an economic standpoint. They seem to be arguing that the gov't disallowing online gambling is depriving people of their rights, as if gambling isn't illegal almost everywhere in the US. Very weak & (IMO) misguided argument here.

4 - One thing they're right about, though they didn't get into it at all, is that this is going to be VERY bad for some people. Some folks who make their living doing this will have anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up on these sites. I guarantee that freezing their accounts has ruined a number of people's lives. I would have liked some more on this topic. (Though I understand I'm probably not in the majority here)

5 - Can you get the fucking aspect ratio right on Cenk's camera? Is it really so hard to center-cut a 16:9 shot? Or is Cenk just trying to make himself look skinny? Speaking of which, why isn't this whole spot 16:9? It's 2011. How long are SD aspect ratios going to be around?

That's all I remember, and I don't want to rewatch this video and get worked up all over again. Bad reporting IMO. I feel like I say that about TYT very often.

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
It is not illegal to release the name of anyone who committed a crime who is over the age of 18. Some people just don't understand the consequences and repercussions that can occur when laws are broken. This is a tough lesson on both students that they will never forget, and they could be made example of to deter others from attempting to do anything similar.
Asian chick was pretty cute, tho.


If they weren't caught now they may have repeated this life wrecking form of bullying again and again. I wonder if his cell mate is going to have a hidden camera...?


By the way, what's with the 'blip' bit? Maybe he was just gay....

Just say someone leaked it to youtubeleaks. Then it's not illegal.

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'm quite interested to hear from the WikiLeaks naysayers on this one
Yeah, it's a terrible story, one of millions. Doesn't change the fact Assange is a narcissistic America-hating a$$hole who released classified info which endangered American lives and the lives of our allies. He should be liquidated (assassinated) as an enemy spy for his attacks on the USA.
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
and
18 USC 641: any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Classified information is valuable government property.


You're a pathetic hypocrite. You claim foreigners aren't protected by US laws (ie: it's not illegal to torture and imprison Arabs), but you now want to charge an Australian with violation of US laws.

Do you ever think about these things before you write them?

It is not illegal to release the name of anyone who committed a crime who is over the age of 18. Some people just don't understand the consequences and repercussions that can occur when laws are broken. This is a tough lesson on both students that they will never forget, and they could be made example of to deter others from attempting to do anything similar.

Asian chick was pretty cute, tho.

[redacted]

Not illegal, but it is a drug.