Ban evasion is now a crime in the US
Other urls found in this thread:
al.com
twitter.com
i'm pretty sure using an anonymous pseudonym is a felony in the state of california, but it's not like anyone has ever been arrested for it.
You can't enforce something like that.
I want my freedom back guys.
gun-free zones don't stop people from bringing guns in, you know
it's a law that's just gonna be ignored
trust me, I'm a yuro and we have a lot of useless laws that the common folk simply ignore
On a related note, I find it retarded that you can block people from viewing your tweets.
What the fuck does that even accomplish?
So?
We're talking about a country which allows indefinite detention without the possibility of fair trial here. Not like they have much freedom left to lose.
>gun-free zones don't stop people from bringing guns in, you know
Doesn't stop people from being arrested if they're caught violating it, and ban evasion is easier to catch than illegally carrying a gun.
This is why I'm voting for Donald Trump
Stop being a terrorist and you won't get detained.
>this is why I'm voting for a candidate who supports Chinese style internet censorship
I don't see how that helps.
>Stop being a terrorist and you won't get detained.
Spoken like a true American.
Make random, stupid things illegal + beef up domestic surveillance = arrest anyone, any time, for any reason
If it's a federal crime you lose the legal right to bear arms, vote, and the social right to hold a non-shit job because "ew, a felony! that means you fucked a toddler while snorting meth, right!?"
If you're there to shoot it up, you probably don't care about being charged with having a gun in a gun free zone later.
I know how we can fix this though! Ban firearms that are among the most difficult to conceal! That'll make America safer.
Vote clinton 2016
>2025
>post "copyrights and patents are a fucking scam, all these hollywood and software jews need to have their bank accounts taken down a notch" on Sup Forums
>indefinitely detained as an anti-semitic terrorist
It's true achmed. Detaining suspected terrorists saves potential lives, I have no sympathy for you.
>If you're there to shoot it up
>implying people who do mass shootings are the only people who might carry a gun in a gun free zone
Kill yourself
I bet you think if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear too.
does Sup Forums pack heat
If you have nothing to hide, why are you scared?
Not taking anymore of your bait. Have a last (You).
flibbity floo, here's your (you)
Answer the fucking question you faggot, why are you scared of you have nothing to hide?
Maybe that guy wants some privacy?
This is Sup Forums. How much do you want to bet he's got lolicon to hide or something like that?
That's just like being against free speech just because you don't have nothing to say.
(you)
>ban evasion is easier to catch than illegally carrying a gun
Yeah seems really easy to detect. I got banned thrice today already yet here I am. :^)
Still dodging the question
>I got banned thrice today
Prove it.
They're the people the "gun free zone" is meant to deter user
If it doesn't deter people with murderous intent but does deter people who want to be safe against the former, it's not working
im nearly out of (you)s
No, that's your job CIA. :^)
(You) should be filtered.
>They're the people the "gun free zone" is meant to deter user
>implying
Have you ever thought that maybe there's nothing wrong with having something to hide? The law isn't necessarily a moral right. It's necessarily a set of rules that benefit the people that wrote them and nothing more. The law is the polite request of man, not the word of god. And the state calls violence used by you to enforce your will or protect your interests crime, while they call the same thing on their part justice.
A christian in a nation that's having problems with islamic rebels would definitely have something to hide when the durkas took over his village.
why is the 9th circuit court such shit? it's because of california, isn't it?
I always find that people who make a point of saying shit like "this is Sup Forums" are insufferable newfags.
oh yeah that fucker has lolicon
we need to imprison him for his violent crimes against drawings
i for one would rather pedos jerk off to real little girls in public parks
As if, this board is left to the wild animals.
it is absolutely because of california
While joking about freedom in the US is always amusing, the problem goes much further. This is the way the internet is going everywhere. It's no longer the wild west it once was and companies trying to monetize it want all the protections they would have if their website was a physical store. Hell, this is what could kill adblocking in the US. All companies would have to do is change their "please disable your adblocker to view the site" screen to "cease visiting this website with your adblocker enabled or face legal action."
Speaking of little girls, why are they afraid of me looking through their bedroom window at night? What do they have to hide?
(You)
no
>p-please don't visit my site anymore, you're disturbing our safe space
>inb4 pinging some server to check if your Internet connection works is a crime too
It's also illegal to reply to someone who doesn't want any (You)'s.
Don't reply to me.
...
feds, or literally anybody could easily plant evidence on your devoid-of-privacy pile of shit computer
have fun getting framed
nigger
So when are megacorps going to become a thing? Since all this shit is happening anyways I hope to see Sup Forums v. Australia et al. in my life time.
Just because he has nothing to hide does not give a right to look
(You)
When the US government changes its name to Northrop-Grumman Sony International.
you forgot Colt-Lockheed Martin
>americans
it obviously is there for an official reason to make a point in a legal way or whatever
here's a reply for you
>going to become a thing?
have you been under a rock? you realize the level of outsourcing and dependence that already exists on megacorps
god bless
fuck ban evading retards
have you considered that maybe you did something wrong in order to get that ban? well you did and you deserved it, so fuck off
Isn't this just a case of a guy forgetting that terms of service are legally binding? If you don't like their license, don't use the service. It's what I do.
