1. Hey Guest, welcome back to DLP

    As you can see, we've changed our look. We've migrated from vBulletin to the Xenforo forum system. There may be issues or missing functionality, if you find anything or have feedback, please check out the new Xenforo Migration Feedback forum.

    Our dark ("Dark Lord Potter") theme is under heavy development. We also have a light ("Light Lord Potter") theme for those happier with a light background and darker text.

    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hey Guest! Are you any good at cooking? Got a favourite recipe that you love to cook or bring out to impress that special someone? Why not share it! A new forum called The Burrow has opened and it's all about homemaking!

Social Media and the First Amendment

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Agayek, Jun 20, 2017.

  1. silentclock

    silentclock Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,105
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Lol, pretty sure you're just trolling, but I'll indulge you one more time. Mostly because your way of thinking is legitimately baffling, and I'd like to dissuade anyone reading the thread from following it.

    Of course people need to take responsibility for their actions. In a scenario where someone commits a crime and everyone does their job properly, there will be some form of punishment. I don't disagree with you there. Where I think you're raving, however, is with this notion that everyone who commits a crime should be treated equally. Committing a crime doesn't give us carte blanche to continually punish an individual who has paid his due through a period of incarceration. I've described for you twice the framework which courts use to determine whether depriving a group of people of a right is constitutionally permissible. I'll not bother to do it again, because I suspect you'd continue to ignore it.

    Again, it's a little more complicated than, "Criminal commit crime; criminal no get rights!" There are certain classes of people whom we deprive of certain rights under certain circumstances. It requires a constitutional analysis of the right at issue and what the government is trying to achieve. No matter how many times you insist otherwise, it is a complex legal issue.

    Yeah, about that... wrong again. The first link contains the Bureau of Prisons' percentages of inmates by crime. In the federal system, drug offenders far outstrip all others. The second link has some charts which show the broader picture. You'll note that non-violent offenders far outweigh violent ones in local jails in addition to federal prisons. In fairness, local jails are also where misdemeanants are held, which will throw off those numbers somewhat for purposes of determining the exact number of felons by type.

    "Ah ha," I bet you're thinking, "Violent offenders outnumber non-violent ones in state prison!" This is correct. But what it doesn't account for is probation, parole, and diversion. Not all felons serve all, or indeed any, of their sentences. Upwards of 35% of convicted felons are sent directly to probation without ever going to prison. And guess what? It's not the violent ones who tend to get probated. Non-violent felons who receive probated sentences are still felons under the law--they're just not accounted for in incarceration statistics. So yes, it's absolutely true that most felons are non-violent. At both the state and federal level.
     
  2. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Empire City
    High Score:
    2810
    This particular argument is specific to felony sex offenders, not all convicted felons. It's about denying sex offenders access to the platforms they use to commit sex crimes.

    As for enforcement, it's actually fairly simple. You get an order from the court when you're released forbidding you from accessing social media, then you do periodic checks and if they violate the order, they get thrown back in prison.

    ---------- Post automerged at 00:19 ---------- Previous post was at 00:13 ----------

    It was, actually, but I have zero confidence in your ability to recognize it, given your apparent lack of understanding on this issue.

    silentclock is a public defender. I work on the enforcement side of the equation. Both of us know what we're talking about. You don't.
     
  3. silentclock

    silentclock Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,105
    Location:
    Kentucky


    Most of my clients would be waaay better off getting banned from social media. If I never had to see another picture of a client holding a wad of cash in one hand and a pistol in the other, I'd be quite pleased. Also, I'd love to not see any more statuses where a client calls the judge a bitch. Or maybe if they could at least make that shit private.
     
  4. Innomine

    Innomine Auror Prestige DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    639
    Location:
    New Zealand
    High Score:
    4,500
    Hmm, I think LightLordPotter is pretty much a textbook case of the Dunning Krueger effect.

     
  5. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    It's not that simple when it comes to the Internet.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29077-digital-darkness-and-silence-for-sex-offenders-in-the-information-age

    The laws we have for that in place are pretty ridiculous and ineffective. Like we're stuck in the '90s.

    I am curious about what kind of legal precedent there is to argue both sides of the argument. (Our original discussion topic, I should say.) I can't claim to work in public defending and I'm definitely not going to law school, but other than the original example from the first post, is that the only example of this debate being brought regarding more traditional media that offers a same quandary? I did some research and found examples like billboards, but I'm wondering if there's already a similar legal precedent here that I am up too late to find.
     
