terror laws are ridiculous. They are unnecessary, disproportionate and ineffective - and in practice, they are only used to abuse the law in letter and spirit. The latest example of a high-schooler accused of terrorism to scribble silly toilet takes the cake.
For the last decade, the trigger word "terrorism" was used to erode our privacy in all sorts of ways: our privacy territory, correspondence, data, body , location. It is a bit of how "communism" was used in the 1950s or "jazz music" before, for that matter. It is as ridiculous today as it was then.
Various government officials have insisted that the laws aimed at reducing the procedure and the presumption of innocence for "terrorist crimes" are necessary to protect ... just about everything, in fact .. . and they will never never be used irresponsibly.
Of course they were, and are, used irresponsibly. If you have not seen examples of this before, here's your tail. Look at this silly doodle and poorly drawn toilets in high school Brownsboro, as reported on Techdirt:
(Published under fair use for political commentary.)
Do these toilets squiggles like terrorism for you? Are they the same as airliners exploding, bombs that went in malls or gratuitous violence? No, of course they are not. It is a symbol badly drawn by someone who does not even know what they draw (if they tried to scribble on the antagonist of Christianity in a sign of adolescent rebellion in a very religious community, they even managed to turn the pentagram in the wrong direction).
This does not even qualify as art. It is basically just random vandalism teenager with a Sharpie cheap, as can be observed trivially.
This did not prevent the school officials then responsible for law enforcement to go collectively mad and call it an act of terrorism .
so this silly scribbles bathroom by a minor is now a act of terrorism . And the person will be charged as a adult for her. For act of terrorism . Does this sound reasonable to you, or it sounds more like crazy out-of-this-world? So far on it does not even reflect the sunlight?
These are the laws that justify without cause, without a warrant, and invasions loose in our private life, correspondence and homes. If you think they will be used against people who use a kind of violence for political purposes, this is your cue to prove otherwise.
There are no special laws necessary to catch alleged terrorists (I do not mean bad art students jot down the toilet). Our common law - were - quite decent. There are already penalties for crimes such as "wanton destruction" and "multiple counts of manslaughter." In fact, some of the most severe penalties in the book. What these "terrorist acts" are is not to catch terrorists -. They are used to erode, reduce and eliminate the process and the presumption of innocence
We also know that monitoring mass took exactly zero terrorists for this reason: the preparation of the reckless destruction is a very serious crime, and courts are (yet) public, however, there was no such accusations to "prepare the irresponsible destruction. "or similar, but on the contrary, these laws are used against ordinary people, because they eliminate the obstacles to enforcement. Obstacles such as the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar