Brownshirts Round Up Filmaker

[Lex Concord]

I watched this you tube of the movie 14 minuets...was like a bad Saturday Night Live skit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAiOEV0v2RM

I agree with most this is a excuse, a cover for what really is going on.

I watched SNL last night...the whole thing was like this movie (which I had also seen)...that's just turrible.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Do federal probation violations usually go uninvestigated?

How can it be legal for federal probation to make unconstitutional demands (i.e., denying freedom of speech)?

 

[level.eleven]

How can it be legal for federal probation to make unconstitutional demands (i.e., denying freedom of speech)?

No one was denied freedom of speech. A FELON was convicted. Part of the probation agreement was to not use a computer with internet access. A very common punishment for hackers, those who steal identities, those who commit e-fraud, etc. Convicted arrmed robbers aren't allowed to own firearms as well. Go figure.

Note that he used in alias when dealing with the film.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No one was denied freedom of speech. A FELON was convicted. Part of the probation agreement was to not use a computer with internet access. A very common punishment for hackers, those who steal identities, those who commit e-fraud, etc. Convicted arrmed robbers aren't allowed to own firearms as well. Go figure.

Note that he used in alias when dealing with the film.

Quit being so damned pedantic. I understand that you have to be a f**king felon to be on probation. You may also note that he was prohibited from having others post anything on his behalf. That means he is limited to .gov approved speech even under conditions in which he would not be able to misuse anything including internet access he did not have.

 

[level.eleven]

Quit being so damned pedantic. I understand that you have to be a f**king felon to be on probation. You may also note that he was prohibited from having others post anything on his behalf. That means he is limited to .gov approved speech even under conditions in which he would not be able to misuse anything including internet access he did not have.

So your position is that felons convicted of e-fraud/identity theft/child porn should not have the tools of their trade restricted while serving their punishment? That seems quite fringe. Staying away from computers is quite the common form of punishment in those circumstances. This fellow went as far as to use an alias as to avoid notice by the authorities.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So your position is that felons convicted of e-fraud/identity theft/child porn should not have the tools of their trade restricted while serving their punishment? That seems quite fringe.

Restrictions and cutting them off from the outside world are two entirely different things. Given that he is allowed to use internet for approved work-related activities, one wonders how they manage to supervise his use or what they consider work-related. If he is still considered a threat regarding the aforementioned crimes, he should be in prison, not free as a half-ass citizen.

 

[cobber]

Quit being so damned pedantic. I understand that you have to be a f**king felon to be on probation. You may also note that he was prohibited from having others post anything on his behalf. That means he is limited to .gov approved speech even under conditions in which he would not be able to misuse anything including internet access he did not have.

The internet restriction may be reasonable of and by itself. As long as any other similarly-situated felon is similarly monitored and punished for violating this term. His best course of action when on probation was to obey the rules of probation.

If he was singled out because of the kind of speech he engaged in when he accessed the 'net, that could arguably be an infringement.

The content of his speech should be irrelevant and should not be a factor in any punishment meted out. And our .gov should not be apologizing.

If he is still considered a threat regarding the aforementioned crimes, he should be in prison, not free as a half-ass citizen.

Probation may have been the most reasonable and economical resolution of his offense. If we do away with probation, we're going to end up with longer jail/prison sentences. This might make sense, but it will divert more resources to the corrections industry.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The internet restriction may be reasonable of and by itself. As long as any other similarly-situated felon is similarly monitored and punished for violating this term. His best course of action when on probation was to obey the rules of probation.

If he was singled out because of the kind of speech he engaged in when he accessed the 'net, that could arguably be an infringement.

The content of his speech should be irrelevant and should not be a factor in any punishment meted out. And our .gov should not be apologizing.

I would go along with a declaration that this has become an accepted practice, but would still question calling it reasonable. It essentially cuts his freedom of speech down to one on one conversations when technology allows anyone else to speak to the world at once. Even if I could bring myself to accept this general arangement, if they are monitoring him close enough to allow him to use the internet for work-related activities they are watching him close enough to simply ban him from prohibited activities.

