[dcolkitt]

> If the international law enforcement community is really trying to go after "all cryptographers" why do you think we haven't seen more arrests? Why do you think they only arrested this guy?

Because the standard playbook for "cracking down" is to first win cases against the least sympathetic, most prosecutable targets. Once that's under your belt, you gradually expand outwards to increasingly ordinary people. It's why slippery slope is such a big deal in civil liberties and constitutional law.

When drug prohibition started, they started by arresting kingpin gangstas not students with dime bags. As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there.

[dylan604]

Then the community needs to be better about self-policing. If there are people in your group doing shady shit with your group's tech, then get rid of them. Otherwise, you start sounding like the police with "bad apples" but not all are bullshit. If you see someone doing wrong and don't sound the alarm, then you are part of the problem.

[lalaland1125]

> As abortion laws restart, states won't begin by arresting anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood. But if left unchecked, some will eventually get there.

First thing, you can't arrest people for prior donations as postfacto laws are unconstitutional.

Second, if abortion is considered murder, why should it be legal to fund illegal abortions? We generally don't allow people to fund criminal activity for good reasons.

Do you think it should be legal to donate to criminal organizations?

What are your thoughts on donations to Al-Qaeda?

[ROTMetro]

TLDR: You have no rights in America other than the ones you can afford to pay a lawyer to force to be enforced.

Dude, as someone in the system, ex post facto happens all the time. In my case I can challenge it, but if I get slapped with lets say a completely 'theoretical' $5000 ex post facto "fine" it's going to cost more in lawyers to challenge, plus piss off my judge/PO for wasting time. As someone who can't get a job due to my record and can't afford a lawyer I have 'access' to the court for remedy, but I don't have access to a lawyer for remedy. The Constitution and our government are two different things.

If something gets ruled unconstitutional, that doesn't suddenly free prisoners in the USA. Each prisoner needs to then challenge their conviction in court, and get past the high procedural bar (as a Fed prisoner, do you submit to the circuit in which you are now unconstitutionally imprisoned, or the circuit that convicted you unconstitutionally? Depends on the argument you are making, either could be right or wrong. Pick the wrong one and you waste three months minimum (so much for speeding trial, that only applies to your initial trial according the the supreme court) for the court to come back and say 'they don't have jurisdiction'. Not forward to the correct court, just denied for lack of jurisdiction. For you challenging something already found unconstitutional that should just be immediate release upon Supreme Court ruling. And don't forget, you have a time limit to challenge something found unconstitutional. You took too long? To bad, you're now stuck in prison for something found unconstitutional because you didn't understand your rights and navigate the bar placed in the form of the court system in a timely), nevermind hurdles placed in prison (mailroom only open from this time to this time, mail room not certifying your mail or 'losing' it, law library copyers broken, commissary 'out' of law library typewriter ribbons for sale), etc. If the Constitution was law, those people held unconstitutionally would be released upon Supreme Court findings. The fact they aren't and can be kept in prison for 'taking to long' to challenge their Supreme Court determined unconstitutional conviction shows the Constitution is just a 'guideline' in the USA.

[ROTMetro]

Caveat needed here: This does not apply if you took a plea for lesser time instead of accepting the 'trial tax' (which normally quadrupoles your sentence from say 2-7 years to 20-40) which removes your constitutional right as you agree "not to make any collateral attacks on your sentence" in the plea agreement in addition to your right to trial. (Yes the higher courts will probably override this but most guys give up when the district rejects them. It's scary as hell challenging the prosecutor/judge on your own from prison, dealing with the harassment from the mailroom cops, one out of maybe every 4 months being able to buy new typewriter ribbons in commissary, copiers down, high copier fees. The entire process is designed to discourage you from pursuing your rights.)

The system shouldn't work like insurance claim submissions that if you fight long enough/hard enough or can pay someone to fight for you ultimately grudgingly your constitutional rights are recognized. Remember, China's constitution includes democracy and free speech too, but just like our rights they enacted 'reasonable rules that happen to be barriers to those rights as an unfortunate side effect'.

