Slashdot Mirror

Besides, Gore and Lieberman have been going on and on and on about how important it is to protect children from these things... but I haven't heard anything about that on this site. Oh, wait, didn't this site endorse Al Gore?

Why is it not considered newsworthy when there is a bipartisan witch hunt accross American culture going on, calling for regulation or at least threatening it, but the library in Holland, Michigan gets mentioned? Is it just snobbery (censoring movies and video games is ok, but censoring the Internet in Libraries isn't) or is it something else?

Statement linking media violence to violence in kids draws criticism

I'm glad you brought that up, it is a sickening example of organizations using junk science to curry favor with the current political mess we have in Washington. It's sort of like the way people were sent to insane asylums in the Soviet Union if they published books which were critical of the communist system...

The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)

I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal, in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:

The meeting came on the day nine U.S. senators sent a letter to top executives at Target, Best Buy, Circuit City and Kmart encouraging them to pull the games off their shelves or prevent their sale to anyone younger than 17.--Discount retailers resist efforts to limit sales of violent video games

The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.

I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.

It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.

The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)

I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal, in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:

The meeting came on the day nine U.S. senators sent a letter to top executives at Target, Best Buy, Circuit City and Kmart encouraging them to pull the games off their shelves or prevent their sale to anyone younger than 17.--Discount retailers resist efforts to limit sales of violent video games

The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.

I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.

It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.

The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)

I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal, in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:

The meeting came on the day nine U.S. senators sent a letter to top executives at Target, Best Buy, Circuit City and Kmart encouraging them to pull the games off their shelves or prevent their sale to anyone younger than 17.--Discount retailers resist efforts to limit sales of violent video games

The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.

I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.

It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.

and bands like Metallica are liable for kids going on killing sprees after listening to their music.

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/04/2000-04-07-01.asp

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/07/2000-07-31-08.htm

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/08/2000-08-03-03.htm

I'm not sure if the First Amendment still works or not, but it's getting closer and closer to the day when its just a hollow promise with no effectiveness in law.

and bands like Metallica are liable for kids going on killing sprees after listening to their music.

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/04/2000-04-07-01.asp

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/07/2000-07-31-08.htm

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/08/2000-08-03-03.htm

I'm not sure if the First Amendment still works or not, but it's getting closer and closer to the day when its just a hollow promise with no effectiveness in law.

and bands like Metallica are liable for kids going on killing sprees after listening to their music.

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/04/2000-04-07-01.asp

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/07/2000-07-31-08.htm

http://www.freedomforum. org/news/2000/08/2000-08-03-03.htm

I'm not sure if the First Amendment still works or not, but it's getting closer and closer to the day when its just a hollow promise with no effectiveness in law.

I should have said "Federal courts". Some state constitutions provide additional rights, among them California, Massachusetts, Oregon and New Jersey. This article says Minnesota is not one of them.

I won't speak for idlmx, but I do.

I loathe Katz's writing. (At least his /. writings. I find his writings on freedomforum.org to be much better, probably in part because he has an editor there, and in part because he's not trying to talk about technology to a bunch of people who know more about technology than he does.) But I love to hate Katz's writing. Every time I see a new Katz article, I'm drawn to it for the adrenaline rush I get out of being pissed off at his article.

People who say "If you don't like Katz then don't read him" don't understand how good it can feel to be righteously angry.

it actually is wierdly legal if the wartime powers act is invoked.

The War Powers Act is already in effect: the US has been in a State of Emergency for most of a century.

I'm not totally clear on the details, because this is one of the favorite topics of the conspiracy nutjobs, along with the FEMA Secret Government, black helicopters, UN-run concentration camps, Y2K and the New World Order, and these people tend to GET VERY WORKED UP about it and USE LOTS OF SCARE-CAPITALS!! So it's hard to dig the actual facts out of the noise.

If I remember correctly, the way it works is, Lincoln created the War Powers Act (or maybe the Trading With The Enemy Act?) to declare martial law and wage war against the South. At the end of the civil war, it was terminated, but FDR invoked it again during the depression, in order to, I think, nationalize the banking system? Something like that, I think it had something to do with seizing control of privately owned banks and creating the Federal Reserve. So then it turns out that the act was never officially suspended, which means that every action of the President since 1933 is technically approved, by default, without any checks and balances from the other two branches, and the Constitution is, technically, suspended.

Of course, this situation has only rarely been taken advantage of -- as far as one can usually tell, the Constitution is still obeyed. It has been taken advantage of a few times, though, I think by Nixon and Clinton when running some private war or another, but I don't remember the details there. (Only Congress has the power to declare war, but presidents have a habit of going to war without asking We The People first.) I'm not sure where the Japanese-American internment camps fit in to the picture, but they might also have been possible because of this same act.

