A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by orf on Friday June 01, 2018 @07:51PM (#17211574)

> So it’s better to not empower the government to decide what is hate and what isn’t

The government cannot just arbitrarily expand hate speech to include something which is patently not hate speech. The courts would not uphold it, neither would the judiciary or the public at large.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by abstrakraft on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:20PM (#17211712)

10 years ago, I would have argued the same about the gov't just arbitrarily expanding asset seizure laws, but here we are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by stordoff on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:28PM (#17211759)

If they made it law (which strictly speaking requires parliament, not the government), the courts _would_ uphold it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by steve_musk on Friday June 01, 2018 @08:44PM (#17211843)

Unless you get an extreme president who stacks the courts with extreme judges...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U... by mlazos on Saturday June 02, 2018 @03:15AM (#17213225)

So I would agree except judges are even elected in some places in the south. The judiciary is not always insular.

[ Parent | on HN ]