California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles
-
Yup, you read that right!
The Greatest Nanny State is at it again, this time telling retailers how they can and must display children's toys.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-09/california-will-require-large-retailers-to-provide-gender-neutral-toy-sections]Certainly there is a place in retail where you HAVE to have certain laws - for health and safety:
- spills must be cleaned up quickly
- large, heavy items cannot be stored high up
- aisles have to be wide enough for a wheelchair to pass
- sharp/dangerous items cannot be reachable by small children
But gender neutrality for toys?
What, are we afraid that Johnny, who wants a Barbie Doll, a Princess Dress, and a Nurf Gun is going to be upset that the first 2 items are in a pink aisle, and the other one in a blue aisle? GIMME A FUCKIN BREAK
This is WELL BEYOND the purview of "the State" (meaning ANY Governmental body - local, state, federal, global, inter-galactic, you name it!). If retailers want to put doll houses next to army toys, that's their call! If there is demand (consumer demand, not political demand) for gender-neutral toy aisles, then they will come! But this is not the place for Government mandates!
I'm queer - 2, possibly 3, of my 9 children are non-straight. I don't have a problem with gender-neutrality - but I also don't think it's any of the Government's business how retailers design the displays in their stores (excepting, as noted above, for health/safety).
And don't give me any BULLSHIT about kids' emotional health & safety... by the time they're old enough to understand that blue is for boys and pink is for girls and they're supposed to be playing with one, but not the other - but they WANT to play with the other... by the time they're old enough to realize that, they're also old enough to have ALREADY figured out that they're not like the other kids...
The right message to send to them is "IT'S OK to be different" - not an absurd attempt to say "NO, YOU'RE NOT DIFFERENT AT ALL!... when they can easily see for themselves that the ARE INDEED different!
-
@bi4smooth said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
Yup, you read that right!
The Greatest Nanny State is at it again, this time telling retailers how they can and must display children's toys.
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-09/california-will-require-large-retailers-to-provide-gender-neutral-toy-sections]Certainly there is a place in retail where you HAVE to have certain laws - for health and safety:
- spills must be cleaned up quickly
- large, heavy items cannot be stored high up
- aisles have to be wide enough for a wheelchair to pass
- sharp/dangerous items cannot be reachable by small children
But gender neutrality for toys?
What, are we afraid that Johnny, who wants a Barbie Doll, a Princess Dress, and a Nurf Gun is going to be upset that the first 2 items are in a pink aisle, and the other one in a blue aisle? GIMME A FUCKIN BREAK
This is WELL BEYOND the purview of "the State" (meaning ANY Governmental body - local, state, federal, global, inter-galactic, you name it!). If retailers want to put doll houses next to army toys, that's their call! If there is demand (consumer demand, not political demand) for gender-neutral toy aisles, then they will come! But this is not the place for Government mandates!
I'm queer - 2, possibly 3, of my 9 children are non-straight. I don't have a problem with gender-neutrality - but I also don't think it's any of the Government's business how retailers design the displays in their stores (excepting, as noted above, for health/safety).
And don't give me any BULLSHIT about kids' emotional health & safety... by the time they're old enough to understand that blue is for boys and pink is for girls and they're supposed to be playing with one, but not the other - but they WANT to play with the other... by the time they're old enough to realize that, they're also old enough to have ALREADY figured out that they're not like the other kids...
The right message to send to them is "IT'S OK to be different" - not an absurd attempt to say "NO, YOU'RE NOT DIFFERENT AT ALL!... when they can easily see for themselves that the ARE INDEED different!
[One final add-on here: If stores were doing something stupid: like not allowing boy's parents to buy their sons dresses or doll houses, or girl's parents to buy their daughters footballs or Army men - that would be different. That would be a discrimination. One that no reasonable retailer would do - a sale is a sale - but none the less, that would be an instance where Gov't might ALSO need to step in!]
-
While this is completely idiotic (typical DNC), why do you care about this but not the other shit Newsome is doing in California?
I know you believe that businesses have human rights, but people don't unless the DNC says they do.
It's funny how you worship Fauci, Biden, Pelosi, etc, etc, etc, etc and their nanny state demands on us mere humans, but you are against it when it violates a business' "human rights".
It's people like you that will cause the dystopian future to come true.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
While this is completely idiotic (typical DNC), why do you care about this but not the other shit Newsome is doing in California?