This one is somewhat less shrill that most, but it's very long and hard to follow: http://www.afcomm.com/afc/report.html

The Constitution of the United States isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have today.

----------------------------

Oh by the way: http://www.freedomforum.org/newsstand/reports/sofa /foreword.asp

A Freedom Forum 1997 poll finds that: "When read the text of the First Amendment, 93% percent of respondents said they would ratify it" but "47% of those surveyed disagree with the idea that musicians should be allowed to sing songs with words that others find offensive", "29% think newspapers should not be allowed to criticize political candidates", and "75% would not allow people to utter words that might be offensive to racial groups."

I hate it here.

As for 'main-media source' (whatever the hell that means), this article was posted yesterday at The Freedom Forum Online the media component of a well respected centrist think-tank.

Here's a specific comment: Mr. Katz, I think this piece is a bit to simple for the slashdot audience. I believe most of the readership here is already aware of the situation outlined in the article and have come to their own conclusions regarding it. The Freedom Forum however is a great place for this article due to the generally lower net-awareness of it's readership. (yes that is my real opinion)

As for 'main-media source' (whatever the hell that means), this article was posted yesterday at The Freedom Forum Online the media component of a well respected centrist think-tank.

Here's a specific comment: Mr. Katz, I think this piece is a bit to simple for the slashdot audience. I believe most of the readership here is already aware of the situation outlined in the article and have come to their own conclusions regarding it. The Freedom Forum however is a great place for this article due to the generally lower net-awareness of it's readership. (yes that is my real opinion)

Unfortunately, this case was settled at the local level, and no national precident is there. However, this case should help the defence of the student as it argues *for* his rights outside of school grounds.

Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill from the APA Journal article

Barnett looks like he's explained this one before. "Marine Doom, as you saw, is not just a twitch game. The way you get through a Marine Doom scenario and survive is through teamwork and listening to your fire team leader and doing what you're supposed to...."

"It's about repetitive decision making," Snyder swiftly interjects. Snyder's habitual deference - even off-duty, he calls his friends sir - doesn't always extend to allowing Barnett to finish his sentences. "We're trying to get these things ingrained by doing them over and over, with variations. A real firefight is not a good time to explore new ideas."

"You also saw how everyone was absorbed," Barnett adds. "That's another part of it. Kids who join the marines today grew up with TV, videogames, and computers. So we thought, how can we educate them, how can we engage them and make them want to learn? This is perfect."

The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.

There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:

Lawmakers are uneducated about video game industry, panelist says

Illinois attorney general urges end to sales of violent video games to minors

And, most importantly: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.

Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill from the APA Journal article

Barnett looks like he's explained this one before. "Marine Doom, as you saw, is not just a twitch game. The way you get through a Marine Doom scenario and survive is through teamwork and listening to your fire team leader and doing what you're supposed to...."

"It's about repetitive decision making," Snyder swiftly interjects. Snyder's habitual deference - even off-duty, he calls his friends sir - doesn't always extend to allowing Barnett to finish his sentences. "We're trying to get these things ingrained by doing them over and over, with variations. A real firefight is not a good time to explore new ideas."

"You also saw how everyone was absorbed," Barnett adds. "That's another part of it. Kids who join the marines today grew up with TV, videogames, and computers. So we thought, how can we educate them, how can we engage them and make them want to learn? This is perfect."

The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.

There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:

Lawmakers are uneducated about video game industry, panelist says

Illinois attorney general urges end to sales of violent video games to minors

And, most importantly: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.

Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill from the APA Journal article

Barnett looks like he's explained this one before. "Marine Doom, as you saw, is not just a twitch game. The way you get through a Marine Doom scenario and survive is through teamwork and listening to your fire team leader and doing what you're supposed to...."

"It's about repetitive decision making," Snyder swiftly interjects. Snyder's habitual deference - even off-duty, he calls his friends sir - doesn't always extend to allowing Barnett to finish his sentences. "We're trying to get these things ingrained by doing them over and over, with variations. A real firefight is not a good time to explore new ideas."

"You also saw how everyone was absorbed," Barnett adds. "That's another part of it. Kids who join the marines today grew up with TV, videogames, and computers. So we thought, how can we educate them, how can we engage them and make them want to learn? This is perfect."

The psychological profession long ago decided that the road to power and political relevance was to reject the Aristotilean idea of catharsis and instead follow the Platonic idea that "the poets should be banned from the Republic because they get the people all stirred up." Otherwise, they won't get invited to testify on Capitol Hill or TV talk shows.