  6. LightLordPotter

    LightLordPotter Disappeared

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    High Score:
    0
    http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339

    Definitely....

    Then what do you argue for? You seem to be continually attempting to beat some ambiguous point into my head, but why? You're coming at me with a statistic, yet you don't know what it means. It's like you googled it then said, "yea, he definitely won't look at it". Please, stop trying so hard.

    I agree with the part where it is complex. But do you think it's fair that taxpayers should pay when one of these idiots breaks the law? Do you think the people that abide the law deserve the thousands of dollars in taxes just to incarcerate these people? You seem to put criminals on some kind of pedestal as if they matter more than the average person. To me, you seem more like a crook than a lawyer, but I guess that's most criminal defence lawyers.

    Public defender. AKA he makes chump change in order to let people that break the law off easily. He will say anything for his narrative to be correct, even present facts in an obvious bias manner. Not a single ounce of objectivity, eh?

    I think that's the text book definition of an Ad Hominem. So you're incapable of creating arguments? You have to rely on self-diagnosis? How cool, I bet you take online quizzes super seriously.

    All the Ad Hominem today, eh? It's crazy how many people here think that Criminals are just victims, the disillusionment with reality is unreal, it's like you all have about as much Self-Awareness as Elliot Rodger.

    Funny how you call a discussion "a childish tantrum" when that is exactly what you're doing. I think I lost brain cells reading your post, you essentially call me wrong, give no evidence as to why, make an insult like this is some kind of Indy!Harry fic where he is calling Voldemort moldyshorts. Then rinse and repeat for a couple more points.

    "Ur wrong cuz ur wrong". I didn't realise that no one was capable of having a decent discussion without relying on Ad Hominem.

    ---------- Post automerged at 01:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:48 AM ----------

    They are given second chances though, and a huge percentage go back to being criminals anyways. It's pointless to waste tax dollars for funding the second chance if they won't even stick to it, nor is it the tax payer's job in the long run.
     
  7. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    You're right. It isn't the taxpayers' jobs to help criminals. It isn't the government's job to make sure people don't commit crimes. But you know who's job it is?

    The parents. The families.

    But no one wants to talk about that. No one wants to talk about broken families and higher divorce rates and rising poverty rates. Because God forbid anyone take responsibility for anything. Do you really want to face this problem? Because newsflash, the actual problem is a lot more nuanced then people who fuck up deserve to be fucked up in return.

    And as silentclock has so helpfully pointed out, you apparently lack the ability to comprehend this.

    Because the problem is the sentences, the attitude of the justice system, the decisions of the criminals, the criminal's upbringing, the fucking education system because they don't think finances and parenting are things that should be taught. Look, you can blame everyone under the sun, but that doesn't change the fact that being as harsh as possible, nailing everyone to the cross, does not work. All you have to do is look at our sorry excuse for retention rates.

    A second chance just to fuck it up, huh? Well when the offender has no resources and no reason to clean himself up, why would he? No one wants to hire him and it leaves crime as the last resort, especially in impoverished neighborhoods.

    Maybe, God forbid, it's about mercy. Maybe it's about trying to reach out to someone who doesn't have it as good as you do. You can't help everyone, and you can't help those who don't want help, but does that mean you just stop? Well, I don't want to know what it feels like to lose your faith in other people.
     
  8. LightLordPotter

    LightLordPotter Disappeared

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    High Score:
    0
    But the Parents and the Families are just as much in danger of these people.

    Well, the thread isn't about that. But, here's an idea, the criminal should have thought about all of this beforehand. **gasp**. I know right? Personal responsibility! This is why people laugh at America, you're all too thin-skinned to get anything done. It's always about second and third chances and not about protecting the people you already have. The only one that does a better job than us at this is Sweden and Germany.

    Maybe they should show some mercy for others before receiving it—Hm?
     
  9. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    While he's being a dick, I'm going to consider it a weight lifting exercise for argumentation skills around here. I believe in you guys.
     
  10. tikkier2000

    tikkier2000 First Year

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere
    High Score:
    0
    That isn't even close to my argument, you realize. I'm saying you're grossly oversimplifying why people commit crimes and judging them on a narrow, frankly naive worldview. I'm saying upbringing has a huge impact on how children turn out. The high rates of fatherless homes correlates with the high rates of criminal behavior.