I know you believe that businesses have human rights, but people don't unless the DNC says they do.
It's funny how you worship Fauci, Biden, Pelosi, etc, etc, etc, etc and their nanny state demands on us mere humans, but you are against it when it violates a business' "human rights".
It's people like you that will cause the dystopian future to come true.
ROFL - I take it from your "100% what-aboutism" response that you generally agree with me here... but, you just can't bring yourself to say so...
You are so predictable.... Tell Comrade Putin he should keep you! You're totally transparent and we love to watch you as his puppet!
-
OK, so all of your "whataboutisms" concerning Trump prove you're my bitch, but you don't want your fellow leftists to know.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
OK, so all of your "whataboutisms" concerning Trump prove you're my bitch, but you don't want your fellow leftists to know.
I don't need any "what-aboutisms" for Trump - YOU are the one who constantly changes the subject when FACTS do not support the Trumpian line...
But I understand... you're bound by your Russian Handlers to support all things Trump... you don't have any leeway in that...
-
BItch, puhlease.
I make a thread specifically about some stupid shit you BFF, Honest Joe did and the first thing you do is defend him to the hilt and drag Trump into it.
I haven't looked but I bet you were one of the liberal ass clowns that demanded that no one mention Obama while Trump was in office because they didn't want whataboutism.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
BItch, puhlease.
I make a thread specifically about some stupid shit you BFF, Honest Joe did and the first thing you do is defend him to the hilt and drag Trump into it.
I haven't looked but I bet you were one of the liberal ass clowns that demanded that no one mention Obama while Trump was in office because they didn't want whataboutism.
I suggest you DO LOOK! It'll be hard to find, because i wasn't a user on this Forum until after Trump was in office... but YOU GO BOY! LOOK! FIND IT! IT'S THERE!
And your spin is off there Comrade: The OTHER recent thread about CAL is illustrative:
- You post that the Dem Gov of CAL actually VETOES a piece-of-shit bill that you didn't support - but you pepper the post with lies and rantings that don't even support your own story.
- I point out where your Comrades got things wrong - and point out that the Dem Gov did exactly what you would have WANTED him to do (save for the part about having the CAL legislature shot in the head and replaced - but honestly, Comrade that's not how we do it in the US... that might work in Mother Russia, but we don't DO that here!)
- You claim I'm a liberal because I think the DEM GOV did the right thing - even if it was a VETO of an ultra-liberal, left-wing-nutjob of a law! Why? Because I said something nice about a Dem! Oh my! What you must think of me when I support the Dem Senators who are holding up the Biden Agenda because it's "too expensive" and at the same time support the ULTRA-LEFT Dems in the House who are holding up the pared-down Biden Agenda because it doesn't "Spend Enough!"
Well, you ignore-a-moose, by those 2 sets of Dems "sticking to their principals" they're getting NOTHING done!
I know this is a shocker - but as a Conservative, the LESS the Liberal Administration can get done in these next 2-years before the mid-terms, the BETTER!
So: Yay Manchin and Sinema in the Senate! and Yay KFC (or whatever her initials are) in the House! You STAND for those principles! (In the meantime, ain't SHIT of the Biden Agenda goin' anywhere! LOL! WINNING!
-
You may not have been here then, but it does sound exactly like the crap you say.
OK, since you are soooo incredibly slow; I can agree with something someone says/does but be against everything else they do/say. DUH!!!!!!
You are a liberal DNC whore because you defend everything they do or say, except on a minute few occassion, like violating a business' "human rights" but you have no issue when they violate an actual person's human rights.
Speaking of Sen Sinema, you were, as always, totally silent when your fellow lunatic liberals (both persons with penises and cervixes) followed her into the bathroom to harass her and your beloved self-proclaimed dictator downplayed.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
You may not have been here then, but it does sound exactly like the crap you say.
Guilt by association - how very FASCIST of you! Thanks! Putin must be SO PROUD of you!
OK, since you are soooo incredibly slow; I can agree with something someone says/does but be against everything else they do/say. DUH!!!!!!
Really? That's not what happened in the OTHER GOV of CAL thread here - the one YOU started: where he VETOed a piece-of-shit legislation and you railed against him anyway!
Tell me ONE thing you disagreed with Trump about - better yet, tell us one thing CURRENT that you disagree with Trump about!
