Yes, although someone else here pointed out to me that the Speaker actually did say he wanted faces blurred to protect those folks from DOJ, which is absurd 1) because I agree that those clowns need to face consequences, and 2) it makes no sense given that DOJ already has the raw footage.
Still, I'd hate to encourage reddit-style vigilantes even if that seems at odds with the fact that the FBI posts images explicitly looking for help in identifying certain suspects.
Yeah, my fault. I read about this in an Axios article that I linked above. That only makes the rep's comment more absurd when, again, we know the DOJ has the unedited footage, which is also acknowledged in the Rolling Stone article.
I don't think you have, unless you want to share what you think I've said and refresh my memory. The only political topic I've engaged on Lemmy had to do with landlords, so I'm not sure where you're coming from.
I may be confused about your point. It seems like you're acknowledging that it's a bad argument, but supporting using it against those whom you despise, no?
It's not a good argument (nothing to hide), and I think it gets deployed by whomever is trying to lean on someone else. It's not great to be a hypocrite, but hypocracy doesn't invalidate an argument.
This is all aside from what I meant to be my main point though, which is that this original post is, in my view, meant to gin up more outrage by misstating what the speaker said. Turning discourse into an exchange of inflammatory bumper stickers is social media's most toxic influence.
Talking through "nothing to hide" and its ramifications is worthwhile and on point though. Kudos!
"I've got nothing to hide." and other misunderstandings of privacy.
Wrong, I think. The ol' nothing to hide line is one we can only be comfortable with when it's not being wielded against us.
There have already been well over 1,000 arrests, a few hundred sentenced, etc. (https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases) and you can look up names/details of those who've gone through due process. That's the system at work, like it or not. I don't think it's up to you or me to convict, or harass, or whatever else. You can maybe ID folks whose images are posted by the FBI requesting information from the public. I just hate to see crappy headlines and social media posts distorting what's happening when it seems pretty simple to verify through non-extreme media outlets.
I say this all with respect.
I hope everyone who gleefully rampaged around the capital gets what is legitimately coming to them.
It's either foolish or malicious to deliberately misrepresent the actions or motivations of these ass-hats just because they're ass-hats.
The DOJ already has unredacted footage and the blurring of faces is meant to avoid retaliation by "non-governmental actors", i.e. vigilantes, not to save anyone from arrest.
It might be Little Shop of Horrors. Definitely freaked me out.
I vaguely remember crying when the cat was electrocuted by chewing on Christmas lights in the Griswolds Family Christmas.
Thank goodness. I'm sick of having a huge phone.
I can't even imagine who might do them justice, but some of the books in Iain Banks' Culture series could be a real treat.
Yes, sleep mask for the win. I recommend the kind that is just a wide soft bit of cloth that wraps around your head. Like this. The ones with elastic straps or eye cups, gel, foam, whatever, have not been nearly as comfortable IMHO. I just want a pillowcase for my face.
I've also recently started wearing earplugs since my wife is up before me and the kitchen sounds always cause me to stir well before my alarm.
Well, no, I don't think that's obstruction. He's not hiding them from DOJ, since they already have the footage. Choosing to not publicize faces for John Q Public won't get in the way of their prosecutions.
FBI has their list of most wanted including pictures.
So this is perhaps not helpful at worst, and avoiding vigilante justice at best, is what I'm thinking.