zardgiv

You're missing the point. No one will be caught entering the U.S., with or without a visa, in a Sunnyvale mall parking lot. All you will likely be able to catch is unlawful presence, which is a civil matter and not a crime.

I really don't think you understand the difference between unlawful presence and improper entry. One of these is a crime while the other is not. Restating your false premise at the end doesn't make it more true; unlawful presence in the U.S. is not a crime, that's a simple fact.

Unlawful presence is 100% of the offenses you'll be able to catch in a Sunnyvale mall parking lot, and it disproves the OPs contention that they are all "criminal, by definition."

Unlawful presence, which is all anyone at a mall in California could be charged with, is a civil matter, not a crime.

Unless there's some international border in Sunnyvale I missed, I don't think the ALPRs will catch any illegal entry.

Ignored it again, and don't be coy, come out and state your opinion.

You completely ignored the first part of my comment.

It's convenient, too, that a ruling against the people you disagree with is considered just, but you'll withhold judgment if it's overturned.

What do you mean "there aren't others that are material?" Thiel himself has said that he's funding other suits against Gawker. The impending threat of a billionaire with a personal vendetta is a significant part of their financial problems.

Had Gawker won the case in federal court, as it was expected to and likely would have, or if they win on appeal, suddenly Thiel's actions become unethical? This hardly sounds like a well-thought out ethical system, but it seems like people only care about a free press or free speech depending on whose ox is getting gored.

Considering this is the only one of the lawsuits he's funded that he's revealed, it's unclear that all of them have merit. On top of that, they forum shopped this specific case and dropped claims that would have allowed Gawker's insurance to cover damages.

Further, even in the cases where there is merit, that does not preclude them being SLAPP.

Your argument is poorly thought out.

This sounds like it's meant to be a correction, but the post your responding to mentions neither legal fees nor damages. Are you responding to the right comment?

I think you're having difficulty distinguishing the concepts of "shunning" and "genocide."

Please try to follow the conversation. I was addressing the claim that shunning certain beliefs would cause society to collapse, and I've clearly demonstrated that to be false. Not sure how what you've ranted about here ties into that.

The marketplace of ideas means you don't get to dictate what others find relevant.

For some, this means that they don't want to be professionally or socially associated with someone who thinks some ethnic groups make genetically good slaves. People can vigorously discuss whether his writings crossed lines of acceptable behavior.

However, you're also free to discuss the technical details as much as you want! If that's what's relevant to you, that's perfectly acceptable as well, and it doesn't require you to defend his other writings.

[Citation needed]

No worries, I've tried to be precise but text is sometimes a difficult medium to get my point across.