-7

I have a question about my Law Stack Exchange post: On what legal basis can American citizens be harassed and surveilled within our homes for entire lifetimes with no legal justification ever provided?

Considering that ANY given one of you here at StackExchange could potentially be maneuvered into performing the terrible acts of lawyer Roy Den Hollander (if subjected to the necromancies of the so-called 'Game'), although you will all surely scoff at that suggestion as being ludicrous and yet be quite wrong about that in your professional arrogance and your ignorance of the real thing, then why do you allow individuals like 'cpast', 'user6726', 'Just a guy', 'BlueDogRanch' and 'Dale M' to squash any legitimate question about that brutal travesty of American justice that has evidently been responsible for the quiet and unreported (and misreported) deaths of tens of millions, just as one or more of those individuals are about to squash this question too (and effectively hide it once again from the general public) under bogus claims of it being 'off-topic' or a 'rant' either in their ignorance or with hidden intentions. Serious question. You effectively choose to remain ignorant and let the travesty continue. If there ever were a website ripe for infiltration and control by a few with hidden intentions, it's probably Law StackExchange.

Please go ahead and vote me off of this 'island', if you have nothing more to offer in terms of perhaps the most important legal questions ever asked at this Law StackExchange website.

The problem with most lawyers is, if you don't dangle big money under their noses, they're generally not good for anything at all, and history and popular wisdom long ago passed judgement about lawyers in a general way, as we all know, and if they are not well paid, would probably even allow the nation to fall to ruin or, if paid enough, would willingly seek to prove the devil himself innocent of charges (or the victim of a witch-hunt), while standing dumbly by chewing their legal cud.

No, I will not play nice. The stakes are just too high to play nice.

9

You are of course free to depart and be as angry as you want to be. In case you are interested in knowing why your question was closed and deleted, I will offer my understanding of the situation.

The first thing you have to know is that SE, and Law SE in particular, is designed for people to ask objectively-answerable questions that generate fact-based answers – in the case of Law SE, questions about law. SE questions are not provocative statements designed to stimulate wide-ranging discussion of many topics that somehow touch on an initial assertion. A specific defect in your question is that it makes a broad allegation for which there is not a shred of evidence. A question with a false presupposition simply cannot be answered – what's the "true" answer to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife"? A remedy would be to identify one or two cases where as a matter of demonstrable fact, a peaceful American citizen, never having been convicted of a crime, was harassed and surveilled within their homes. The question would then be, on what legal basis was Jones put under surveillance? Your refusal to concretize the alleged problem creates your closure problem.

Any question or answer is subject to review by users having sufficient reputation to vote. You can read the mechanics on Meta SE if you are unfamiliar with how the system works. Many questions pass review easily, because they can reasonably interpreted as a request for factual information about law – "what X is the case, what does the law dictate" and similar requests for information. Your question cannot reasonably be interpreted as a request for information, instead it is an invitation to emote. We cannot even ignore the apparent intent in favor of a request-for-information interpretation, because the question is so out of the blue and unrelated to experience that I (and I assume most others) cannot imagine what you are talking about, at least based on the modified question that I first saw. Somehow it involves the deaths of tens of millions of Americans: I'm guessing that this is a question about income tax.

In the original question, you also posit that there are "tens of thousands complaining of basically the same forms of harassment on Facebook alone". (I don't understand whether you mean that the harassment take place of Facebook or the complaining takes place on Facebook: radically different accusations). We have no reason to believe that there are such complaints on Facebook, and the behavior of wingnuts on Facebook is not credible evidence of what happens in reality. However, you might maybe pose as a question for Skeptics SE some question about the relationship between claims posted on Facebook, and the real world. It is possible that someone has concrete evidence regarding the reliability of Facebook as a source of factual information. All you did was shorten the rant. You didn't ask a question about the law that has an answer. Therefore your question was closed.

The stakes are too high, indeed, to tolerate disrupting the rules of Law SE. This is a civilized forum for asking answerable requests for information. There are many websites designed for unreasoned emotive political outbursts, for which your post would be better suited.

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .