American Politics XIII: (Un)Lucky For Some

[Tarsonis]

mmm not really no. It's an asanine argument, but so is the lawsuit. I'm more inclined to side with the State. If an officer snaps a photo of a scene, it might be a dick move, but that photo is their property and they can show it to whoever they want.

Hmmmmm? Soooo if I was a reporter and collected photos of dead marines killed by road side bombs, etc. and showed them at bars……you are cool with that?

No, but it's probably a good thing that my personal whims aren't the Law. How is this so fucking hard to comprehend?

[The Black Forrest]

I hate it be that guy, but…*clears throat* immediately becomes that guy literally 1984

mmm not really no. It's an asanine argument, but so is the lawsuit. I'm more inclined to side with the State. If an officer snaps a photo of a scene, it might be a dick move, but that photo is their property and they can show it to whoever they want.

Technically isn’t the crime scene property of the state?

Personally; fuck private property when it comes to snuff pictures. The cop should be punished. He is supposed to do the police thing; not add to his thrill collection.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmmmm? Soooo if I was a reporter and collected photos of dead marines killed by road side bombs, etc. and showed them at bars……you are cool with that?

No, but it's probably a good thing that my personal whims aren't the Law. How is this so fucking hard to comprehend?

Oh it’s easy to comprehend. This absurd notion because you took a picture on your camera; it’s ok because you know private property.

Hey why stop there? A cop should be allowed to keep film he took of a rape because you know it’s private property.

[Tarsonis]

I addressed this in an edit, cause I hadn't seen your reply, but you've sorely misunderstood my position. I didn't say anything about whether the practice was good or bad, well no I do believe I called it a dick move. I was discussing the merits of the lawsuit and what the law says on the matter, not the morality there in. There's a difference between the two you'd do well to recognize.

My initial reply was a snarky suggestion we should abolish private property if it's going to allow for putrid acts like these. My second reply was that if the justice system is going to put property over privacy then we need a new justice system. Your own position was meek and apathetic; "oh it's a dick move but it's legal" - neat, who cares though? This is the problem with your line of thinking. "Oh, well, it's the law so we can't do anything."

I'm not interested in constraining freedom, true. No I don't think meat heads being dicks is grounds for ushering the mass murdering oppressive regime you dream about. I realize that might seem bananas to you, but that really just says more about you, doesn't it.

Uh, fuck no? How about we change the law? Change the system? We can do that, y'know. It is a thing that can happen. Yet you don't seem interested in that idea at all.

Changing the law won't matter in this case. that's how no ex post facto works.

To quote you, "Lol. Lmao even. "

Laughing at 300 years of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and imperialism by Capitalist powers pursuing material profit leading to the death of billions + widespread ecological devastation that will kill and displace billions more in the near future is a weird hill you've chosen to die on.

I'm laughing at someone who wants to line everyone who resists her plans up against the wall to be shot thinking she has a leg to stand on.

Discretion is the better part of Valor. You didn't challenge me in any meaningful way, you just derailed the discussion with blithering nonsense.

Evidently I didn't derail the discussion because we're still talking about it.

Nah we're stuck on you abhorrent political beliefs.

Saying "Nah" to "abolish private property" is callous and disgusting? Be serious.

No, saying "well it's wrong but the law says it's okay" is the callous and disgusting part.

That's not what I said nor was that what you responded to. Lying is even worse.

The fact you think your position is comparable to NK says more about your positions than i ever could.

You're getting straw on the carpet.

Don't bring it inside in the first place then.

But go back and read that part again, cause that's not quite what I was getting at.

What you were "getting at" was that I base my worldview around myself and my own anecdotal experiences, which is horseshit. As I said: my life has always been hard. My Leftward turn had nothing to do with my own experiences in life - it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

No, what I'm betting at is that you seem to think that you think your experiences is hard invalidates the experiences of others. That nobody else has had it rough,n and were all smoking big cigars on leather couches while you toil away under thr oppressive heel. And if I disagree with you it's because I don't know the system like you do.

[Reverend Norv]

In Vanessa Bryant v. County of Los Angeles, the county is arguing that because SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade, families of victims don't have constitutional privacy rights regarding photos - so it's not illegal to show them off at bars.

The case revolves around how people within law enforcement long have photographed gory deaths for personal entertainment and because they “want something special to show their friends.” Vanessa Bryant have filed suit claiming a violation of privacy after a deputy had showed photos of the corpse of Kobe Bryant and their deceased daughters to bar patrons and a firefighter had showed them to off-duty colleagues.

What's the source for this argument re. Dobbs? For purposes of tort actions, the Constitution does not define the parameters of privacy; an action for public disclosure of private facts, for example, does not require that the plaintiff had a constitutional privacy interest in the facts disclosed. These are causes of action at state common law, and state precedents - not the Constitution - define the meaning of privacy.

