seems like the first amendment is a decent legal strategy against government surveillance? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/05/arts/writers-say-they-feel-censored-by-surveillance.html …
-
-
En réponse à @nathanjurgenson
@nathanjurgenson if you can get standing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@sarahjeong do you think it's as good a strategy as others? i know so little about the legal specifics1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @nathanjurgenson
@nathanjurgenson Depends on what you mean by legal strategy. NSA litigation is most thwarted at the standing stage1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@nathanjurgenson arguments about what's wrong with it—e.g., violates freedom of association, 4th Am, etc.—are plentiful.1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@nathanjurgenson At that stage, getting the most favorable standard of review (most strict against govt) would be key, I suppose1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@nathanjurgenson BUT the standing issue is huge and ends up affecting the rest of the stuff as well—1 réponse 0 Retweet 0 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@nathanjurgenson bc of course who gets to bring the suit ends up determining the merits under various theories1 réponse 0 Retweet 1 j'aime -
En réponse à @sarahjeong
@nathanjurgenson the standing thing is so circular, too. without leaks, you can't prove standing, it's fucking terrible2 réponses 0 Retweet 1 j'aime
@nathanjurgenson but tldr first amendment has been an argument against surveillance all along
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.