Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyD
Nope. I'm the guy that doesn't like big brother putting GPS tracking on my car and being able to conduct warrant-less surveillance on my every move.
I agree with you. So far, so has the SCOTUS. But if the Federal Gvt. can persuade all car manufacturers to install the tracking devices in every vehicle, then we cannot reasonably expect privacy re our driving if what we purchase already has the device. Nor can we reasonably expect that a warrant is necessary to "search" our location if it is automatically revealed by the device we bought. A question here is whether the Federal Gvt., constitutionally, has the power to require installation of the GPS in all vehicles. We know how the Interstate Commerce Clause has been abused to allow the government to do what is not given in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. We also know how the SCOTUS has allowed and been complicit in the abuse. Another question is whether the Fedgov should even be influencing voluntary compliance. There is always the danger of the carrot and stick power of taxation and regulation that can compel action without directly mandating it. So this constant intrusion, on seemingly benevolent grounds, into our private lives is a concern that I share with you. And I don't think it is an unreasonable concern.
No one has the freedom to incite panic by yelling fire in a crowded room.
|
The restriction on first ammendment free speech was begun by that opinion of Holmes. In actuallity, yelling fire, even falsely, should not reasonably, in itself, be expected to incite panic. The intent might be to warn of danger, or to be a prank or even to incite panic. The responsibility lies in those who hear to act accordingly, not in the person yelling. If we reasonably expect people to act like lemmings, then I can see the necessity of Big Brother protecting us from ourselves, and intruding on every aspect of our lives, including how we speak. Further, shouting ANYTHING in a crowded theater is a matter of property rights more than a matter of free speech. The owners of the property have the right to restrict any disruptive behavior on their premises and should not be a matter of government interference. If the violater does not comply with the wishes of the property owner, the police can be asked to intervene.
Further restrictions on free speech have followed, such as hate speech. etc. What is even more ominous is a fairly new concept in SCOTUS jurisprudence, or at least a new evolution and application of it--Government Speech. The notion that government itself can take part in speech and not be restricted and that such speech is supreme over private speech when the two conflict.