Moreover, the information I've found on this case suggests that it's an action for intentional (or possibly negligent) infliction of emotional distress, which means that the existence of a privacy interest is altogether irrelevant. Whether or not Ms. Bryant had a privacy interest in the photos, showing them off at a bar was extreme and outrageous conduct that foreseeably caused her extreme emotional distress. That's a winning case even if no invasion of privacy ever occurred.

I'd be skeptical, in short, of tying this to Dobbs in any way. Dobbs dealt with interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. But Ms. Bryant is not suing based on the Fourteenth Amendment, or indeed based on the Constitution at all, and she's probably not even suing for invasion of privacy. I can't see why Dobbs would be relevant to a state common-law action for IIED.

[Tarsonis]

No, but it's probably a good thing that my personal whims aren't the Law. How is this so fucking hard to comprehend?

Oh it’s easy to comprehend. This absurd notion because you took a picture on your camera; it’s ok because you know private property.

Problem becomes the far reaching implications. If I take a photo of my family and happen to catch you hanging brain in the background, am I violating your privacy by showing my family to friends? if a photo I take legally isn't my property to do with what I want, that means I'm legally liable for anything I photograph, no matter how innocuous.
Everyone here can be sued for their Facebook pages right now.

Hey why stop there? A cop should be allowed to keep film he took of a rape because you know it’s private property.

Depends on the how and why he took the photo, and whether it was legal for him to do so. I don't know why your so incredulous, this is an issue that's been contested since probably the invention of the photograph. I mean are you really gonna say pictures aren't property? If I took all the photos out of your grandma's photo album, how willing would you be to say I hadn't committed a crime since she didn't own them?

[San Lumen]

Yes and let’s destroy democracy and get rid of woman’s and lgbt rights and destroy the environment too because I only think of myself .

Then the DNC needs to promote policies to help the working and middle classes if they wish to be elected.

Let's also remember though, the Democrats do stop the green party from being elected, so it's not like they are the bastions of democracy either.

How many times do you have to be told our system isn’t like yours? We do not often have manifestos every single candidate runs on.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tu ... -indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

[Ifreann]

Then the DNC needs to promote policies to help the working and middle classes if they wish to be elected.

Let's also remember though, the Democrats do stop the green party from being elected, so it's not like they are the bastions of democracy either.

How many times do you have to be told our system isn’t like yours? We do not often have manifestos every single candidate runs on.

Yes you do. How do you not know about the Democrat and Republican party platforms?

I even told you about this the last time you said this to Celritannia.

[San Lumen]

How many times do you have to be told our system isn’t like yours? We do not often have manifestos every single candidate runs on.

Yes you do. How do you not know about the Democrat and Republican party platforms?

I even told you about this the last time you said this to Celritannia.

Every candidate doesn’t stick to a script.

[Deblar]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

If even Tucker fucking Carlson is saying you’ll get indicted, your prospects are not great

[Ifreann]

Yes you do. How do you not know about the Democrat and Republican party platforms?

I even told you about this the last time you said this to Celritannia.

Every candidate doesn’t stick to a script.

"Our parties don't have manifestos"
"Yes they do"
"Well, nevertheless..."

[Fartsniffage]

Yes you do. How do you not know about the Democrat and Republican party platforms?

I even told you about this the last time you said this to Celritannia.

Every candidate doesn’t stick to a script.

Yes, your country is a lot bigger than ours. Which is why you have national platforms and state platforms. The two will differ based on more local needs, but they exist and the local candidates are party to building the local platforms.

None of which has anything to do with Celrit saying that the Dems need to have policies that appeal to their voters. They do, it's how you get enthusiastic votes. Just pointing at the Republican party isn't enough.

[Finalis]

in other news, the fbi has returned trump's passports that were seized in the raids. turns out they actually did take a bunch of shit they weren't supposed to. imagine that

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-returns-trum ... p_catchall

and in even more other news it's now confirmed that the "inflation reduction act" will have a "negligible" impact on inflation (imagine that even harder).

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... n-88305296

thanks for tuning into finalis news

[Finalis]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

If even Tucker fucking Carlson is saying you’ll get indicted, your prospects are not great

mothertucker!

[Tarsonis]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

Not really, he's not saying Trump is guilty by saying that

[San Lumen]

in other news, the fbi has returned trump's passports that were seized in the raids. turns out they actually did take a bunch of shit they weren't supposed to. imagine that

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-returns-trum ... p_catchall

and in even more other news it's now confirmed that the "inflation reduction act" will have a "negligible" impact on inflation (imagine that even harder).

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... n-88305296

thanks for tuning into finalis news

You clearly didn’t read the first article and are spinning it to suit your narrative but this is coming from someone who mace sweeping generalizations about cities and heavily implied if they elect Republicans things would be better for them.