[josephcsible]

> ex post facto happens all the time

Can you give an example of one such time?

[ROTMetro]

I did above. Fees/assessments that were not part of your sentence get added/imposed after the fact. The sentencing guidelines get changed AFTER what you are sentenced for occured, yet you are sentenced to the 'new' sentencing guidelines sentence, not the sentence that was called for at the time of your offense. There is a whole legal class called 'collateral consequences' that are punishments it would be inconvenient to be called punishments. They are instead 'collateral consequences' that don't fall under ex post facto and are then 'legal' to apply after the fact. Imagine that, an entire type of punishment defined as not a punishment to skirt the Constitution. The courts don't see the constitution as their guiding principle, but as bugs to try find workarounds for.

[josephcsible]

I meant a real-life example, e.g., a news article of it really happening to someone or a court decision that upheld it.

[thebradbain]

> Second, if abortion is considered murder, why should it be legal to fund illegal abortions? We generally don't allow people to fund criminal activity for good reasons.

Because it's not murder. Legislating that it is does not make it so. Full stop. That's like a government trying to legislate that the sky must always be blue, or that it's illegal to frown, or that 2+2=5. Just because it's a law does not make it just or sensible, and I would hope that in modern society we would not blindly obey unjust/unnecessary/unwelcome laws without questioning.

[pas]

Murder is a legal category, it can be whatever we define it to be, so if legislation makes abortion murder then it is.

Is it intentionally ending the life of a human being? Well, what life, what is a human being?

It's intentionally terminating a pregnancy? Yes. Is that bad? Well, if the would-be-mother doesn't want it it's definitely bad, and if the would-be-mother wants it then it definitely seems cruel to not do it, but when society tries to impose whatever morals on these people the arguments start to look very silly very soon.

The main argument against abortion is a strange begging the question fallacy mixed with consequentialism: if the abortion would not happen then things would go great and a human would born (the implied assumption is that it's somehow unquestionably good).

[thebradbain]

“If legislation makes abortion murder then it is.”

I fundamentally disagree. You objectively cannot “kill” something that is not “alive”. That is just a fact of life itself. A government can legislate all they want, but it does not make an unborn fetus any more alive. And thus any law rooted in this idea is fundamentally absurd, preposterous, and so downright stupid that on the principle alone (aside from the many others) any such ban shouldn’t be followed.

To entertain the idea that government can legislate whatever it wants is to imply that a government can dictate the laws of physics. It’s just nonsensical.

[pas]

I understand your argument, but (IMHO) it just causes confusion if you try to apply common sense to legal statutes and concepts. (Yes, sure politically one can argue that there's a difference between waiting for someone and running them over intentionally with a car and between abortion, but at the same time others are free to disagree. There's no objective framework for this.)

The fetus is alive. It's a bunch of cells. There's a causal interaction to remove it from the host which makes it a bunch of dead cells.

Legislatig physics is stupid, but what if some state said by law which interpretation of quantum mechanics is the correct one? Stupid, but not much different than building codes. Or say that prions are alive and can run for office... stupid, but there used to be a lot of absurd laws. (If someone works on Saturday they shall be put to death. Sure, what's work? And then there are many many many interpretations of what's work.)

[altairprime]

The standard playbook for arresting specific criminals overlaps with the more extreme playbook you described.

Whether it’s the former or the latter cannot be determined from this arrest alone.

[chitowneats]

"Some will ... arrest anyone who's ever donated to Planned Parenthood"

This is a hysterical prediction.

[lalaland1125]

Yeah, you can't make postfacto laws.

Sure, the government might make it illegal to donate to Planned Parenthood in the future but per the constitution they can't make prior donations illegal.

[ROTMetro]

The sentencing guidelines (which direct the sentence a judge will give you) get changed ex post facto all the f'ing time. So yes, you can be given an ex-post facto sentence, it's just that it's been 'lawyered' to be constitutional (we didn't change the criminal law, just the sentencing guideline that dictated the sentence you were given for commiting the crime) even though the rule is 'Every law that makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or that inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution'.