    Thin-skinned. Well, Mr. "an argument isn't Ad Hominem", I love the hypocrisy here. You do make a point that America has history of turning a blind eye until we can't anymore. I'll admit it because it's true. But you're acting as if anyone who's ever broken the law is somehow not citizens anymore. Protecting the ones we already have? Guess what? That includes criminals.

    It's detrimental to society to have so many people incarcerated. You're saying to punish them so they stop. Well, considering cruel and unusual punishment is off the table from the get-go, what does that leave? Locking people up or mandatory service work or taking rights away. That is literally the only options left. How do you propose to punish people further? Prison sentences are already ridiculously long and a lot of repeat offenders simply don't care anymore.

    Taking away rights theoretically could work, except only a few of those are on the table anyway. Right to bear arms, which is already a penalty anyway. (And I hate to burst your bubble, but criminals don't buy guns legally anyway. I know, shocker, criminals don't follow laws, but what can ya do?) But most of our rights are God given and are still allowed to criminals.

    Okay, service work. Except, no one actually wants criminals to work for them. They're untrustworthy. The government could use them, but that's only possible if they have a reason to need workers. And not paying them? Violation of rights once again.

    You do realize that isn't how mercy works, right?

    mercy: compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm Synonyms include: leniency, grace, forgiveness, humanity

    Mercy implies you've got a right to hurt someone, got a right for retribution, but you don't. Having intent to assault someone but deciding not to? That's not mercy, that's not being an asshole.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2017
  11. ScottPress

    ScottPress The Horny Sovereign Prestige

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    1,588
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Holy Moose Empire
    High Score:
    1,826
    LightLordPotter

    You throw around words like hypocrisy and ad hominem as if they're magic words that make you seem smarter just because while resorting to personal attacks yourself, which makes you hypocrite squared.

    Another thread, another anecdote, huh? Dismissing counterarguments as 'anecdotes' doesn't counter the argument, it just makes you look silly.

    On the issue of taxpayers paying for criminals. How do you suppose this should be handled? The government's money is tax money. Thus, indeed, taxpayers for incarceration. But you seem to think that incarceration is some privilege that had working taxpayers grant to criminals. Yes, you're on paying to shelter, feed, clothe and provide medical care to criminals. You're also paying to keep filthy criminals locked up and away from you. Do you propose that criminals pay for their incarceration? How are they supposed to do that? Lend them out as cheap labor, with salary going to their incarceration costs? My vindictive side says yes, sentence murderers and kiddie fuckers to do the filthiest jobs there are -but then there'd be protests. Criminals are taking the jobs of law abiding citizens! So you're kinda fucked. Society chooses to err on the side of not tyranny in this case. Though I guess just executing criminals would do the tri- oh wait, US already does that.

    You seem very hawkish when it comes to dealing with criminals. Have you ever downloaded something? Littered in public? Not cleaned up your dog's shit? Called someone a cunt on the Internet? Run a red light? I guarantee, you're not a saint. Maybe you didn't get caught. Maybe the transgression isn't classed as a crime. Or maybe you are in fact unblemished. Good for you. That doesn't mean you can cast people you think beneath you into a shithole. The western civilization has decided a while ago that dictatorship generally doesn't work.

    (and just to end on a joke, the world has much better reasons to laugh at America right now than your criminal justice system)
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2017
  12. silentclock

    silentclock Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,105
    Location:
    Kentucky

    You realize that the link literally proves my point, right? The chart with the breakdown of federal and state inmates shows that the percentage of violent offenders has been in the 40's since 1997. You know that 47% is less than 50%, right? So, you know, a minority. And again, that doesn't even account for parolees and people on probation/diversion.

    But hey, if you want to link to the first google hit without even checking to make sure it doesn't torpedo your argument, then by all means continue do so.

    I provided the statistics because you said I was wrong that nonviolent felons outnumbered violent ones. You were incorrect, as I've proven with my sources and now your own. And that's relevant because you argued that non-violent felons were some negligible group of people and that it didn't matter if they got caught up in the punishment of the violent ones.

    ...So you think the cost of incarceration is excessive? I happen to agree. It's very expensive to imprison someone. So I guess we'd be in agreement that we should imprison fewer people, right? It would be an easy way to save some tax money. You know how we might achieve that? By not criminalizing certain acts, which aren't generally criminal, on the basis of status.

    Got me there, lol.

