Oregon militia leaders complain about no Internet in jail cell

boing
41

I would pay money to be able to watch you say that to Pat Robertson. :sunglasses:

6 Likes
42

One of the reasons to subsidize internet access for the poor is that so many functions of government assume that the citizen/subject/peon has internet access. In this case, apparently the ‘case management’ software used by the defense assumes internet access.

3 Likes
43

If he comes to Oxford, I’ll say it to him for free.

4 Likes
44

he’s probably unlikely to show up in Oxford… but make sure you record it for us, if he does (or someone like him)!

1 Like
46

I agree that prisoners should have (limited) internet access, but given that such a system hasn’t been implemented for all Multnomah County prisoners as far as I know, they’re asking for special treatment. Is the software the defense is using mandated in some way or is that just the software they chose to use? If they chose to use it, they could just choose to use something that isn’t web-based. It’s not difficult to load PDFs onto an iPad without internet access.

3 Likes
47

[quote=“fuzzyfungus, post:13, topic:78885”]He appears to have missed Article 1, section 8, which grants the legislature the power to suppress insurrections; Article 2, clause 5, which specifically requires the president to employ his executive power to faithfully execute the law; He’s lucky that the feds don’t seem interested in Article 3, section 3, which lays out some punchy penalties for treason, including ‘levying war against the united states’[/quote]Well, yeah. The Constitution doesn’t have articles, it only has amendments, amirite?

6 Likes
48

I’m all for reforming the conditions under which not-yet-convicted jailees are held, but screw these pricks and their demands for special treatment. They can get limited internet access when all non-convict jailees get it.

11 Likes
49

Let’s get real – no one reads it for the articles.

31 Likes
50

Rack 'em! Close the thread.

5 Likes
52

Have to hope he at least waved at it, as he lost it, after he abused it.

4 Likes
53

I came for the comments and was not disappointed. :joy:

6 Likes
54

Actually, as a point of strict Constutionalist order this is kind of interesting (at least the First Amendment argument): how can you put someone in involuntary incarceration without “abridging” their “right to peaceably assemble”?

For those interested in the relevant case law

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/482/78.html

Basically as long as there are reasonable alternatives the prison can in the interests of “safety” and “legitimate penological objectives” deny Prisoners First Amendment rights.

Anyway, I learned something new today about my rights, so thanks, crazy rancher dude!

4 Likes
55

I can’t believe that they haven’t claimed that they now own the prison under the Homestead Act.

25 Likes
56

Why?

People with disabilities and disfigurements can be self-entitled hateful assholes just as much as the next able bodied person can…

6 Likes
57

But wait? How are they going to protect themselves in prison if they can’t have their guns?

Will somebody think of the people that have a need to shoot somebody in jail?!?!

1 Like
59

I think it must be an American thing.

61

Well I said a -little- bad.

It’s bad form and cheap to go after appearance, weight, sex, race, etc. vs attacking their views/actions.

4 Likes
62

The guards don’t even have guns. At least not the ones around the population.

1 Like
63

But that doesn’t apply…cause…reasons…

64

You’re absolutely right; it is.

But if someone is an insufferable asshole, that automatically makes them “fair game” in my book.

That’s one of my more petty and negative traits, but I own it.

3 Likes