There are some counter articles out there today that everyone should also read:

Lawmakers are uneducated about video game industry, panelist says

Illinois attorney general urges end to sales of violent video games to minors

And, most importantly: Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

I think the big question that everyone needs to ask themselves is who better serves American interests, jurists, or psychologists? I agree with R. A. Heinlein (who used to get guff from amateur psychologist when he was writing his juvenile novels, Red Planet, and others) that the psychological profession is full of charlatans and quacks. Of course, with the current low regard the First Amendment and the entire Constitution is held in in this country, I don't expect my opinions to hold much weight.

Now the ACLU is in a position where they actually have to *defend* one of the industries (see the mattel articles in YRO) that they have very recently been trying to defend the people of this nation against[censorware]. What I don't get is why it either has to be censorware or censorship? IMO neither is acceptable under the first ammendment to the constitution.

Second, five justices also agreed that a form of expression -- in this case, totally nude dancing -- may be banned outright because of the "secondary effects" it has in promoting crimes such as alcohol abuse and domestic violence in the surrounding neighborhood. Souter, however, asserted that government must offer some evidence that these secondary effects will flow from the expression and that its statute will alleviate them.--quote from "Kandyland decision a new First Amendment landmark," by Tony Mauro on Freedom Forum

Missing from the above quote is the fact that David Souter was the only one of the justices who believed that you should have to prove "secondary effects." Of the remaining justices:

1.Scalia and Thomas: Basically said that the government can ban whatever you want if it is supporting "public morals."

2.O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer: Basically said that as long as the government asserts negative secondary effects as an excuse, they can ban whatever they want.

3. Stevens and Ginsburg: Dissented, pointing out that this was basically the end of the First Amendment as we know it in the United States of America.

Essentially, the "secondary effects doctrine" of the Supreme Court currently is, "if someone thinks it might cause a crime, it can be banned for that secondary effect." Currently, the First Amendment has about as much teeth in it as the Second Amendment, years of packing the Supreme Court with far right conservatives has had it's desired effect, which was always to reduce the effectiveness of Constitutional arguments. (Conservatives have been upset by "activist courts" which basically used the Constitution to enact legislation, such as bussing and Roe v. Wade. So the goal of conservatives and the "strict constructionist" philosophy was to weaken the Supreme Court and give power back to the Congress.) If the CDA were proposed today, it might not just pass, it would probably also pass Constitutional muster with the current court.

I suspect that this is why the ACLU is trying to argue that "well, we have filters so we don't need to enact bans" because under the new Constitution, just the fact of the First Amendment no longer protects you from being censored. It's a brave new world.

I hope people will consider this in the next election.

Now the ACLU is in a position where they actually have to *defend* one of the industries (see the mattel articles in YRO) that they have very recently been trying to defend the people of this nation against[censorware]. What I don't get is why it either has to be censorware or censorship? IMO neither is acceptable under the first ammendment to the constitution.

Second, five justices also agreed that a form of expression -- in this case, totally nude dancing -- may be banned outright because of the "secondary effects" it has in promoting crimes such as alcohol abuse and domestic violence in the surrounding neighborhood. Souter, however, asserted that government must offer some evidence that these secondary effects will flow from the expression and that its statute will alleviate them.--quote from "Kandyland decision a new First Amendment landmark," by Tony Mauro on Freedom Forum

Missing from the above quote is the fact that David Souter was the only one of the justices who believed that you should have to prove "secondary effects." Of the remaining justices:

1.Scalia and Thomas: Basically said that the government can ban whatever you want if it is supporting "public morals."

2.O'Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Breyer: Basically said that as long as the government asserts negative secondary effects as an excuse, they can ban whatever they want.

3. Stevens and Ginsburg: Dissented, pointing out that this was basically the end of the First Amendment as we know it in the United States of America.

Essentially, the "secondary effects doctrine" of the Supreme Court currently is, "if someone thinks it might cause a crime, it can be banned for that secondary effect." Currently, the First Amendment has about as much teeth in it as the Second Amendment, years of packing the Supreme Court with far right conservatives has had it's desired effect, which was always to reduce the effectiveness of Constitutional arguments. (Conservatives have been upset by "activist courts" which basically used the Constitution to enact legislation, such as bussing and Roe v. Wade. So the goal of conservatives and the "strict constructionist" philosophy was to weaken the Supreme Court and give power back to the Congress.) If the CDA were proposed today, it might not just pass, it would probably also pass Constitutional muster with the current court.

I suspect that this is why the ACLU is trying to argue that "well, we have filters so we don't need to enact bans" because under the new Constitution, just the fact of the First Amendment no longer protects you from being censored. It's a brave new world.

I hope people will consider this in the next election.