I will return to my basic position: If someone is too dangerous to be left alone as a free citizen with fully equal rights, he should be in prison or else executed.

 

[level.eleven]

I will return to my basic position: If someone is too dangerous to be left alone as a free citizen with fully equal rights, he should be in prison or else executed.

The abolition of the probation system as punishment? That is your position, correct?

 

[IndyDave1776]

The abolition of the probation system as punishment? That is your position, correct?

OK, since my concerns seem to be esoteric in nature, let me break them down:

If we continue to permit assorted offenses (with an ever-growing list) to place people in a nether region between incarcerated inmates and free citizens the obvious and inevitable result is that we will have a progressively larger portion of our society not incarcerated but living as second-class citizens for a term of years up to and including the remainder of their lives. As the offenses for which this is done grows, it is not unreasonable to believe that it will be applied eventually for long terms for even the most minor of offenses creating a situation in which only a de facto nobility have rights as citizens and most all others are living as second-class or de facto non-citizens.

Do you really think being able to sidestep the cost of correction or the controversy of execution is really worth setting ourselves up for serfdom?

 

[2A_Tom]

We are all second, third or less class citizens as long as we are not in the ruling class, the enforcement class or the protected class.

 

[cobber]

I would go along with a declaration that this has become an accepted practice, but would still question calling it reasonable. It essentially cuts his freedom of speech down to one on one conversations when technology allows anyone else to speak to the world at once. Even if I could bring myself to accept this general arangement, if they are monitoring him close enough to allow him to use the internet for work-related activities they are watching him close enough to simply ban him from prohibited activities.

I will return to my basic position: If someone is too dangerous to be left alone as a free citizen with fully equal rights, he should be in prison or else executed.

Okay, I'll be a pedant here for the sake of argument. He was not barred from making his stupid movie, or having any belief he wanted. He was simply barred from accessing the internet. The government did not dictate to him what beliefs he could hold.

I am assuming that had a middle-man uploaded the video, it could not have been construed as a violation of probation.

So actually the government mandated not what views he could have, but whether he could be a sole-proprietor jack-wagon.

That being said, the video is was a pretext for the violence, so the BHO administration can shift the blame to this guy, rather than acknowledging that they should have been better prepared.

 

[2A_Tom]

Okay, I'll be a pedant here for the sake of argument. He was not barred from making his stupid movie, or having any belief he wanted. He was simply barred from accessing the internet. The government did not dictate to him what beliefs he could hold.

I am assuming that had a middle-man uploaded the video, it could not have been construed as a violation of probation.

So actually the government mandated not what views he could have, but whether he could be a sole-proprietor jack-wagon.

That being said, the video is was a pretext for the violence, so the BHO administration can shift the blame to this guy, rather than acknowledging that they should have been better prepared.

This ^^^

 

[IndyDave1776]

Okay, I'll be a pedant here for the sake of argument. He was not barred from making his stupid movie, or having any belief he wanted. He was simply barred from accessing the internet. The government did not dictate to him what beliefs he could hold.

I am assuming that had a middle-man uploaded the video, it could not have been construed as a violation of probation.

So actually the government mandated not what views he could have, but whether he could be a sole-proprietor jack-wagon.

That being said, the video is was a pretext for the violence, so the BHO administration can shift the blame to this guy, rather than acknowledging that they should have been better prepared.

That is just the problem. He is prohibited from having someone else do so on his behalf.

According to the linked article:

Restrictions were also placed on him enlisting others to get on the Internet for him.

I will agree regarding the nonsensical assignment of blame for the latest middle-east uprising.

 

[jbombelli]

They only found this guy because THEY WERE LOOKING TO NAIL WHOEVER MADE THAT FILM. FOR WHATEVER THEY COULD FIND.

IF this guy had never been arrested in his life, you can bet they'd be tearing his entire life apart to find anything they could to bust him. It's not like he was being watched, and someone said "hey, you can't do that..." They went after "whoever" made that film.