You are a liberal DNC whore because you defend everything they do or say, except on a minute few occassion, like violating a business' "human rights" but you have no issue when they violate an actual person's human rights.
You continually conflate business with Government. THIS is how we KNOW you're a RUSSIAN AGENT! In the west, we have laws that say that the GOVERNMENT is restricted in ways that businesses and people are not!
Most people raised here (in the Western Democracies) understand that easily. People raised in environments where the Government runs EVERYTHING (like Mother Russia) have a hard time coming to terms with that! Freedom can be SO CONFUSING to people like you!
Speaking of Sen Sinema, you were, as always, totally silent when your fellow lunatic liberals (both persons with penises and cervixes) followed her into the bathroom to harass her and your beloved self-proclaimed dictator downplayed.
I hadn't heard any story of Sen Sinema being accosted in the bathroom. People have the right to protest their Government - and its officials, but they (individually) ALSO have rights! Sadly, however, we don't have a RIGHT TO PRIVACY in this country... something I have rallied for on many occasions.
IT IS NOT OK to follow someone into the bathroom to protest against them - not even a public official!
Again, sadly, many in my own party REFUSE to support a right to privacy - mostly because they fear it could be used to support abortion rights. But I'm sorry, 2 wrongs do NOT make a right, and we - ESPECIALLY in the INTERNET AGE - NEED A RIGHT TO PRIVACY!
-
Ah, so it's fascist when I do it, despite you constantly doing it.
Just because some cunt did 1 good thing, doesn't mean everything else is worthy of ridicule.
You just make up shit and argue that. That's classic straw man.
I don't give a fuck as much about the make-believe "human rights" of businesses, but I do care about the very real human rights of actual people. You are the complete opposite. You have admitted that you do not believe that people have human rights when you don't want them to have them, but you cry like a bitch over some stupid shit about toy aisles.
Yeah, I forgot that you get your "news" from leftist outlets and they don't talk about stuff like Sen Sinema.
You are a complete dipshit. In general, you have no right to privacy in public, but there are places, such as bathrooms where you do. That is according to the US Supreme Court. I know, I know, you don't give a fuck about the human and legal rights of actual people.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
Ah, so it's fascist when I do it, despite you constantly doing it.
Comrade, here you are again with using the wrong words in English! You see, this is how we KNOW you are Russian, and not Chinese or N Korean: you are so sloppy! Chinese agents have a much better grasp of American English!
Just because some cunt did 1 good thing, doesn't mean everything else is worthy of ridicule.
My dear Comrade, YOU are the one who authored the thread - saying right in the headline: Gov VETOed Cal Grant bill... I am not the confused individual here...
Also, not to belabor the point Comrade, but your ACTUAL sentence there actually says the opposite of what you MEANT for it to say... You really must study harder in your English classes!
You just make up shit and argue that. That's classic straw man.
Comrade: making up facts is not creating a "straw man" - making up BELIEFS and/or ACTIONS and attributing them to someone who doesn't exist is a "straw man".
- Arguing that people with red hair and blue freckles are pedophiles and practice human sacrifices is a "straw man" argument - because there are no people with red hair and blue freckles!
- Arguing that my Nazi forefathers were secretly Jews and betrayed their race is a "straw man" argument because you already know that my forefathers were not Nazis, and that I am not even Jewish... all of those "attributes" you made to me didn't apply, so it was a "straw man".
- Arguing that the Gov of California is a liberal who does terrible and awful (liberal) things is NOT a "straw man" argument - he really is a liberal, and you are just voicing your opinion about him.
Making an argument about non-existent people, though, DOES let you proclaim your disdain for things - especially things that don't really exist at all! (Pink elephants are queer haters!)
Perhaps NOW you will understand what I mean when I say "I am not the Straw Man you are looking for" - it means you are attributing things (beliefs, statements, or actions, for exmaple) to me that you already know are untrue, usually just so that you have an example of something - something that may not actually even exist at all - that you want to talk about. (In your case, it's virtually always something you want to complain about. Yet ANOTHER example of your Russian-ness coming through... Chinese and N. Koreans seldom, if ever, complain! Russians complain a LOT - especially about their vodka!)
I don't give a fuck as much about the make-believe "human rights" of businesses, but I do care about the very real human rights of actual people. You are the complete opposite. You have admitted that you do not believe that people have human rights when you don't want them to have them, but you cry like a bitch over some stupid shit about toy aisles.