    Not really. There's a difference between "this guy is making bad arguments, as we've demonstrated through statistics; he also happens to be an idiot," and "this guy is an idiot; therefore, his argument is wrong." We've seen examples of the former in this thread, justifiably I think, but not the latter. No one has attacked your arguments by attacking you. No one has needed to. There are no ad hominems here, no matter how hard you cry otherwise.
     
  13. LightLordPotter

    LightLordPotter Disappeared

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    Messages:
    48
    High Score:
    0
    Making a lot of assumptions there, buddy. You throw around a lot of buzzwords and don't understand the definition of them.

    No, I'm dismissing the fact that he uses some ambiguous drunk guy as an excuse for all criminals being off the hook.

    I'd rather just execute them altogether. You take a life, your life gets taken, it's not that hard to understand or comprehend.

    Even if your idea somehow worked out despite the absolutely horrendous reliance on the criminals themselves. I doubt anyone would protest people doing shit jobs if they no longer have to pay the murderer's weight in gold.

    I buy steam games and I download them if that's what you're referring to. I hardly see the relevance though.

    Probably, but I'm not exposing myself in public or killing people. There's a pretty fine line between the two, which makes your anecdotes completely idiotic.

    Where do you get from A to B there, buddy?


    But I'm not stating anyone's beneath me. I'm saying that the justice system is too focused on reform and not punishment.

    I suppose, when you have people walking around in pussy hats.

    ---------- Post automerged at 07:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 AM ----------

    Was genuinely agreeing with you until you came to this conclusion. Not only would this cause massive issues (say, you legalised the selling of Cocaine or some other horrendous drug that ruins lives), but it's also not thought out in the slightest.

    Then you're having a completely different argument, as you're quoted as saying that the total amount of people incarcerated for non-violent crimes outweighs the amount incarcerated for violent crimes, which is factually untrue.
     
  14. Immet

    Immet Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2012
    Messages:
    211
    No, LightLordPotter is wrong. It is the government's (and thus taxpayer's) job to make sure people don't commit crimes.

    The government governed/guided school system is supposed to teach people to not commit crimes and give them skills to give them other options than crime, part of new definitions of crimes should include awareness campaigns to stop people committing crimes and a large part of the criminal justice system should be to reduce recidivism.

    The government has responsibility in many areas to reduce crime. And it is also the government's job to help people accused of crime to make sure they have a fair trial and justice.

    And more importantly, if you help the criminals that don't have options other than crime, then they are much less likely to commit crimes in the future and there will be less crime.

    Whereas if you have this moral idea in your mind that anyone who commits a crime for any reason should be ground into the dirt or killed, then anyone who accidentally commits a crime has nothing to lose and is then free to commit any crime they want since they will be killed anyway.
     
  15. silentclock

    silentclock Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    May 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,105
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I referred specifically to status crimes (ex. convicted felon in possession of a firearm). Selling dope is criminal to everyone--it doesn't change based on status. I never said we should legalize it.

    It's still a majority, even if we look only at incarceration. But my argument has always centered around the felon label, which is attached to a great number of people on probation or parole who aren't reflected in the incarceration statistics. The very link that you posted states that as of 2012, 47.7% of people imprisoned at both the state and federal level were violent offenders. The remaining 52.7% were nonviolent. Now tell me: which of those is the larger number?
     
  16. SmileOfTheKill

    SmileOfTheKill Magical Amber

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,146
    Location:
    Florida, Sigh...
    I'm confused, do you even know what the side benefits of a defender is? It isn't just to defend guilty people, it is also to make sure guilty people are charged properly. You don't want the prosecution getting lazy and failing to do their job with investigating everything that matters. You need to have the defenders to check their work so on the off case there is something wrong, it is solved. We are paying the defenders not just to defend criminals but to defend innocent people as we make sure to secure that guilty verdict was done justly.


    I can kind of understand your general distaste for criminals, even if it is very black and white, but I don't get why you are hating on the defenders. They are needed. The hell are we supposed to do? Assume the prosecutors are always right?
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2017
  17. Invictus

    Invictus Heir

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,608
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    You just linked the first thing that came to you on Google, since you didn't even bother to explain what's what with this research. And it still proves you wrong.

    Not an argument, just you trying to dismiss what he said by ignoring the context or its very clear meaning. Troll.

    Again you say that defending criminals letting keep their basic rights as human beings is putting them on a pedestal. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for a lot of people that understand what this is, the United States is a country that follows the Rule of Law, and is very clear that Constitutional laws still apply to criminals even if there are some changes.

