Best Political Cartoons

[Eiki-mun]

Question: Do victims NEED to publicly accuse the suspect? Do we need to shame the suspect before the courts have decided if they are guilty?

Well, it would be /nice/ if journalists would avoid publicly naming a rape suspect, but they just can't do that.

[Askold]

Question: Do victims NEED to publicly accuse the suspect? Do we need to shame the suspect before the courts have decided if they are guilty?

Well, it would be /nice/ if journalists would avoid publicly naming a rape suspect, but they just can't do that.

That reminds me. Few weeks ago I read a column about how USA and Finland deal with privacy differently. Namely the right to privacy that people have.

In USA those laws come from the bit in the constitution where it says that the government can't search peoples homes without a probable cause, in Finland our laws clearly state that people have the right to privacy.

The distinction is that in USA the law (and the society) are mainly concerned with the GOVERNMENT infringing that right and ONLY the government can do so. In Finland privacy is a right regardless of who would infringe it. This is why the media can publish the names of the suspects in USA but not in Finland. (Much like how the "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution is only concerned with the US government shutting up people.)

There are exceptions of course. For example if you are a politician or a celebrity in Finland then by making yourself a public figure your right to privacy is limited, the media can do the kind of tabloid news about you that they could not do about "common people."

This also effects other things. In Finland you have to have your child's name approved and there are limits to what kind of names are allowed. You can't give a child a name that is insulting, would cause to have them bullied or for example give a boy a girls name or vise versa. In USA there aren't such limits and any attempt to do so would be seen as the government infringing the rights of the people. This is because in USA choosing the name of the child is considered something that happens "inside the home" and therefore the government has no right to tell you that your child can't be named Fart-eater-lucifer-satan.

Note that I am mainly quoting the article from memory and may have gotten some things wrong.

EDIT: Just to stay on topic:


One of the comments on Imgur was that there is progress since black people are now allowed to dine at the counter.

[Ironchew]

Question: Do victims NEED to publicly accuse the suspect? Do we need to shame the suspect before the courts have decided if they are guilty?

Well, it would be /nice/ if journalists would avoid publicly naming a rape suspect, but they just can't do that.

That reminds me. Few weeks ago I read a column about how USA and Finland deal with privacy differently. Namely the right to privacy that people have.

In USA those laws come from the bit in the constitution where it says that the government can't search peoples homes without a probable cause, in Finland our laws clearly state that people have the right to privacy.

The distinction is that in USA the law (and the society) are mainly concerned with the GOVERNMENT infringing that right and ONLY the government can do so. In Finland privacy is a right regardless of who would infringe it. This is why the media can publish the names of the suspects in USA but not in Finland. (Much like how the "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution is only concerned with the US government shutting up people.)

There are exceptions of course. For example if you are a politician or a celebrity in Finland then by making yourself a public figure your right to privacy is limited, the media can do the kind of tabloid news about you that they could not do about "common people."

This also effects other things. In Finland you have to have your child's name approved and there are limits to what kind of names are allowed. You can't give a child a name that is insulting, would cause to have them bullied or for example give a boy a girls name or vise versa. In USA there aren't such limits and any attempt to do so would be seen as the government infringing the rights of the people. This is because in USA choosing the name of the child is considered something that happens "inside the home" and therefore the government has no right to tell you that your child can't be named Fart-eater-lucifer-satan.

Note that I am mainly quoting the article from memory and may have gotten some things wrong.

In keeping with the thread:



One of the mind-boggling parts of parsing Libertarian rants about mass surveillance here in the U.S. is that they don't seem to mind when it's corporations doing the mass surveillance with the same technology.

I guess if the Free Market™ can use sensitive personal data to make our lives hell, Libertarians are okay with that.

EDIT:

In USA there aren't such limits and any attempt to do so would be seen as the government infringing the rights of the people. This is because in USA choosing the name of the child is considered something that happens "inside the home" and therefore the government has no right to tell you that your child can't be named Fart-eater-lucifer-satan.

Not true; there are naming laws in many U.S. states. A Tennessee court enforced its respective naming laws a while back in a case that got some press attention because the judge was dumb enough to cite Jesus Christ as the reason a baby couldn't be named "Messiah".

