If the FBI are creating a file on everyone that goes to a protest, then fewer people will be willing to go to protests to avoid having their life under the microscope. This has a chilling effect on a free speech.
[Note: This is the result of a system in which very few people are looking at the bigger picture, rather than a system of some 'elite evil masterminds.' Also, no one in power is incentivized to fix it.]
This is not a problem.
"You are both missing the plethora of articles about how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day (unknowingly)."
Citation needed.
However, it's a general problem anyway. I agree that laws should be simpler, fewer in number, and more evenly enforced. But I don't see what this has to do with the article in question, which doesn't offer much.
Edit:
> "You are both missing the plethora of articles about
> how every breaks at least 3 federal laws a day
> (unknowingly)."
>
> Citation needed.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_white...
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
Here's a few, ranging from the humorous to the heinous.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19450_6-laws-youve-broken-wit...
http://mises.org/daily/5759/Decriminalize-the-Average-Man
http://www.economist.com/node/16636027
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/...
The only question is, which laws "count?" And who decides?
The purpose of everyone being a criminal is not to allow the arrest of everyone, but rather anyone.
...which are mostly not founded in fact, but designed to tell you what you want to hear in order to sell advertising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder_Surprise#Prohibition_on_...
Because that is, by design, what will happen the majority of the time.
But the idea that everyone is breaking 5 or 6 federal laws every day and is at risk of financial ruin or indefinite incarceration at the whim of an indifferent judiciary (or as jlgreco asserts below, as part of an evil plot to render us legally helpless) is utter nonsense. You could, theoretically, break numerous laws in one day and place yourself in substantial legal jeopardy...but only via a sequence of unlikely coincidences. Stop taking the linkbait for fact: the reality is that young black men or ex-felons bear a far, far higher burden of extralegal discrimination than anyone does as the result of ham-fisted federal rulemaking.
This essay is from 1964, and no less relevant today: http://harpers.org/archive/1964/11/the-paranoid-style-in-ame... I urge you to read it and consider the possibility that the federal government does not, in fact, exist for the purpose of making your life miserable.
But two wrongs do not make a right. You are not likely to fall into a situation where you are arrested/convicted/imprisoned for an act that most people perform on a regular basis and do not consider a crime. But such laws do exist, real people have been arrested/convicted/imprisoned because of them, and it is still wrong.
Also, every person is subject to more jurisdictions than just the Federal government. I presume that we elide them from most discussions because of the wide variation from place to place, but they are no less able to arrest, convict, and imprison people (some can even execute).
Furthermore, one can recognize the effect of something--e.g., the existence of frivolous laws enables abuses of the justice system--without attributing it to willful intent. It may not be an "evil plot" by an all-knowing mastermind, but that doesn't mean it's not happening (also known as, unintended consequences).
There's also the fact that you went through a trial that counts against you, even if it shouldn't count against you. Even being accused of a crime is a crime in and of itself in the court of public opinion. Being accused of paedophilia is an extreme example of this (i.e. doesn't matter if you are or not, the claim makes you 'tainted' and people will always wonder).
Quite right. Even more concerning: merely being arrested, even if all charges are dropped a few hours later, can count against you.
There are many objections that can be made to this line of argumentation.
1. You will not, in fact, sit before a jury of your "peers", especially if you are knowledgeable about the law. Juries are generally selected to find the most pliant, least informed individuals.
2. Juries are not immune to the problems of group mentalities. You could easily be in a situation where a majority of the jurors, if asked on the street, would never consider such an act criminal, but when placed in an isolated group with one or more authoritative-sounding busybodies, will agree to convict (see the Milgram experiment).
3. Jurors are specifically instructed to evaluate the case on its merits (does the law as written apply to the act committed by this individual?), and to disregard personal opinions and feelings about the nature of the law itself. This is related to the discussion on "jury nullification" by other posters.
4. A trial is an exhausting, humiliating, and possibly financially devastating process. You will not even get the opportunity to present your case, if you are under duress from the circumstances created by the prosecution and agree to a plea bargain instead.