Oh my, Comrade, here you go again - this must be the 5th time you have pasted the same drivel. You must re-learn your computer skills too. But start with the English lessons, first. You really MUST improve your English vocabulary!
Businesses in the west do not have special rights, they have freedoms. I think the Russian word for those 2 concepts must be the same, because you get them confused a lot.
Practice, practice, practice! You'll be able to pass as a westerner yet, if you just get enough practice! Keep working at it! You have a long way to go, but there is an old English proverb (stolen, like most things English, in this case from the Chinese & translated): A journey of 1000 miles starts with the first steps.
You, Comrade, have taken a few baby-steps towards being able to pass as a knowledgeable, reasonable, western-educated adult... but you have MUCH work to do! Your Russian-ness still shines VERY BRIGHTLY!
Yeah, I forgot that you get your "news" from leftist outlets and they don't talk about stuff like Sen Sinema.
I would imagine, Comrade, that your Russian media is very fond of Sen. Sinema - as she is helping to stop the Biden Administration's legislative agenda. Without her vote(s), he will possibly go down in history as one of the most INEFFECTIVE US Presidents ever!
On this, Comrade, we can agree - this would be a good thing! For America, and for Mother Russia. However, do not mistake my admiration for Sen. Sinema's blockage of Pres. Biden's agenda as a desire for the return of your nasty bitch Trump. That was a mistake - for you, and for us!
You are a complete dipshit. In general, you have no right to privacy in public, but there are places, such as bathrooms where you do. That is according to the US Supreme Court. I know, I know, you don't give a fuck about the human and legal rights of actual people.
Comrade... you have no explicit "right to privacy" in the United States.
- You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in the EU (Convention 108+). Whether you do or not now that the UK has left the EU, I do not know.
- You DID have this right guaranteed to you when you lived in Mother Russia (Article 45).
- There are a few other countries (150, as counted by the UN) that have an explicit "right to privacy" in their government's highest documents
But, alas, not in the United States of America! While there are some States within the United States who have passed some laws ATTEMPTING to create a right to privacy (California's CCPA, for instance), there is no guaranteed right to privacy in the US Constitution or in US Law. There have been attempts to pass them, but those are usually fought AGAINST by US law enforcement (who rely heavily on surveillance and have invested heavily in those technologies) and the far Right (esp. religious fundamentalists - see below).
For example, there are 3 classes of US States with respect to recording of phone conversations:
- States where it is legal - period (no right to privacy)
- States where is is legal so long as one of the parties has consented to being recorded (limited privacy rights)
- States where is is only legal if both (all) parties consent to being recorded (stronger privacy rights)
This is precisely because there is no US Constitutional right to privacy - only some Supreme Court decisions that imply or deny privacy rights, depending on the "mood of the country" at the time.
The early founders of the US considered privacy rights, (1890 Law Review article by original Justices Warren and Brandeis)... but it has never been codified into the US Constitution. Instead, US courts have - over the past 240+ years - implied (to a varying degree) that there is (or is not) a right to privacy using the other documents written by the founders, and using a legal principle called penumbras - meaning it is implied from a combination of other parts.
There was some SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT towards GETTING a fundamental right to privacy in the US back in the 1960's and 1970's. (1965: Griswold v Connecticut & especially 1973: Roe v Wade), but prior to then, it was generally held that NO right to privacy existed in the Constitution.
Because privacy rights are only implicit (and not explicit) in the US Constitution, there has always been an argument (legal argument) that it was NOT INTENDED to be an important right - important enough to be protected - by our founders! US "fundamentalist" and "originalist" jurists often point to the fact that privacy rights were NOT overlooked by the founding fathers - in fact, historical records show precisely the OPPOSITE! They were ACTIVELY DISCUSSED! Therefore, the act of omitting privacy rights from the Constitution MUST have been intentional.
However, PROPONENTS of a right to privacy got a little more ammo to work with in the form of the 1st clause of the 14th Amendment - the due process clause. Nevertheless, it is still an IMPLIED right, which means that judicial arguments about the validity of that right continue to this day!
The CURRENT DAY finding that there IS a fundamental right to privacy stems from a series of US Supreme Court decisions in the 1960's and 1970's... decisions that were controversial then, and remain so to this day. Overturning that legal finding could have drastic legal repercussions:
- 1973: Roe v. Wade (ruled that a woman's privacy rights protected her right to an abortion, so long as it was within certain limits - which introduced the term trimester!). Overturning Roe might result in many of these other rulings also being overturned. Creating an explicit right of privacy might enshrine Roe forever!