THAT is the point so many of you are missing in your zeal for law and order.

 

[level.eleven]

They only found this guy because THEY WERE LOOKING TO NAIL WHOEVER MADE THAT FILM. FOR WHATEVER THEY COULD FIND.

IF this guy had never been arrested in his life, you can bet they'd be tearing his entire life apart to find anything they could to bust him. It's not like he was being watched, and someone said "hey, you can't do that..." They went after "whoever" made that film.

THAT is the point so many of you are missing in your zeal for law and order.

Or, maybe some people don't latch onto the conservatives' latest Obama conspiracy.

So, how have you ruled out this possibility? The press has been camping this guy for a week. His name, names really since he uses an alias and hides his face, has been all over the news for said week. A PO thinks, hey...I know that guy! He is under my watch.

*pulls file*
*reads can't use internet*
*alerts authorities*

Occam's razor and all, you know.

 

[NYFelon]

level.eleven, does this mean you are pro-permanent removal of rights, or only during such period as is defined by judicial sentence, judgment of conviction?

EDIT: This is not a "call out" per se, just a question. I had heretofore thought you were a big L libertarian. Call it clarification for my own edification if you will.

 

[jbombelli]

Or, maybe some people don't latch onto the conservatives' latest Obama conspiracy.

So, how have you ruled out this possibility? The press has been camping this guy for a week. His name, names really since he uses an alias and hides his face, has been all over the news for said week. A PO thinks, hey...I know that guy! He is under my watch.

*pulls file*
*reads can't use internet*
*alerts authorities*

Occam's razor and all, you know.

It's not an "Obama Conspiracy" as you so put it. It's more a reflection of how our government works, and Obama just happens to be the top guy right now. You ever see someone vindictively audited? I have. I saw someone get arrested for saying "you suck" to Bill Clinton. If I recall correctly, they spent several days in jail for it before being released without charges.

If you tick off the powers that be, they will come looking for you. And they will eventually find you, and make your life hell one way or another. Why? Because they can.

They went after whoever made that film, and found this guy. If they hadn't gone after *whoever* made the film, and it was this guy. I don't buy the whole "happy coincidence" thing. Nobody just stumbled on this.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I understand the points being made about temporary revocation of what should be constitutionally protected speech. I understand the concerns that this guy was singled out because his "film" caused political embarrassment for the Administration - and I agree that the film was a pretext, not a primary cause, for the barbaric actions taken against our diplomats and their protectors. I will take issue with the comment about us turning into a "police state"; I'll worry about that when someone starts rounding up the 300 million or so privately owned firearms in the US on some pretext or another.

Personally, it looks to me like this guy committed numerous crimes and to lessen his time in jail he agreed to - what seem to me - reasonable restrictions to keep him from perpetrating more crimes either on his own or in collusion with another party. He AGREED TO THOSE TERMS, whether or not they were constitutional, as a condition for release from incarceration. If he violated those terms, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism for discovery was; how many convicted felons end up back in jail due to evidence found during a routine traffic stop?

All JBThuggery instigated at the Administration's behest aside, what the guy did was like a convicted arsonist yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room, after setting another fire.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Personally, it looks to me like this guy committed numerous crimes and to lessen his time in jail he agreed to - what seem to me - reasonable restrictions to keep him from perpetrating more crimes either on his own or in collusion with another party. He AGREED TO THOSE TERMS, whether or not they were constitutional, as a condition for release from incarceration. If he violated those terms, it doesn't really matter what the mechanism for discovery was; how many convicted felons end up back in jail due to evidence found during a routine traffic stop?.

I don't care in the least what he agreed to. Construction of a second-class citizenship should not be an option on the table under any circumstances. If a person is too dangerous to roam free as a free citizen, he is too dangerous to roam free. This has saddled us with an extremely dangerous precedent which needs to be corrected post haste (although it most certainly won't be).