Slashdot Mirror

No. The PATRIOT Act doesn't affect free speech. No laws were ever enacted to eliminate "anti-American" speech. Not in the last 40-50 years. You should focus on what's actually true.

Oh really?

and, finally, section 215, which grants unprecedented authority to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants for business, medical, educational, library, and bookstore records merely by claiming that the desired records may be related to an ongoing terrorism investigation or intelligence activities

(from http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/patriotact.html). Being able to read what you want is a critical component of free speech, after all what good is freedom of speech if people are prohibited from listening to you? And you should be able to listen to speech with the assumption of privacy, especially when in a private place.

As for marriage, why does 3-5% of the population get to decide for the other 96% what a marriage is?

Its freedom. It doesn't affect you in the slightest. Same thing with beliefs, just because your neighbor is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Agnostic, Atheist, Polytheistic, Taoist, or believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster it doesn't matter. Similar with marriage. What difference does it make that two men or two women can get married? For that matter really it doesn't matter if two women and three men get married. It doesn't matter in the least. Myself, I disagree with the homosexual and polygamist lifestyles, however, so long as there is no abuse going on, I see no reason why you shouldn't let them do as they please just like even though I may disagree with Hinduism, I respect Hindu's rights to believe what they want and expect them to respect my beliefs too.

Meanwhile, people's ability to access certain pages on library terminals is restricted by law. Children who cannot afford computers and internet service in their homes are the ones to suffer most as they're forced to deal with a second-class Internet

The original constitutional reason for copyrights and patents was to support "THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE AND USEFUL ARTS"--not to protect the creation of what the great Ralph Nader calls "violent corporate sponsored pornography".

I don't opposed government subsidies of "science and the useful arts"--if done on a basis that is fair and democratic --promoting technological development that creates the kind of advancements and culture much of the population wants. What Hollywood wants goes beyond free speech, or subsized technical advancements, Hollywood wants active government support of privately owned, corporate managed social control mechanisms. Given the fact that since protection of these mechanisms has intensified the last 40 years, we've seen a signficant drop in things like disposable income, and an increase in economic inequality, IMHO it is high time we use what political rights we have left and seriously look for alternatives here.

Yeah, I have read about Colonel Grossman before. The issue I have with his work is that he treats the "problem" from an anecdotal vantage point, based on his experiences in the military, instead of actually doing any hard scientific research on the subject. Even on his web site, none of the publications he lists are anything more than "expert opinion" pieces on the subject; it doesn't appear that a single one of them is based on the conclusions of any empirical investigations. While his experience may validate some of his assertions within the context of said experience - IE, the military, it does not automatically imply a direct correlation to the media violence situation involving kids. He also commits, in my eyes, the cardinal sin of the "media violence makes killers" group and supports the incorrect notion that the level of violence in schools is escalating. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case, as there has been a steady decline in school violence for many years. He also tends to harp on the general increase in violence in society in the last 50 years, and assigns some significant level of blame to the media violence issue, even though there are MANY more significant prime factors involved.

There is a HUGE difference between the "forced" training model in the military (which sometimes does include such things as brainwashing and propaganda), and the VOLUNTARY participatory environment involving the media. No one is forcing anyone to "conform or else" to the circumstances in the media. Even within games, which are more interactive and immersive in nature than TV/movies, there is nothing forcing anyone to accept the circumstances as real and necessary to live their lives from that point on. That is not true in the context of the military. There is very little that is voluntary when you join the military, and anything that is has been carefully crafted and orchestrated so that it maximizes your value TO the military, not to yourself.

I also want to point out that I too believe that "life experiences make the individual". However, since media, including video games, exists and is perceived within a frame of reference completely outside of reality (no, there are not little people inside of your TV or monitor shooting each other), I do not consider it as a "shaping" or "defining" experience in peoples' lives. Sure, if you mentally condition a child that what he sees in the "box" is real/true and is what is expected of him/her in real life, then that's a problem. However, it has nothing to do with the media, as it was not intended (nor condoned!) to be used or presented in that fashion. That is entirely a brainwashing issue, and the person doing the act to the child is guilty of child abuse.

Oh, since you've provided one reference, here's one of mine: Free Expression Policy Project.

tell someone you're a cop, and they always want to tell you about the last traffic tickets they got, and why they didn't deserve them.

Who said anything about getting a traffic ticket? I'm talking about being stopped for doing NOTHING WRONG, not even getting a warning. I am talking about OBVIOUS "fishing expeditions". I am almost a complete teetotaller, yet I have been stopped several times in the last few years and been given FULL field sobriety tests on the side of the road, including "breathalyzer" tests. It's bad enough being stopped, due to the harassment factor, but then the officers just had to go and endanger my safety by having me do all sorts of mental and physical gymnastics on the side of traffic-laden thoroughfares just so they could play their little "game".

It isn't just the "local" police, either; the majority of encounters I have had with law enforcement officials, whether state, county, city, whatever, has been mostly negative. There have been shining examples of officers who go the extra mile, but these have been few and far between. Maybe it is because I am rarely in need of the "good" kind, but I am FAR less deservi

People are arguing the IP subject. I think what people want is sane laws. Can we say that our present laws fit that definition?

----
COPYFIGHT: the politics of IP