[Ifreann]

in other news, the fbi has returned trump's passports that were seized in the raids. turns out they actually did take a bunch of shit they weren't supposed to. imagine that

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-returns-trum ... p_catchall

I would think that all raids work like that. The cops grab stuff up indiscriminately and give things back as they decide they don't need them, give or take how much they feel like fucking about.

[Finalis]

in other news, the fbi has returned trump's passports that were seized in the raids. turns out they actually did take a bunch of shit they weren't supposed to. imagine that

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-returns-trum ... p_catchall

and in even more other news it's now confirmed that the "inflation reduction act" will have a "negligible" impact on inflation (imagine that even harder).

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireSto ... n-88305296

thanks for tuning into finalis news

You clearly didn’t read the first article and are spinning it to suit your narrative but this is coming from someone who mace sweeping generalizations about cities and heavily implied if they elect Republicans things would be better for them.

yes, it is coming from someone like that. anything to say on that second, my boy?

[Greater Miami Shores 3]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

If even Tucker fucking Carlson is saying you’ll get indicted, your prospects are not great

If President Trump is indicted, it is not because he is guilty, it's because the Hypocrite, Leftist, Democrat, Trump Haters, of over 4 years and counting are Politically Prosecuting him.

[San Lumen]

You clearly didn’t read the first article and are spinning it to suit your narrative but this is coming from someone who mace sweeping generalizations about cities and heavily implied if they elect Republicans things would be better for them.

yes, it is coming from someone like that. anything to say on that second, my boy?

Your generalization is still wrong and you clearly don’t understand how investigations work and want it compromised because it wound help your candidate.

[Finalis]

My initial reply was a snarky suggestion we should abolish private property if it's going to allow for putrid acts like these. My second reply was that if the justice system is going to put property over privacy then we need a new justice system. Your own position was meek and apathetic; "oh it's a dick move but it's legal" - neat, who cares though? This is the problem with your line of thinking. "Oh, well, it's the law so we can't do anything."

I'm not interested in constraining freedom, true. No I don't think meat heads being dicks is grounds for ushering the mass murdering oppressive regime you dream about. I realize that might seem bananas to you, but that really just says more about you, doesn't it.

Uh, fuck no? How about we change the law? Change the system? We can do that, y'know. It is a thing that can happen. Yet you don't seem interested in that idea at all.

Changing the law won't matter in this case. that's how no ex post facto works.

Laughing at 300 years of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and imperialism by Capitalist powers pursuing material profit leading to the death of billions + widespread ecological devastation that will kill and displace billions more in the near future is a weird hill you've chosen to die on.

I'm laughing at someone who wants to line everyone who resists her plans up against the wall to be shot thinking she has a leg to stand on.

Evidently I didn't derail the discussion because we're still talking about it.

Nah we're stuck on you abhorrent political beliefs.

No, saying "well it's wrong but the law says it's okay" is the callous and disgusting part.

That's not what I said nor was that what you responded to. Lying is even worse.

You're getting straw on the carpet.

Don't bring it inside in the first place then.

What you were "getting at" was that I base my worldview around myself and my own anecdotal experiences, which is horseshit. As I said: my life has always been hard. My Leftward turn had nothing to do with my own experiences in life - it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

No, what I'm betting at is that you seem to think that you think your experiences is hard invalidates the experiences of others. That nobody else has had it rough,n and were all smoking big cigars on leather couches while you toil away under thr oppressive heel. And if I disagree with you it's because I don't know the system like you do.

this line of thinking is unfortunately quite common against far-leftists. "we can commit horrendous atrocities against you but if you resist us and harm even a single one of our toenails then you're evil and probably a nazi"

[Finalis]

yes, it is coming from someone like that. anything to say on that second, my boy?

Your generalization is still wrong and you clearly don’t understand how investigations work and want it compromised because it wound help your candidate.

this is fine but i've still been right about everything so far and wrong about nothing.

also, anything to say about the inflation reduction act that won't reduce inflation?

[Prima Scriptura]

If even Tucker fucking Carlson is saying you’ll get indicted, your prospects are not great

If President Trump is indicted, it is not because he is guilty, it's because the Hypocrite, Leftist, Democrat, Trump Haters, of over 4 years and counting are Politically Prosecuting him.

You’re treating Trump like he is the 2nd Advent.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

https://thehill.com/homenews/3603784-tucker-carlson-trump-obviously-going-to-be-indicted/

Tucker Carlson: Trump ‘obviously’ going to be indicted

I’m no fan of his or Fox News but it’s a big deal for him to be saying this.

So Tucker Carlson stabbing the God Emperor Trump in the back eh? What a traitor.