Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:29:15 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Canada to Start Punishing People for Pre-Crime
References: <BlqdnWeTk-eAf3L4nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> <vtd2viph8kdb0ptjjoglk8odd8vpu9r97r@4ax.com> <atropos-2AE359.23363412032024@ec2-18-101-80-69.eu-south-2.compute.amazonaws.com> <q747vi92452710hq9odtc60p9cr21185v6@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Message-ID: <p3ednbWn2JrGC274nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:29:15 +0000
Lines: 79
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-yEY1crtzM2uxIYNSUyBb45oa5szcPvBj0Gfrt6z3vj6oHtX3sAULpH1P07Vvc0JKTI+kN2rp7LEWMBz!VOUVBpJFrXsTzS6f2I7QNlEqwRXID2UAL7ve+TIAAGFxkMKPQqBITU5Q4wuqBGMakdw2FNMwo6Ru
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5473
X-Original-Lines: 71

On Mar 14, 2024 at 5:16:24 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 23:36:34 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>>>  While I take your point, I don't think the government is particularly
>>>  all that excited about anyone whose terms of release bar internet
>>>  usage from making a credit card payment (since most stores' credit
>>>  card terminals DO use the net rather than phone lines) - it's when
>>>  they find the newly released individual is accessing things like
>>>  (made-up URL) prettyunderagegirls.com they are concerned PARTICULARLY
>>>  when the newly released has a record of certain types of crimes.
>> 
>> Yes, but if you're going to put parole restrictions on people whose 
>> violation will result in re-incarceration, due process requires that you 
>> define precisely what those restrictions are.
>> 
>> Saying "no internet use" leaves a person in a world of uncertainty. What 
>> does that mean? Do they mean just no social media? Can I still log on to 
>> my bank account from home? Can I file my taxes electronically? Can I 
>> watch Disney+?
> 
> OK fair enough - go ahead a draft a term defining the sort of internet
> restriction suitable for a person convicted of sexual crimes against
> minors. 
> 
> As for filing taxes, there are groups in our area at least that will
> freely prepare returns for the indigent. But darned tootin as I judge
> I would order software on his machine (and a strict ban on use of any
> machine that didn't have such software) to record every URL he went to
> - and both (a) strictly ban porn sites of any variety

What's a "porn site"?

Sure, pornhub would qualify, but what about Playboy.com? Is that porn? Is mere
nudity porn or does there have to be some kind of sexual activity? If nudity
counts, what about the greats works of art, like Rembrandt? Would the fact
that there are nude women in his paintings make the website for the NY
Metropolitan Museum of Art a porn site?

What about sites with women in skimpy bikinis? Some people consider that
pornographic. Would watching Baywatch online count as porn?

Whose definition of porn do we go with? We can't go with Justice Stewart's "I
know it when I see it" definition when we're talking about throwing people in
prison.

See what happens when you start to impose restrictions like this without
thinking it through?

>> As a parolee, I can't just assume "they don't mean that" when it comes 
>> to something that could send me to prison if it turns out they actually 
>> *do* mean that.
>> 
>> And even if "they don't mean that" in general, it's a helluva weapon to 
>> use against someone that a cop or a prosecutor wants to "get" but hasn't 
>> actually committed an overt crime or parole violation to hang on them.
>> 
>> Like the guy who made the anti-Islam video that Hillary lied and tried 
>> to blame for Benghazi. There was nothing illegal about the video but (at 
>> the time, thanks to Hillary) he was seen as being responsible for a huge 
>> tragedy and national embarrassment, so since the guy was on parole, they 
>> went looking for anything they could hang on him to punish him for and 
>> they ended up violating him for "using an alias". Parolees are generally 
>> prohibited from using fake names to hide from police or to participate 
>> in gangs. That's the intent of that kind of parole restriction. In this 
>> case, the government decided his YouTube screen name was an alias under 
>> the terms of his parole-- something they'd never violated anyone else 
>> for, something that most people, if they thought about it at all, would 
>> have figured "they don't mean that"-- but in his case, they wanted to 
>> save face by punishing him for embarrassing the U.S. and getting Navy 
>> SEALs killed, so they said his YouTube account name was an alias and 
>> threw him back into prison.
>> 
>> That's the sort of thing you have to worry about when a parole agreement 
>> says something like "no internet use". What precisely does that mean and 
>> can it be abused to fuck me over on a technicality? Because if it can be 
>> used that way, there's a good chance it will be used that way.