![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Here's something interesting
Here's a guy who, after a trip to China, declined to answer questions asked by Customs.
The comments are fascinating. Half of them are going "OMG YOU ROCK!" and the other half say one of the following:
1. Well, you suck, because this would not have worked if you weren't a white male.
2. Well, you suck, because this would not have worked if you'd tried this in China.
3. Well, you suck, because you're obviously liberal and must hate religion (wtf?)
4. Well, you suck, because these guys were doing their jobs.
5. Well, you suck, because you held up the line.
Number 3 is very interesting to me, because I always thought the traditional slur against liberals was that we promulgate a nanny-state mentality with too much government interference. Maybe just the wrong type of government interference? Is this like "the maximization of personal freedom" doesn't apply if you're trying to be free to be gay, as I figured out a few days ago? (Also, it came with an accusation against the ACLU. The ACLU has a tough job, and one of the things they do is fight to DEFEND the rights of Christians (and members of other religions) to practice as they see fit. Spread it around!)
There's also the mention from the official, within the article, that goes "You think there's some law that says you don't have to answer our questions!" Now, I'm not a legal scholar here, but I'm thinking there is, in fact, such a law. Maybe - just maybe! - this is the sort of situation the 5th Amendment was designed to cover?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Seems pretty clear to me. Even the cops tell you, before you're arrested, that you don't have to talk to them! Or maybe, you know, maybe it's the 4th Amendment? The one that has to do with unreasonable search and seizure?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Maybe not so much, but you can sorta make that work.
At any rate, the fact that they let him go seems to imply that, in fact, there is no law that compels you to answer their questions. (The fact that I just typed this all out does not mean that I necessarily believe this is always the best or wisest course of action. I'm so not taking a stand on that at this time.)
There's an update here, comments are a little more thought-out, but now you get some "One day the guys will be mad at you and you'll be in BIG trouble" which... is frightening to think that people are using as a reason for always complying with everything, actually.
The comments are fascinating. Half of them are going "OMG YOU ROCK!" and the other half say one of the following:
1. Well, you suck, because this would not have worked if you weren't a white male.
2. Well, you suck, because this would not have worked if you'd tried this in China.
3. Well, you suck, because you're obviously liberal and must hate religion (wtf?)
4. Well, you suck, because these guys were doing their jobs.
5. Well, you suck, because you held up the line.
Number 3 is very interesting to me, because I always thought the traditional slur against liberals was that we promulgate a nanny-state mentality with too much government interference. Maybe just the wrong type of government interference? Is this like "the maximization of personal freedom" doesn't apply if you're trying to be free to be gay, as I figured out a few days ago? (Also, it came with an accusation against the ACLU. The ACLU has a tough job, and one of the things they do is fight to DEFEND the rights of Christians (and members of other religions) to practice as they see fit. Spread it around!)
There's also the mention from the official, within the article, that goes "You think there's some law that says you don't have to answer our questions!" Now, I'm not a legal scholar here, but I'm thinking there is, in fact, such a law. Maybe - just maybe! - this is the sort of situation the 5th Amendment was designed to cover?
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Seems pretty clear to me. Even the cops tell you, before you're arrested, that you don't have to talk to them! Or maybe, you know, maybe it's the 4th Amendment? The one that has to do with unreasonable search and seizure?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Maybe not so much, but you can sorta make that work.
At any rate, the fact that they let him go seems to imply that, in fact, there is no law that compels you to answer their questions. (The fact that I just typed this all out does not mean that I necessarily believe this is always the best or wisest course of action. I'm so not taking a stand on that at this time.)
There's an update here, comments are a little more thought-out, but now you get some "One day the guys will be mad at you and you'll be in BIG trouble" which... is frightening to think that people are using as a reason for always complying with everything, actually.
no subject
Thanks for the interesting link. \o/
no subject
There are a few trends underlying that sentiment:
1. Blind, bloody-minded terror. (He opposes SECURITY and wants the TERRORISTS to WIN because LIBERALS hate AMERICA! Also, something about CHINA and COMMUNISM if we're remembering that China is nominally communist this week!)
2. The authoritarianism of social conservatives (especially religious ones). Doesn't matter if he was following the letter of the law, he should be respecting the authority of CBP agent (hence any suggesting that he's a godless no-goodnik). Also, this "letter of the law" stuff is suspicious, liberals use that to suggest that people have rights that the writers of the law never would have considered respecting. (Side note: I think a lot of the ideas that come from social conservatives that are presented as anti-authoritarian are really just anti-democratic.)
3. Knee-jerk anti-liberalism. Liberals are in favor of civil liberties, therefore civil liberties are bad.
no subject
I was appalled and disgusted (and made a mental note that Hawaii is a bad honeymoon destination), but it didn't come to much of anything as I was flying with two other people and they dealt with it. I just looked at the form, and I passed it to one of them.
But I really didn't want to fill it out. I was flying from the US to the US. I totally understand customs checks for environmental risks like living things. I do get that Hawaii is a different ecosystem, it has a bunch of species found nowhere else, and it's been losing species. I do not object to information or checks regarding that, but whether I am there for recreation or business and what forms is so completely none of their business, and I find it deeply offensive to have an official form asking me about my romantic life.