General Discussion

Gravitycollapse

(8,155 posts)

28. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Tue Mar 11, 2014, 01:53 AM

Mar 2014

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:41 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Seek mental health help if you are indeed human
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4642878

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Seek mental health" is a genuinely offensive insult and does not belong on DU no matter who it's directed against. Please hide, thank you.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:50 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: context is everything.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Whole pie fight is mutual insults. Voting to leave it brcause of context.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: As much as I despise ProSense, as much as I suspect them to be particularly dubious, it runs contrary to my own conscience for anyone to use the "seek mental help" line as an insult because there's nothing witty or funny about mental health or those who suffer from mental health issues. And it is with a heavy sigh that I vote to hide this post because it is obvious ProSense is trolling this thread. Unfortunately, the poster being alerted to took it hook, line and sinker.

Gravitycollapse.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

147 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Snowden, *by law*, needed to do what he did. [View all] MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 OP

This bulk metadata collection issue will eventually go to the Supreme Court Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #1

Hopefully nt Sarah Ibarruri Mar 2014 #3

It already did. In 1979. jeff47 Mar 2014 #6

Also, we've known about this kind of bulk metadata collection since 2006: Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #10

It's gone on for over 8 years then. Isn't it time we do something about it? Autumn Mar 2014 #63

Why are you mentioning DU? Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #64

Okay, strange but everyone that I know, even the republicans are aware it has been going on. Autumn Mar 2014 #72

Your initial reply to me in this thread was a bit odd and out of place Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #119

How so? You posted that you are still surprised that people act like this is a new revelation Autumn Mar 2014 #123

Not everything posted on DU is about DU. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #125

We often know about crimes for years, murder eg, bank robbery, does it make them any less sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #66

Like I said....it will go to the SC. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #68

Yippee. The SC that gave us Heller and CU and the mandates part of the ACA Doctor_J Mar 2014 #77

Well according to the Constitution... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #86

I would rather take it up with the Felonious Five and Bush 41 and Bush 43 Doctor_J Mar 2014 #98

Agree, but.... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #106

SCOTUS ruled on the use of landline metadata in one case involving telephone harassment in 1979. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #35

Stupid is insisting that the ruling was that specific. jeff47 Mar 2014 #52

Telephone technology has changed ever so slightly since 1979. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #80

And if the ruling said it only applied to 1979 technology, you'd have a point. jeff47 Mar 2014 #82

Of course the ruling didn't anticipate technology that didn't exist yet. LeftyMom Mar 2014 #84

It's not that hard to handle jeff47 Mar 2014 #85

+1 Marr Mar 2014 #90

Different facts. Could distinguish the current NSA practice and result in a very different ruling. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #36

I've posted that case a few times with the spy supporters neverforget Mar 2014 #37

I think that our conservative Supreme Court might well distinguish Smith v. Maryland. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #38

Sorry to disappoint. My response was not available at 2:36AM. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #56

wasn't directed at you since I didn't respond to you neverforget Mar 2014 #57

Ah, but I'm one of those evil spy-supporter demons jeff47 Mar 2014 #58

then answer the question since you think it's directed at you. neverforget Mar 2014 #60

The court did not rule that suspicion was required. jeff47 Mar 2014 #62

If the data belongs to the phone company, then the service should be free. Plus they sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #74

The metadata is created as a side-effect of the service. jeff47 Mar 2014 #78

The suspect was an individual suspected of robbery, a criminal offense. That is suspicion. Otherwise neverforget Mar 2014 #96

Doesn't matter. The ruling does not require suspicion. jeff47 Mar 2014 #124

So putting a pen register in 1979 on a single line is now the same as gathering metadata neverforget Mar 2014 #129

The ruling does not differentiate between the two. jeff47 Mar 2014 #130

I remind everyone that at one time, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #112

The ruling is not at all that narrow. jeff47 Mar 2014 #55

A database of the metadata of a huge number of Americans is a political tool. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #111

Actually, it's far beyond a political tool jeff47 Mar 2014 #126

Good points! JDPriestly Mar 2014 #142

What 'warrant' was signed off on? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #54

Multiple FISA court warrants. (nt) jeff47 Mar 2014 #59

You mean the 'group' warrants that allowed the government access to millions of people's 'affects'? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #61

It's not your 'affects'. jeff47 Mar 2014 #67

I read my privacy agreement with Verizon. Have you read these agreements? Nowhere did it say sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #71

It doesn't have to say that, because it's not your data. jeff47 Mar 2014 #73

Who is paying for it? My money says, since the SC also ruled that money is speech, that that data sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #76

No, you are paying for phone service. jeff47 Mar 2014 #79

Please, do not insult the intelligence of the people who know when they are being bamboozled. sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #91

And we're back to the same bullshit again. jeff47 Mar 2014 #121

If someone owns something, they need no warrant to access it. Period. sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #146

For the Verizon records. nt Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #65

What did Verizon Customers do to justify a warrant to gain access to their accounts? sabrina 1 Mar 2014 #69

This is metadata of calls. Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #89

I'll stick with Joe Biden on the Meta-Data issue: bvar22 Mar 2014 #137

What I'd love to know ProSense Mar 2014 #2

Distraction, thread hijacking, propaganda: I'd like to know if you know the definitions Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #4

Isn't this a thread about Snowden and what he "needed" to do? ProSense Mar 2014 #7

Re-framing the OP about an oath, distraction, propaganda: do you know the definitions? Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #9

LOL! The "oath" part was to justify what Snowden "needed" to do. ProSense Mar 2014 #13

LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #14

What are you trying to say? ProSense Mar 2014 #15

Seek mental health help if you are indeed human Corruption Inc Mar 2014 #17

I know it's hard when one's "hero" holds up Russia as a protector of human rights. n/t ProSense Mar 2014 #19