[Id82]

One of the mind-boggling parts of parsing Libertarian rants about mass surveillance here in the U.S. is that they don't seem to mind when it's corporations doing the mass surveillance with the same technology.

I guess if the Free Market™ can use sensitive personal data to make our lives hell, Libertarians are okay with that.

One of the things that pisses me off about Libertarians is that since they want little to know government control they don't realize that that power has to go somewhere. It will go to the rich corporations who if left unrestricted will just abuse the American people all to just make money for their corporations.

[Sigmaleph]

One of the mind-boggling parts of parsing Libertarian rants about mass surveillance here in the U.S. is that they don't seem to mind when it's corporations doing the mass surveillance with the same technology.

I guess if the Free Market™ can use sensitive personal data to make our lives hell, Libertarians are okay with that.

I guess we hang out with different libertarians? Most of the ones I've interacted with oppose corporate surveillance just as much as government surveillance.

[I am lizard]

One of the mind-boggling parts of parsing Libertarian rants about mass surveillance here in the U.S. is that they don't seem to mind when it's corporations doing the mass surveillance with the same technology.

I guess if the Free Market™ can use sensitive personal data to make our lives hell, Libertarians are okay with that.

I guess we hang out with different libertarians? Most of the ones I've interacted with oppose corporate surveillance just as much as government surveillance.

At the risk of #notalllibertarians, from what I can tell there is a diverse array of ideas within the libertarian spectrum, basically the only thing they have in common is there dislike of Goverment overeach.
It's bassically like how Socilist/communists range from people who simply support welfare and regulations on banks to full blown tankies*.



*tankies are apologist for Stalin or any other oppressive communist regime, generally despised by both Socilists and anarchists

[Ironchew]

One of the mind-boggling parts of parsing Libertarian rants about mass surveillance here in the U.S. is that they don't seem to mind when it's corporations doing the mass surveillance with the same technology.

I guess if the Free Market™ can use sensitive personal data to make our lives hell, Libertarians are okay with that.

I guess we hang out with different libertarians? Most of the ones I've interacted with oppose corporate surveillance just as much as government surveillance.

The Libertarians I encounter the most often seem to align with Republicans on nearly every issue, but they know the Republican brand is damaged among several demographics so they call themselves an independent or a Libertarian instead.

[Ultimate Paragon]

[dpareja]

[Ultimate Paragon]

[Ultimate Paragon]

[mellenORL]

Good one, UP.

[Barbarella]

Question: Do victims NEED to publicly accuse the suspect? Do we need to shame the suspect before the courts have decided if they are guilty?

Well, it would be /nice/ if journalists would avoid publicly naming a rape suspect, but they just can't do that.

That reminds me. Few weeks ago I read a column about how USA and Finland deal with privacy differently. Namely the right to privacy that people have.

In USA those laws come from the bit in the constitution where it says that the government can't search peoples homes without a probable cause, in Finland our laws clearly state that people have the right to privacy.

The distinction is that in USA the law (and the society) are mainly concerned with the GOVERNMENT infringing that right and ONLY the government can do so. In Finland privacy is a right regardless of who would infringe it. This is why the media can publish the names of the suspects in USA but not in Finland. (Much like how the "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution is only concerned with the US government shutting up people.)

There are exceptions of course. For example if you are a politician or a celebrity in Finland then by making yourself a public figure your right to privacy is limited, the media can do the kind of tabloid news about you that they could not do about "common people."

This also effects other things. In Finland you have to have your child's name approved and there are limits to what kind of names are allowed. You can't give a child a name that is insulting, would cause to have them bullied or for example give a boy a girls name or vise versa. In USA there aren't such limits and any attempt to do so would be seen as the government infringing the rights of the people. This is because in USA choosing the name of the child is considered something that happens "inside the home" and therefore the government has no right to tell you that your child can't be named Fart-eater-lucifer-satan.

Note that I am mainly quoting the article from memory and may have gotten some things wrong.

EDIT: Just to stay on topic:


One of the comments on Imgur was that there is progress since black people are now allowed to dine at the counter.

That commenter on Imgur seems to be either a troll or someone with a bad case of THIS......

....Either way, they're a pile of pig offal!

[Ultimate Paragon]

[Ultimate Paragon]