FBI arrests 75-year-old for allegedly placing pipe bombs outside phone stores
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
It's good that the FBI got to them before someone with 'legit' bombs did.
> "All telecommunication containing immoral content must be stopped. This includes cursing, the transmission of pornography, and all manner of indecent communication."
I know they aren't here in southern states and our loudest news seems to be a constant reminder of that.
Recently, here in Switzerland, police departments argued the pros and cons of naming suspect nationality.
If you do it, readers can actually get a clear picture of the demographics of criminals. However, the media can cherry pick those suspects that fit their custom brand of racism.
If you don't do it, racist/ageist/whatever prejudices can simply fill the minds of the readers with their preconceived notions of what the suspect "must be like", which isn't better.
On the other hand some publications will publish gender, race, religion, age etc regardless.
IIRC it varies on a state-by-state basis (much like for Florida Man) which data they have to or can publish.
Point being: if the police department only publishes "43 year old female", the media can't publish race, religion, etc..
I’ve seen quite informative descriptions by people: height, build, age, color of clothes but purposely leave out another physical characteristic. I’ve also seen it when someone does include this characteristic you will find people who complain that including this information furthers stereotypes (altho when video is included it’s kind of nonsensical to say that, unless it’s poor quality or at night), but when it’s a majority suspect you’ll have comments like, oh, just another *guy. Like zero self awareness.
[1]after the Pentagon Papers scandal forced the FBI to quit compulsive domestic surveillance and refocus on actual law enforcement
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
EDIT: I hope my own satirical post doesn't put me on some 3-letter agency watchlist. You can't be too careful nowadays.
I'd agree the positive connotations are a juxtaposition but everything else fits the descriptor.
Based on experience, I'd guess the downvotes are from folks who advocate a mindset that we live in a dangerous time of imminent terrorism - one that demands endless heightened awareness.
In contrast, I found that historical US domestic terror stats show that since ~1975 we have been about as safe as is possible. I suggest we math-up and embrace our ongoing safety.
> I hope my own satirical post doesn't put me on some 3-letter agency watchlist. You can't be too careful nowadays.
In as far as this might be true, government has fully lost it's way.