- 2003: Lawrence v. Texas (ruled that sodomy laws were a violation of people's individual privacy rights). Do we want the return of sodomy laws?
- 1967: Katz v United Stated (ruled that warrantless wiretapping was a privacy violation). Interestingly, that ruling reversed 1928: Olmstead v. United States that had held that no right to privacy was in the Constitution and allowed wire taps to be entered into evidence, regardless of whether they were approved or not. (It also had 4th & 5th Amendment issues).
- 2015: Obergefell v. Hodges (ruled that the Government infringed upon people's privacy rights when they attempted to limit, unreasonably, whom they could and could not marry. Overturn Roe, and you likely will soon overturn Gay Marriage on the same legal principals.)
BUT, dear Comrade - as much as you clearly wish there were a clearly defined US Constitutional right to privacy, were there to be one - say, a 28th Amendment? There would be some fundamental changes:
The entire country would come under something akin to, but not exactly like the CCPC (California's Privacy Act).- You would have a right to know what personal data is collected about you (EU citizens have this right, but we US Citizens to not)
- You would have a right to know if your personal data was bought, sold, or disclosed (on purpose, by accident, or by breach) and to whom (you learn of this currently ONLY when there are breaches or companies are sued and notification is part of the settlement)
- You would have the right to prohibit the sale or disclosure of your personal data (you ONLY have this right about your HEALTH data today - HIPAA laws)
- You would have the right to examine any personal data that anyone might have about you - including the Government, businesses, or individuals.
- You would have the right to request that a business delete any personal information (with some limits) collected from a consumer
- You could not be discriminated against for exercising your privacy rights.
Additionally, a great deal of the surveillance that we, as Americans, endure would have to cease. You would have to consent to, or at least be notified about, any time you were being recorded - video or audio - outside of "general public locations" (think: security cameras, etc).
So, Comrade - once again, you have tipped your hand. You incorrectly assumed that Americans had more rights - rights of all kinds - than you had in Mother Russia. As you can see, this is not the case. You should report back to your handlers that future agents should be made aware of this. Improve their training and indoctrination!
-
Blah, blah, blah
Hey, I admitted that Newsome got 1 thing right. That does not mean he can't be criticized on all the shit he fucks up or is that too complicated for your liberal brain?
I won't take any lectures from YOU of all people about straw men.
You are the person I am "looking for" because you are a liberal, which is why you defend virtually every liberal thing I mention.
Blah, blah, blah
More word games to justify your crack whore stance on not giving a fuck about legal and human rights for people but losing your rag when your BFF Newsome passes a law against a business.
You are just fucking clueless about privacy rights in the US and the UK, even before Brexit.
In the US, you generally have no right to privacy in public. However, according to SCOTUS, you have the right to privacy in a public bathroom and other areas that a reasonable person would expect privacy.
In places like bathrooms (public or private), there is an expectation of privacy. This includes any type of recording (photo, video, audio).
Photos and video recordings allow for less privacy than audio recording, in general.
You do not have the right to actively record someone else's phone call that you are not a party to, in the general sense. If you accidentally catch some of it as you're walking by, then that wouldn't violate the SCOTUS ruling.
You have to create your expectation of privacy, in public. Say you are at an internet cafe and you walk away from your laptop and someone walks by and looks at the screen, that's on you. If you close the laptop when you walk away, no one has the right to open it to have a look. This came from a case where a cop left his car-mounted laptop was left open and a passerby looked at it through the window and was arrested. If you ever watch "audit" videos, they mention this SCOTUS ruling.
Likewise with conversations in public. If you are being loud and shouty, you can't expect to not be heard and/or recorded.
Everything I said, does not apply to warrants and other legal measures.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
Hey, I admitted that Newsome got 1 thing right. That does not mean he can't be criticized on all the shit he fucks up or is that too complicated for your liberal brain?
Go back and re-read your your idiotic, circuitous rant! You weren't praising him for getting something right, you were attempting to roast him - for doing what you (most probably) would have WANTED him to do!
THAT was the point of my reply! Comrade, your English translator is way too old! Try https://translate.google.com - it will do a better job of translating your native Russian into readable, cogent English (assuming it was readable, cogent Russian to start with!)
