>I expected to read about legal threats against the folks collecting this data and am glad that those didn't materialize.
replyThat's because the author folded over and played nice. Imagine if he exercised his first amendment rights.
They are Australian. Don't everyone is from the US just because they speak English.
replyRegardless, he chose to fold.
replyRevealing his own country's defences online doesn't seem like the best idea tbf. Even though all of what they found and more is arguably already tracked with satellites with orders of magnitude more accuracy by every superpower, I'm sure second and third rate ones wouldn't mind the help.
replyThe rights delineated in the American Constitution are understood to precede the government being held to account for them. Furthermore, they are held to be universal, natural rights.
replyI think you're getting the Declaration and the Constitution a little mixed up. Also conflating "free speech" with "the first amendment", but everyone does that so they can motte-and-bailey.
replyYou would think that the right to bear arms would extend to Iran developing a nuclear warhead though.
replyNatural rights belong to individuals, not states. Iran is a government; governments hold powers, not inalienable rights. The analogy collapses before reaching the question of nuclear weapons.
replyInteresting interpretation given the the 2nd Amendment gives the right to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals including crazed yahoos and criminals. Sadly for millions of butchered Americans, US courts have agreed with your interpretation.
replyNo, it does not. What it states is:
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
(This shedding light on the government's interest in the matter, since anything not illegal is legal by default)
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
(thus granting people - which includes crazed yahoos, and excludes some but not all criminals - not the government, the right to have weapons)
replyThis is the current understanding within American jurisprudence. People are of course free to disagree with it, but when it comes to laws, the government's understanding of what the law means takes precedence both de jure and de facto.
But do Iranians have a right for self-determination? How about Israelis?
replyThe right to a trial by jury in civil suits where the sum in dispute is greater than US$20 is a universal natural right?
replySays who?
reply...is that what Americans believe?
reply[flagged]
reply>Also I only realized after finishing the article what a breath of fresh air it was to read something that came straight from another human's brain without LLM intermediation.
replyI found it a little difficult to follow