You might live in a Police State if...

Reactions
299 37 13
#1
Kind of a thread game, kind of a discussion.

Discuss what's above sure, but if you have a new example, prefix your post with the statement "You might live in a Police State if" and then the statement.

I'll start it out with a statement, and a link:

You might live in a Police State if the government wants to "talk" with you (without your lawyer) and you're afraid enough to flee overseas when you have broken no laws.


People in your country are literally (and legitimately) afraid of being disappeared. That's fucking terrifying. The irony here is that she fled to Germany, where 30 years ago, the state of East Germany was one of the most well-known for being an Actual Police State.
 
Reactions
2,718 789 25
#4
You might live in a police state if you can be jailed indefinitely due to purely circumstantial evidence (no matter how overwhelming).
...and before we get into any debate about his supposed guilt, that's not what I'm highlighting here. I'm highlighting the fact that he is being imprisoned "...until such time that he fully complies" simply because someone ordered that this be done.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
1,245 421 11
#9
How about this one from there:

"Israel enacted the 1950 "Nazi and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law" for the purpose of punishing acts that occurred during the Second World War, when Israel did not exist as a state. The law was used to punish Adolf Eichmann and others."
I was thinking of any more recent examples that Den had in mind, but I guess that'll do.
 
Reactions
682 255 4
#11
The article essentially says that ex post facto laws are near globally prohibited, even in Iran, as far as criminal law is concerned. Not so much for tax law, where governments like to get their money.

Oh, and not so much for civil law, either, so the piracy thing wouldn't be surprising if it falls into that realm.
 
Reactions
1,245 421 11
#12
The article essentially says that ex post facto laws are near globally prohibited, even in Iran, as far as criminal law is concerned. Not so much for tax law, where governments like to get their money.

Oh, and not so much for civil law, either, so the piracy thing wouldn't be surprising if it falls into that realm.
At the risk of inciting you-know-who, the whole e-mail controversy reeks of ex post facto. Classifying them now, years after leaving the post, and then running to the nearest camera to raise a stink about it seems awfully manufactured.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,573 1,605 30
#13
It happened 5 or 10 years ago, and I can't find an article about it now, but in my neck of the woods, a bunch of police showed up to a hotel bar here in town and started arresting people because they might drive drunk. Even the ones who had reserved rooms for the night.
 
Reactions
682 255 4
#14
If anything actually comes of it, then it does kinda skirt the line I guess, if you're right about the timing. I haven't been following that thing at all.

Den's wiki page does say that the US is kinda skirting the line when it comes to rules about registering sex offenders, but the courts allowing changes applying retroactively because it's not actually a punishment.
 
Reactions
471 226 1
#15
It happened 5 or 10 years ago, and I can't find an article about it now, but in my neck of the woods, a bunch of police showed up to a hotel bar here in town and started arresting people because they might drive drunk. Even the ones who had reserved rooms for the night.
I thought they decided to apply public intoxication to bars. If you blow a .80 in a bar, off to jail.

It only lasted a few weeks, before public outcry shut that shit down.[DOUBLEPOST=1463593338,1463593065][/DOUBLEPOST]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/texas-racist-laws-drinking-while-brown
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Reactions
7,573 1,605 30
#17

figmentPez

Staff member
Reactions
3,088 565 6
#21
You might live in a police state if a teenager can spend five months in jail for making sarcastic comments online. The event is a couple years old, so it's hard to find all the relevant articles about how this case was bungled, but it took two weeks for police to search his parents house, and they didn't find any firearms. This kid was in jail on $500,000 bail, because a judge ruled that he was an imminent threat, despite having no firearms. He was offered plea bargains of 8 - 10 years in jail, all for hyperbole he thought would be understood as so ridiculous as to be unbelievable.
 
Reactions
1,163 119 0
#22
You might live in a police state if a teenager can spend five months in jail for making sarcastic comments online. The event is a couple years old, so it's hard to find all the relevant articles about how this case was bungled, but it took two weeks for police to search his parents house, and they didn't find any firearms. This kid was in jail on $500,000 bail, because a judge ruled that he was an imminent threat, despite having no firearms. He was offered plea bargains of 8 - 10 years in jail, all for hyperbole he thought would be understood as so ridiculous as to be unbelievable.
The third court of Appeals ruled that a jury trial could proceed. This ruling occurred last September. (San Antonio Express News) Since thing, pre-trial hearings have been scheduled, and cancelled multiple times. Because of his bail conditions, Justin is effectively under house arrest. (Free Justin Carter)
 
Reactions
2,718 789 25
#30
Snooper's Charter, aka the Investigatory Powers Bill, voted into UK law
The controversial Snooper's Charter -- or the Investigatory Powers Bill as it is officially known -- has been voted into law by [an] overwhelming majority of politicians (444 to 69) [despite criticism] by both the public and technology companies.
The Investigatory Powers Bill grants the UK government, security, and intelligence agencies greater powers for monitoring internet usage, as well as permitting bulk data collection and remote hacking of smartphones.
Uh-oh, that doesn't sound good.
...unless you run a VPN, perhaps.

--Patrick
 
Reactions
2,718 789 25
#32
Where's the "that's terrifying" rating?
It ran off and hid.

Maybe we'll* get lucky and the agencies will just spy on each other for a while until they're satisfied they've rooted out all the corruption and waste? Or until they've rooted out all the "non-patriots," which is actually ... worse.

Here, let me help you look for that rating...

--Patrick
*"the public"
 
Reactions
2,718 789 25
#33
Reactions
504 140 7
#35
If the police can require you to notify them of any sexual activity 24 hours in advance, even though you've never been convicted of any sexual crimes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36481127

That's one weird new law. I could see, perhaps, this sort of order being made as part of a probation (ie, you can go to jail, or you can go on probation but your activities must be self reported and monitored and you can't do certain things). In other words its a form of prison without having to report to prison - but you have to have been convicted of a crime that this probation would prevent, and the probation ultimately does end at some point, just as most jail sentences do.

But to be able to do so simply on order of the court without conviction seems very police-state-ish.
 
Top