A website is private property. I am entitled to forbid someone from connecting to my computer, just like you're entitled to keep the government out of your computer unless they have a warrant.
Well, at least it's OK to take upskirt pics in Geogia.
al.com
>In the dissenting opinion, Mercier argues that "with the stroke of a pen" the court is negating privacy protections by narrowly interpreting place in a way that excludes a person's body.
This is why judges need to have term limits.
I've been banned for crimes I did not commit. It happens.
This already happens in Germany, I'm not even kidding. You guys might laugh at those meaningless and hard to define or execute laws but that's exactly what they're there for. So they can completely ruin your life if you dare to disagree with government. People in German caliphate are prosecuted and punished harder for "hate speech" than some monkey killing a pregnant woman with a machete. What terrifies me the most is not the straight out totalitarianism that starts to show in leftist governments but the complete apathy of nation.
>implying the State's legislature can't simply make a work-around to better protect individuals' privacy
I'm sure Bolshevik Bernie and Hillary will do even more great things for our freedom with their strong central government that fights for "morals" :^)
>What terrifies me the most is not the straight out totalitarianism that starts to show in leftist governments but the complete apathy of nation.
because most people want totalitarianism, sad to say. They don't want to be free. That would mean having to make their own decisions and be responsible for their own lives. They would rather be told what to do and how to live, so that they don't have to think about anything.
This really is a good thing. Just making a new law that says "no upskirts" is a better solution than changing the meaning of privacy laws in a way that leads the door open for abuse of people who actually did nothing wrong.
Correct discission imo. You don't have the right to be on someone property without their consent.
Is there any way to stop normalfags from destroying the internet at this point?
This isn't Sup Forums
>You had freedom
lol
This.
As a NEET with no direction in life I would love if someone could give me directions in life on what to pursue.
Agreed, legislating shouldn't be done from the fucking bench.
I've got lolicon but I'm not hiding it, because it's legal.
Petition your congressman and maybe he'll start up a bill.
So what country is the most free now?
>both of you using the terminology wrong
Rights, probably the most important shit the constitution gives us.
The declaration of independence says that it is self-evident that everyone has certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Immanuel Kant would say, everyone is given certain freedom, agency and protection because they are rational beings worthy of respect. This amount of freedom and agency that belongs to everyone from when they are born to when they die are their inalienable rights.
The government should respect all people to a certain degree by letting them have the rights to free speech, privacy, trial, attorney, habeas corpus and so on. The ability to defend one's life and rights is the right to keep and bear arms. These are universal and derives from logic and philosophy, while legal rights (such as the right to vote) are dependent of the government. This respect of the rational human that the constitution gives Americans makes it different from the rest of the world.
To give up your rights would be to give up your power and make you susceptible to tyranny. Even if the government isn't tyrannical now, what about in 10, 20 or 50 years? Every inch of your rights you gie up will never be given back.
Let them arrest me. It'll be hilarious to ask the judge how he/she feels about wasting tax payers money on someone who was trolling for lulz on a Friday night. I should find some kind of legal loophole too. I already know about the firearm loophole. Build your own out of an 80% receiver and don't sell it to anyone. I have a legal AR-15 with no license and I've never taken a gun safety class.
was getting banned part of your plan?
Why not just ban shooting people?
It used to be you couldn't even browse 4chinks while banned so it's all fucked
This is a good thing.
>live in europe
>guns banned
>live in america
>anime imageboards, kinder surprise, water tanks, shitposting and solar panels banned
>live in new zealand
>gardening banned
you can't win!
move to Finland :--D ebin
MURRICA
>lets shove this 5 inch thick dildo up everyone's ass with a gps transmitter and a camera at the end of it!
>oh you don't like it? you must be a terrorist!
Then just take it. The nerds need to make decentralized encrypted Internet 3.0 and just make all laws unenforceable on it. We're free on the Internet because mass disobedience and unenforceability = de facto freedom.
>>guns controlled
ftfy
-If you are the NSA you are banned from this website.-
Just post that message on the front of your website and Botnet will be solved.
>decentralized encrypted Internet
You mean Freenet?
You forget.
Laws don't apply to the federal government, otherwise how else would they exploit them.
The choice that America's founding fathers was literally to take liberty and freedom over safety.
If you don't like that, move. There are plenty of countries that are less fanatical when it comes to liberty and by shitting on liberty in america you're just shitting on the founding fathers. You're shitting on the reason the country exists and you're shitting on the men who screamed liberty or death before throwing their blood into battle.
The 9th circuit's full of a bunch of fuckheads.
How will this stand before the supreme court?
Probably uphold.
SCOTUS is a bunch of cucks to congress these days
Probably Mexico.
ban evasion is against the rules here too
>but it's okay when Sup Forums does it :^)
Haha
7/10 if bait
kys if not
Since this is a non-partisan issue there's a chance it would fall either for or against rather than getting tied up 4-4. If it gets tied up 4-4 then the ruling of the lower court stands.
Doesn't a ruling in the 9th circuit only affect the 9th circuit?
Against the rules of a website =/= against the fucking federal law.
Nobody is trying to argue that sites shouldn't be allowed to ban users.
luz burgerland, someday the chink well be laughing at your internet and muh fredum
I would say more like i2p, Freenet is just shit.