I won't take any lectures from YOU of all people about straw men.
"Any fool can criticize, complain, and condemn... and most fools do."
-
- Andrew Carnegie
"There are 2 ways to be fooled: One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true."
-
- Kierkegaard
You are the person I am "looking for" because you are a liberal, which is why you defend virtually every liberal thing I mention.
Silly Comrade: you again show your unworthiness with the English Language. When I argue against your lies, I do not argue against your position, only the lies you tell!
When you claim that Biden is an old fool and a pedophile, I am not supporting him when I criticize you for calling him a pedophile... and indeed, I wouldn't even dream of denying that he's an old fool! You really need to work on your education. Your communication skills are for SHIT!
More word games to justify your crack whore stance on not giving a fuck about legal and human rights for people but losing your rag when your BFF Newsome passes a law against a business.
I couldn't tell you 3 things about CA Gov Newome... I can tell you that he vetoed a piece of shit liberal monstrosity of a bill recently - because you told me and I confirmed it! I can tell you he survived a recall election: a big surprise in a state that is 65% Democrat!
OK, I was wrong - I DO know a 3rd thing... he's the Governor of California - and that makes him a Democrat! LOL
You are just fucking clueless about privacy rights in the US and the UK, even before Brexit.
I don't know Comrade - I provided actual references to where privacy rights originated in the EU. I also admitted to not knowing (or caring) about privacy rights in the UK post-brexit (that's YOUR chosen hell-hole, not mine!). And I provided AMPLE examples of how "privacy rights" in the US are fluid - and dangerous thing to make assumptions about!
In the US, you generally have no right to privacy in public. However, according to SCOTUS, you have the right to privacy in a public bathroom and other areas that a reasonable person would expect privacy.
That may be as-of one decision. There is also a US Supreme Court decision that says you have a right to same-sex marriage (because of your privacy rights) and another that says a woman has a right to an abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy (because of her privacy rights)... ALL of those can be overturned on a whim by a zealous Federal Judge or by an alternative interpretation by the full Court - which is now packed with "originalists" - and as I pointed out, those jurists are usually pretty adamant about the founders' position that privacy is NOT a right worthy of Constitutional protections!
But where I have references and documentation, you have... your word and your considerable legal experience... I guess you win...
In places like bathrooms (public or private), there is an expectation of privacy. This includes any type of recording (photo, video, audio).
Many (but not all) STATES have these kinds of laws - and I mentioned that in my posting. But there is no FEDERAL or CONSTITUTIONAL protection of those privacy rights! Indeed, the current conservative court could well go WAY-WAY right-wing on this and find that the Constitution, by way of the founders NOT including it, PROHIBITS the Governmental protection of privacy! It'd be a stretch, but such a ruling could wipe out all of those individual State's privacy laws.
Photos and video recordings allow for less privacy than audio recording, in general.
Again, in the US, it all depends on where you are: Florida vs. Texas vs. California vs. Vermont! All VERY different from each other!
You do not have the right to actively record someone else's phone call that you are not a party to, in the general sense. If you accidentally catch some of it as you're walking by, then that wouldn't violate the SCOTUS ruling.
You wouldn't think so... However, according to US Supreme Court 1928: Olmstead vs United States, you are FLAT WRONG: The US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion written by former POTUS WH Taft, found that wiretapped conversations - even those made by the Government - were not protected - not under privacy, not under the 4th Amendment (search & siezure), and not under the 5th Amendment (self-incrimination).
The fact that this ruling was overturned by 1967: Katz vs. United States is just evidence of what I'm saying here: Because it's not in our Constitution - anywhere - our right to privacy is NOT GUARANTEED in the US! There may be laws, or even court cases from time to time, but they can be (and often ARE) overturned and/or reversed!
You have to create your expectation of privacy, in public. Say you are at an internet cafe and you walk away from your laptop and someone walks by and looks at the screen, that's on you. If you close the laptop when you walk away, no one has the right to open it to have a look. This came from a case where a cop left his car-mounted laptop was left open and a passerby looked at it through the window and was arrested. If you ever watch "audit" videos, they mention this SCOTUS ruling.
And I can find you dozens of SCOTUS rulings that state that there IS NO right to privacy... again, Comrade, if you could READ ENGLISH you would realize that I'm not saying we don't have any privacy rights at all! I'm saying that what privacy rights we DO have ARE NOT PROTECTED rights! They can be taken away at any time.
