[QUOTE=bump]
Here’s the thing:
**Bricker ** is thinking and speaking as a lawyer. As far as the practice of law is concerned, if there’s precedent saying that clicking something is probable cause for the issue of a search warrant, then that’s not really up for debate.
<snip>
(I’m married to a lawyer and I get into this kind of argument all the time with my wife- I bring up an argument against something, and her style of answer is very much like Bricker- it’s somewhat philosophical, but all squarely in terms of the law and how it’s applied.)
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that’s precisely the problem Bricker is running into. Outside of courtrooms or legislature, attempting to constrain a discussion of law to within the law itself is at best missing the point, and at worst fallacious. Apologies ahead of time for the length of this reply; my goal is to use rigor rather than rhetoric to bridge the gap between the sides of this discussion.
The law, for as much history, power, thought and support as it has behind it, is ultimately a human construct. It is a set of written rules based on human decisions, some new, some centuries old. New decisions are made with an eye toward consistency with the old ones, hence the concept of legal precedent; for this reason, the law can be said to be logical system of sorts.
I’d like to make an analogy, then, to another type of logical system: mathematics. Suppose I were to invent a mathematical system under which I proved, say, the Riemann hypothesis, using logical steps valid within the system. A colleague then studies the rules of my system, and uses it to develop a logically valid proof that 2 = 1. Other mathematicians would then, quite understandably, begin to discuss the validity of my system, based on the fact that humanity is aware that “2 = 1” is false. They are able to do this because my system is a human construct, and they, as humans, are able to step above it and recognize that a proper system should not be able to prove this.
Suppose I then enter that discussion and attempt to support my point by providing reams of additional proofs of Riemann, and one of the Hodge conjecture as a supporting point, using my system. It doesn’t matter if I do this, because no one is saying that my system does not prove these things; what is being discussed is the validity of the system itself. The whole discussion takes place above the system.
So it goes with arguing from legal principle in this thread (and others like it). The OP, and the majority of his supporters, are in essence arguing that “clicking a particular hyperlink is a valid reason for a police search of one’s home” is the “2 = 1” of the matter…a notion that, above the system of law, they believe to be true. If clicking a link is believed not to be sufficient reason for a police search, then anything the concepts of probable cause or legal precedent have to say about the issue is altogether irrelevant. As in my hypothetical, within the system, we KNOW “what is”. The question at hand is “what should be”.
The phrase “no one is above the law” is often interpreted too literally. Philosophically speaking, everyone is above the law. Humans created it, and humans have the ability to change or even entirely reject it – with no need to work within the system to do so (see: Russia, 1917; France, 1789; USA, 1776) – if they believe it to be inherently flawed. Barring such measures, they certainly have the means to discuss it outside of its own boundaries. Such is the nature of this thread, and that’s why Bricker’s argument is falling flat.
That said, Bricker, I – and many others, I’m sure – would be very interested to know your thoughts on the issue outside of the context of law. Your wealth of intelligence and reason is plain to see from your posts, and it saddens me that you often choose to constrain your arguments in this manner. Speaking not as an attorney, but as a person, do you feel that having visited a particular URL should be sufficient to allow a search warrant?