all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 65 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The government is a bunch of clowns. What gives them the right to tell him what he can or can't do with his own personal device?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    To be clear I don't agree with this statement, but the steelman counterargument would be something like: if the president of the United States were to destroy evidence of a crime, shouldn't that also be a crime?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 58 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Have to be accused of a crime first for this to apply. The victim here was purely the target of extra customs search due to his support of a politically unfavored cause

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago

    If this goes through it sets a precedent for the government declaring someone a criminal for being in a political organisation simply unfavorable to them. He couldn't destroy evidence if he wasn't a criminal could be the take-home-message between the lines they intend to propagate.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago

    Story has already changed. Originally it was him giving border agents the kill code which they entered.

  • source