Want an example? Look at the 2001 Patriot Act! Tell me THAT monstrosity didn't violate your privacy! And it overrode ALL State laws designed to protect your privacy!
Likewise with conversations in public. If you are being loud and shouty, you can't expect to not be heard and/or recorded.
If you're in a public place, and the Government has a reason to want to, they can use a recording device from across the street and record every word you say. You are in a public place - and even a privacy rights amendment likely wouldn't "solve" that problem - you're in public!
Everything I said, does not apply to warrants and other legal measures.
Everything you said comes from you watching TV shows... notorious for their deep research into legal quagmires! LOL
I don't pretend to be a lawyer - which is why I'm not saying what privacy rights you have and don't have... indeed, all I'm trying to get across is that in the EU, Russia, and 150 other countries around the world (there are only about 192), there is the equivalent of a Constitutional protection for a right to privacy.
There is no Constitutional protection in the US. Instead, we have an ever-shifting landscape of court opinions and different State laws about privacy.
Do you remember, Comrade, when I pointed out the 3 different classifications of different State laws on private wiretapping? In some of those States, you DO NOT NEED a warrant, and you DO NOT NEED consent! Those States hold that you have no privacy on the phone. Period.
In other states, only 1 party needs to know and consent to being recorded. So, the cops can get your ex to sit with them, agree to be recorded, and then call you and talk about all the robberies you've been doing - and you're screwed! They had her consent, so yours didn't matter.
And in still other states, phone conversations are deemed to be, by default, private conversations. You (whether a person or a government) have to have consent from all persons on the call to record it, or a court order permitting it.We NEED uniformity, and we NEED a Constitutional right to privacy! Written in the typical Constitutional way: short, sweet, to the point, and open to some degree of interpretation.
-
-
Newsome is a douchebag, but he did get Cal Grant right. He was a typical liberal with several other things he signed into law at the same time.
The Marriage Equality ruling was based on privacy in the home and bedroom.
Once again you are playing games.
I'm talking about the latest rulings and you are talking about previous rulings that got overturned by later rulings. It's impossible to have a conversation like this.
You are so fucking tiresome.
I watch actual lawyers, talking about case laws. I haven't watched a cop show in years unless you are claiming that the Squid Game is a cop show because there are cops in it. Nice try though, you combative twat.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
Newsome is a douchebag, but he did get Cal Grant right. He was a typical liberal with several other things he signed into law at the same time.
The Marriage Equality ruling was based on privacy in the home and bedroom.
Once again you are playing games.
I'm talking about the latest rulings and you are talking about previous rulings that got overturned by later rulings. It's impossible to have a conversation like this.
You are so fucking tiresome.
I watch actual lawyers, talking about case laws. I haven't watched a cop show in years unless you are claiming that the Squid Game is a cop show because there are cops in it. Nice try though, you combative twat.
You shit-for-brains... I'm talking about the NEW court - the one STACKED with ORIGINALISTS who are VERY LIKELY to rule that there is no Constitutional protection of privacy - and thus, ALL of those rulings (and dozens more) will be reversed!
- Roe? GONE
- Same-Sex Marriage? Gone
- Sodomy laws? BACK
- Warrantless wire-tapping? BACK
You really CAN'T see ahead more than 15 seconds into the future, can you? And you cannot link more than 1-2 concepts together...
I asked someone else to read my post... THEY SAW - IMMEDIATELY what I was warning against! They knew what my point was...
You thought it was about Fauci...
-
You are talking about "maybes" and I'm talking about what currently is, but you are too thick to understand that.
We know what is, but we don't know what might be.
I'm not going to play the game of what the privacy laws in 100 years will be. and how it affects us today.
-
@raphjd said in California decides to MANDATE gender-free toy aisles:
You are talking about "maybes" and I'm talking about what currently is, but you are too thick to understand that.
We know what is, but we don't know what might be.
I'm not going to play the game of what the privacy laws in 100 years will be. and how it affects us today.
Yeah - why worry about tomorrow! YOLO, DUDE!
Watch this! <crash>
I'm not talking about court rulings in 100 years... I'm talking about court rulings in January and February - 2022!
-
That was a totally useless response, as always.
Are Pelosi's gin-soaked pussy farts getting you drunk?
