Originally posted by trumptman
My view is that when you publicly advocate for certain illegal positions, you shouldn't be upset when the public feels the need to monitor and insure you aren't actually undertaking those illegal acts. You should be able to walk down Downing Street advocating for terrorist attacks. What you should not do is be pissed off when the government gets a warrent and checks your accounts to see if you are buying explosives. You shouldn't be pissed off if they monitor incoming wire transactions from foreign countries to see if anyone is getting the money to undertake such actions either.
I actually agree with this - from the Government's pov they should be monitoring people like me if they publicly espouse certain views. To fail do so would be more dereliction of duty.
I think my objection in these matters would be if my rights did not increase with the pervs. For example, if they achieved the right to, say, molest small children then I would be happy with this if I had simultaneously increased rights to blow their heads off if they tried it on mine.
This doesn't often seem to be the case - here in Europe anyway. There was a famous recent case where the rights of burglars were increased in some way which resulted in a householder being jailed for shooting one who was then able to sue.
Often we see the rights of one party - often this is allied to Political Correctness which is a particularly pernicious aberration - increased to the detriment of others who may well be the victims of these parties.
So, give these pervs their political party - but I would ask, where is the anti-perv gunslingers party?