Didn't see that. Can you provide a link? Scuba Mar 2014 #47

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Gravitycollapse Mar 2014 #28

You actually posted your response about how much you "despise" Prosense in this thread Number23 Mar 2014 #31

LOL! ProSense Mar 2014 #32

I respect your vote SunsetDreams Mar 2014 #34

Pathetic (nt) malokvale77 Mar 2014 #138

I agree with Snowden that he was keeping his oath to uphold the Constitution when he JDPriestly Mar 2014 #39

Here. randome Mar 2014 #53

Bookmarking this reponse--note that not a single pro-Snowden poster can touch this.....nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #103

It's a secret program. How do you know what it does or doesn't do. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #113

Fine. But the metadata collection is obtained via legal warrant. randome Mar 2014 #120

they record content also Rumold Mar 2014 #136

Not for American citizens. Where did you get the idea that they do? randome Mar 2014 #144

Optic Nerve Rumold Mar 2014 #145

from todays NYT Rumold Mar 2014 #147

You're slipping - only 840high Mar 2014 #88

You know a guy said the same thing to Manning's judge jberryhill Mar 2014 #5

Oh man, he was two years from retirement? joshcryer Mar 2014 #11

Integrity. DeSwiss Mar 2014 #24

"Birther" and "Integrity"? joshcryer Mar 2014 #25

Yeah, I'm scratching my head on that too Number23 Mar 2014 #27

He believes it is true, and he acted on that belief jberryhill Mar 2014 #97

Yeah, little problem with that theory. jeff47 Mar 2014 #8

"He hasn't actually revealed anything unconstitutional." JDPriestly Mar 2014 #40

Again, the 1979 SCOTUS ruling says it is constitutional. jeff47 Mar 2014 #51

Sorry, you are wrong. truebluegreen Mar 2014 #102

Okay...what makes you think that these programs will produce a distinguishable case from msanthrope Mar 2014 #104

Dislike of the programs jeff47 Mar 2014 #127

And alas, the rub. Well played. nt msanthrope Mar 2014 #134

Just wait until members of the Supreme Court find that they have been spied upon. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #114

The Constitution is much like the Bible Fumesucker Mar 2014 #12

Please give some examples of the large print of the Constitution giving and the small print taking JDPriestly Mar 2014 #41

The large print being the actual Constitution and the small print being the interpretation thereof Fumesucker Mar 2014 #46

I love the NSA. Rex Mar 2014 #16

...I love you big brother. zeemike Mar 2014 #22

But..but..that damned 4th Amendment and common decency are sooo 18th century. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2014 #18

It wasn't up to Snowden to INTERPRET the Constitution. OilemFirchen Mar 2014 #20

Thanks lumpy Mar 2014 #30

Snowden would probably respond that his allegiance to the Constitution supersedes and superseded JDPriestly Mar 2014 #42

The Nuremberg trials established that "following orders" is not a valid defense. MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #50

That it doesn't apply here. -nt Bonx Mar 2014 #95

Well then ...let's make the US Constitution a state secret... L0oniX Mar 2014 #70

And that means they need to screen people better. zeemike Mar 2014 #21

K&R DeSwiss Mar 2014 #23

precisely Mr. Goldstein! Thank you. n/t wildbilln864 Mar 2014 #26

talk about oversimplification treestar Mar 2014 #29

And thank you lumpy Mar 2014 #33

At one time, case law said slavery was the law. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #43

I don't think you can count on anything like that from SCOTUS in the near future: struggle4progress Mar 2014 #45

And now knowing that the intelligence community spies on Congress, what kind of action will we get? Scuba Mar 2014 #48

He's in great shape then: he can just come back home, and his lawyer will win struggle4progress Mar 2014 #44

Sadly, as Daniel Ellsberg points out, some other MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #49

Ellsberg ProSense Mar 2014 #75

Strange. You forgot the part about MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #81

No, ProSense Mar 2014 #83

Which is why I understand the leaks on domestic matters Blue_Tires Mar 2014 #87

The NSA gave raw intelligence that included US domestic phone calls to Israel. OnyxCollie Mar 2014 #100

Unfortunately, the Constitution means only what the people who ignore it say it means. LuvNewcastle Mar 2014 #92

AND JUST ONE THING rtracey Mar 2014 #93

suppose we find out? you suppose the NSA/CIA/FBI have been sitting on their collective nuts? frylock Mar 2014 #135

perhaps rtracey Mar 2014 #143

K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations! Enthusiast Mar 2014 #94

BUT ... 9/11 !!! blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #99

Contractors don't take the oath BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #101

He's rolling.... msanthrope Mar 2014 #105

***************BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL SHIT!!!!****************** uponit7771 Mar 2014 #107

I'm not sure he did take that oath hootinholler Mar 2014 #108

shhhh.... Cali_Democrat Mar 2014 #109

No oath...He signed Standard Form 312 BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #110

That article appears to agree with my OP MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #115

lol...apart from that little missing oath detail BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #116

So he didn't actually take Oath of Office (i.e., Appointment Affadavit)? MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #117

What are you claiming BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #118

That's the article's premise MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #122

The article, which is badly in need of an editor, annoyingly never answers that particular question BeyondGeography Mar 2014 #128

The article assumes that the Oath continues to apply MannyGoldstein Mar 2014 #132

What a crock! pnwmom Mar 2014 #131

People Need to Concentrate on the Issue now That Info Has Been Exposed fascisthunter Mar 2014 #133

Snowden was a contractor... Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2014 #139

Our military agencies are being stuffed with right wing nut jobs pragmatic_dem Mar 2014 #140

He must have taken his interpretation of the Constitution and omitting the parts in which he did not Thinkingabout Mar 2014 #141