Note that the court did not hold only that the somnolent protestors had a right not to have their sleep interrupted by blows from the police. If this is what it had said, it would have meant only that nobody has the right to attack anyone who is asleep because they are incapable of either defending themselves physically or reasoning with their attacker. However, the court's formulation goes further than merely asserting the right to sleep as a right against assault when the human faculties are dulled by sleep. It actually asserts the importance of sleep for an individual's well- being. If the court had taken the first position, it could have been presumed to be upholding a negative right, a right not to be interfered with. Here, however, the court is actually laying down a new positive right, a right that it is now incumbent upon the state to provide.
So everybody pretends they don’t know what the future holds, when the unfortunate fact is that — unless we start paying very serious attention — it holds what the past holds: a great deal of extreme boredom punctuated by occasional horror and the odd moment of grace.
Jesus the fine print even has them harvesting your internet history.