The sentencing range wasn't changed, just the sentence the judge was required to give, but the range isn't a rule so it's ok. And if the judge sentences outside the guideline the prosecutor can challenge for 'sentence outside guideline range'. The constitution has been lawyered into oblivion.

[notch656a]

Unless you find that abortion was never legal because the state statute on "murder" is vague. For instance, if the court re-interprets a murder statute then I believe that would apply to prior cases and then prior donations to any establishment assisting in abortion could be pursued as conspiracy.

There's a lot of room to re-interpret laws that were already on the books in ways that make prior "crimes" illegal today when they wouldn't have been interpreted that way when they happened.

There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.

[lalaland1125]

That's not how our constitution works. Roe v Wade is binding for any actions a person carries out before it got overturned in Dobbs.

Even if a court ruling or legal interpretation gets overturned later, that doesn't allow you to prosecute people who were relying on that legal interpretation.

Judges aren't mindless machines and they realize the importance of avoiding postfacto prosecutions.

[notch656a]

You have more faith in judges than I do. I've seen judges act as mindless machines.

and below still stands:

>There's other things that can be done as well, like searching their residence for every single code violation possible, daily police visits, civil asset forfeiture, fine-comb tax auditing, etc. It's a pretty well oiled machine for finding ways to convict people or make their life hell through the legal system if that's the goal.

If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto.

[JumpCrisscross]

> If the powers that be want to punish those who contribute to abortion, they will find a way to do it, even ex-post-facto

In that case there is no room for crypto. Totalitarian regimes can execute anyone suspected of holding it.

[RavingGoat]

You sound like a white person from a middle class or better upbringing.

[chitowneats]

So do you.

Does that somehow invalidate your point?

[formerly_proven]

a) Interesting choice of words b) Donating to PP is aiding murder (née abortions), it's a small step to abetment.

[sangnoir]

Personhood is a prerequisite to murder. No jurisdiction has granted this to the unborn, but it's an interesting thought experiment if some chose to: thinking up "unforeseen" second- and third-order effects is a fun exercise (life insurance, HOV lanes, tax deductions, censuses & electoral maps, broken websites which assume all persons have names, birthdates in the future, null birthdays on death certificates)

[chitowneats]

It's hysterical in both senses of the word.

[f38zf5vdt]

Various states already prohibit using public money to fund abortions, a prohibition on private funds for an act they consider extremely illegal and equivalent to murder is not a stretch.

"12 states prohibit state family planning funds from going to any entity that provides abortions."

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-family...

[chitowneats]

And you believe it will be legal for them to arrest you for donations you made before those laws were in place?

That's assuming you're correct they would try to ban private funds. A big assumption.

[f38zf5vdt]

IANAL.

No, ex post facto laws aren't legal.

If the state law says so, yes, you could get an out-of-state charge for providing financial aid to an abortion operation after contributing to an organization that funds them. With Roe v Wade gone, I am not sure there is a federal precedent for how to handle crimes relating to committing a murder in one state that is not considered a murder in another state.

[amanaplanacanal]

If planned parenthood isn't performing any abortions in a state where it is illegal, how could funding them ever be made illegal? None of this makes sense.

[f38zf5vdt]

People from illegal states already cross state lines to get abortions and then return to their home states. While it's not presently illegal, without Roe v Wade, I think that may quickly change.

> No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state.

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2022/can-states-punish...

[rootusrootus]

> enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits

I wonder how long it will be before SCOTUS kills off these attempts to use civil litigation to end-run the Constitution. The Texas law matched the court's ideology, so they let it stand, but now that Roe is overturned I expect the court to dispense with the law before places like California can use it to render the 2A moot.

If they let this continue, the court will become irrelevant in a hurry. They may have granted themselves sweeping authority a long while back, but that can be changed easily via legislation.

[vorpalhex]

You can prohibit public money for any reason - and we do all the time, eg forcing the state to buy only US made cars.

You can't prohibit private money use in a situation like this - especially not for a political funding thing. That is actually a freedom of speech issue.