    If you don't like lawyers son, and what they stand for, why defend anything about US Criminal Justice? Just eliminate all rights and Guarantees. I do like that you said this literally before sperging about ad hominems.

    All of your claimed data is either fake or only in your head, meanwhile half of your posts are ad hominem. But you still believe that NO YOU is feasible.

    I'm sorry. Disillusionment? Truly. I worked for criminals both as a private lawyer, worked against them as the accusation, I visited a jail, and dealt with the police plenty of time. I can bet that silentclock has plenty more of experience. So unlike you, we know how the process works, why it's there and it's consequences. The fact that you believe that being a criminal removes your basic rights as human being isn't supported by any respectable law theorist, and why, I believe you do well to bring Rodger. Angry little man that wants the death of those that 'wrong him systematically'. That's not familiar at all for you, is it?

    You're using Harry Potter fics now for examples... Nice. Let's see all your examples of ad hominem and being a childish little shit.

    Look at this fine, fine list. Best of all, I don't even have to provide context for them, since you gave them none. So, you little angry hypocrite, gonna start defending your arguments or just keep attacking other people to try to make everyone ignore the holes they just pointed out in your points?

    No, right thing is just locking them up forever without trying and keep paying what... US$ 50-70,000 thousand dollars a year by inmate. That's what fiscal eficiency is, not trying to turn an expense in someone that gives income.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472929/ - They're not even a majority, so again, from a financial only point of view, you're also being a moron and denying basic human rights for no reason.

    The fact that you don't explain how or why he is wrong or what the words means, makes it very clear you're the one that doesn't know what's going on.


    No, you're lying since he didn't say that.


    Your logic is oustounding, astounding and outstanding, oh Hamburabi. That you have no idea what to do with other criminals shows how well thought and considered is your point.

    Slavery. You mean slavery son.

    That's not what anedoctes are. Again. Go read a dictionary. And I'm sure you never took something without permission or illegally download something. I like how you equate accidental exposure to murder. Boy, we sure should start shooting parents and siblings that accidentally let their kids see their genitalia.

    Your entire point is that anyone that committed a serious enough crime, and apparently you're the only that can correctly judge when that line is crossed and can be as awful as pissing near someone, should become sub-human legally.

    Yes, freedom of expression, what a horrible horrible thing. It's that and not the deep racial imbalance, daily mass shootings, widespread gang control of jails among other issues that makes the US problematic.

    Go re-learn your numbers. Your own link clearly states that you're wrong.

    The thread isn't about your delusions of cheap revanchism against imaginary monsters either. But I will bite. Point out who does a good job with criminals.

    DA EDGE. It cuts me!

    The fact that you can't understand that a good justice system isn't about masturbating hate boners but ensure pacific coexistence as much as possible and a cohesive society that doesn't fray at its edges is sad.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2017
  18. The Pro

    The Pro Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2016
    Messages:
    251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Depths of Tartarus
    High Score:
    0
    Okay, so I gotta ask. Why does this keep happening? Some newbie joins DLP, starts posting a lot in a short amount of time when it's clear they don't fully understand the system(s) here, then inevitably get banned.

    This LightLordPotter is the latest example. He's obviously a typical layman, yet he talks about subjects like he's an expert when it's painfully apparent that his knowledge is neophyte at best.

    So why? Why does this keep happening?
     
  19. Solfege

    Solfege High Inquisitor DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    505
    Location:
    East Coast & the South
    Why do laymen newbs keep talking, or why do we let it go as far as it does before they get banned?

    The former clearly because their strong sense of righteousness (and HPfanfic is so much of that wish-fulfillment) leads them on. The latter because it's amusing and, sometimes, instructive.
     
  20. Xiph0

    Xiph0 Administrator Admin

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    8,819
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    People's Republic of California
    *reads your post*
    *looks at your age*

    Same reason I didn't ban you straight off the bat. DLP can be a place people grow on as long as they stay within certain guard rails. Many of us started out posting shitty and simply because the average age of the site has gone up into the upper 20's doesn't mean we're going to come down on the newer, younger members for making the mistake of being arrogant or know-it-all. We were all there once upon a time. I joined at 17, go read my early posts. It's a tire fire. DLP helped shape my thinking, and I won't deprive people of that simply because they irritate me a little. 17 year old me would irritate me too.