Various and sundry items...
May. 24th, 2011 09:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpIn the Nanny-State Department, there is a proposal floating around the EU to ban all wireless transmitting devices—cell phones, wireless phones, and WiFi—in and near schools. The proposal to do so openly admits there is no scientific or medical basis for the ban, other than to prevent potential irreparable damage from wireless transmitters should a basis ever be established.
I find it mildly interesting that the EU did not declare this past May 21 as a day during which citizens of the European Union would be forbidden to engage in any activities (e.g., driving a car) that, should the performer be taken up in The Rapture, might cause harm to those who were left behind.
Then again, perhaps the EU leadership didn't feel there was any threat of losing any EU citizens in this manner, or perhaps they were too busy arguing over whose personal neuroses will be the next to be imposed on a population to which the EU leadership is, in the final analysis, not answerable.
* * * In the Surveillance-State Department, as governments continue to spend mucho dinero on upgrading their ability to keep track of the general citizenry via video surveillance, there is a parallel move afoot to actively discourage the hoi polloi from turning cameras on the cops. In some juridictions, this involves arresting and prosecuting people who attempt to record police conduct.
On a recent NPR segment, a talking head from the Fraternal Order of Police tried to put a reasonable spin on why it's a bad idea to let citizens to make videos of cops doing their work. Officers, says Jim Pasco, need to be able to make quick decisions without having to think about some citizen catching them on film and then later using the video to in an attempt to make a case for potential misconduct.
Surely without intending to, Pasco drove a stake quite deeply into the heart of the familiar mantra of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"—so often repeated by TPTB these days as a justification for allowing surveillance to become ever more comprehensive and invasive.
* * * There's been some publicity lately about a recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling that has been quoted in numerous places as having somehow revoked the individual's "right to resist" an attempt by the police to perform an illegal search. I was wondering what the kerfuffle was all about, because frankly—court decision or no court decision—resistance that involves assaulting a cop is a pretty stupid thing to do under any circumstances, and loads of jurisdictions have, over the years explicitly stated that individuals do not have a right to physically resist, say, being arrested or having an illegal search performed.
What I found interesting about the Indiana case was a very curious turn of the phrase in the decision:
So the question is: What forms of "reasonable resistance" did the court have in mind? Asking for a search warrant?
Apropos of which, are there other areas of law where reasonable behavior on the part of a citizen is considered illegal?
Cheers...
I find it mildly interesting that the EU did not declare this past May 21 as a day during which citizens of the European Union would be forbidden to engage in any activities (e.g., driving a car) that, should the performer be taken up in The Rapture, might cause harm to those who were left behind.
Then again, perhaps the EU leadership didn't feel there was any threat of losing any EU citizens in this manner, or perhaps they were too busy arguing over whose personal neuroses will be the next to be imposed on a population to which the EU leadership is, in the final analysis, not answerable.
On a recent NPR segment, a talking head from the Fraternal Order of Police tried to put a reasonable spin on why it's a bad idea to let citizens to make videos of cops doing their work. Officers, says Jim Pasco, need to be able to make quick decisions without having to think about some citizen catching them on film and then later using the video to in an attempt to make a case for potential misconduct.
Surely without intending to, Pasco drove a stake quite deeply into the heart of the familiar mantra of "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about"—so often repeated by TPTB these days as a justification for allowing surveillance to become ever more comprehensive and invasive.
What I found interesting about the Indiana case was a very curious turn of the phrase in the decision:
"...the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law" (my emphasis).Without the word "reasonably," the decision is not worth a second glance. But with that word, it would appear that the court is expressly saying that any resistance, including resistance that does not cross the line of becoming "unreasonable," e.g., resorting to physical force, is not something you can do legally in Indiana.
So the question is: What forms of "reasonable resistance" did the court have in mind? Asking for a search warrant?
Apropos of which, are there other areas of law where reasonable behavior on the part of a citizen is considered illegal?
Cheers...