Kandyland decision a new First Amendment landmark

This is what happens when people consistently elect fanatics to high office. The most ridiculous part of it is what you know if you, like me, had family in law enforcement: that it can often be a case of "the wolves guarding the hen house." Note: I'm not refering to my Dad, who was a stand up guy. I'm referring to stuff my Dad knew about other cops, especially the ones in Newark.

Note though your problem was that the girls Dad obviously had it in for you and was able to use our country's rather insane view of sex to get you into trouble. (Note, it wouldn't have happened if you'd had family on the police department... he'd probably have ended up in prison for molesting his own daughter or something in that case!)

There in lies the problem though, the press is supposed to be independant, but when everyone in power is feeding from the same trough, you end up with a recipe for oppression.

Federal judge dismisses lawsuit against movie, video game makers

It has some interesting data on the case:

His [U.S. District Judge Edward Johnstone] opinion was based heavily on a similar case that arose a decade ago in which the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the makers of Dungeons & Dragons, a popular role-playing game, were not liable for a McCracken County, Ky., teen-ager's suicide.

This is soooo confusing. I think I'll wait a few days for the dumb version on freedomforum.org.

Article about a PUBLIC school in CA

Things are really bad, and Krystalnacht is closer than I'd like to think. It may be time for me to purchase a firearm, lest the religious fanatics decide to "hasten forth the Apocalypse."

That could have merit. I've heard of people being sued over photographing certain buildings without permission, because apparantly some form of copyright law covers architecture. Placing ads on the buildings certainly invalidates any claim of fair use from the news people.

Or, from a different angle, the owners of the building could sue on the grounds that by placing a false ad on their building, the news organization is implying that the building owners are endorsing the product/show/whatever, when in fact they are not.

Then again, IANAAC*, so don't take my word on it.

*I Am Not An Ambulance Chaser

Yes, Amphigory has an agenda, but that doesn't mean that what he says isn't true. Remember the way that in Animal Farm after the animals had been living under the tyrant pigs for many years they started listening to that bird who tried to sell them the "Rock Candy Mountain" idea again. (Their reason being that after suffering all their lives and dying miserable, surely there had to be something afterwards.)
Amphigory would probably love to see us all forced into church (his church, not the one I attend) at gun-point, "for our own good."
Of course, it is also quite possible that he is lying, people in the biggest cult we've got going in this country (They call themselves Christians, but seem to find the actual text of the New Testament to be decidedly inconvenient.) are quite capable of lying to achieve their ends, despite the Ten Commandments.
So you are right to question it, but I tend to think that behind all unreasoning religious fanaticism lies a foundation of severe emotional scarring.
To be fair, I may send my own children to a religious school (of my own choosing) rather than a public school, if they are going to get religion at school, I'd prefer it to be the religion I was raised in and not some wierd dogma that I find to be "cultish" in its application. (Remember Reverend Jim of the People's Temple claimed to be a Christian.) This is actually happening at some schools in this country, see this article. This is what happens when educated people don't pay attention to local politics.

First off, you stay informed -- thorugh sites like the Freedom Forum, Wired News, the ACLU, and even Slashdot. The ACLU in particular is the best firstbet to both staying informed and participating in "average Joe" armchair activism, mainly thorugh their Alert list, which often contains links to pages at the ACLU website where you can send free faxes to your Congressional representatives on a variety of pressing issues.

More, start finding the sources for keeping track of First Amendment issues locally where you live. Big national issues get decent attention sometimes, but local issues (often, these days, based around youth) do not. Not to come back to ACLU again, but it wouldn't hurt to join your state chapter.

Look, can you still burn the flag? Yes. If THEY didnt want us to burn it, then THEY would make it illegal.

Pay attention - you'd know they have only been a few votes shy in conress each time they've done it. Which means more than half of the people there want to outlaw it. This is for an amendment to the constitution! And all 50 states have already said they'd ratify the amendment. Only a few votes away from that!

Which freedoms are being decreased? Which do they claim that we have that we actually don't have?

Freedom of the press is continually being eroded. As time goes on, they lose a little here, lose a little there. Freedom of religion is an utter joke - it's freedom of Christianity and little more - there are countless laws based on little more than Christian morality. What, you believe that you can marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person? Nope, you're not allowed because the Christians don't do it and they made the law.

Take a peek at The Freedom Forum and you can see how well the government respects freedom.

As long as we need an ACLU to fight for the people and the constitution it's evidence that the government is going the wrong way. As long as we have to fight the gov't to try and keep what we've got we're not going to have an easy time gaining new ones.
---

Hey, didn't you already post this message on Freedom Fourm last week???

Censorware Article

This article proves that when pushed to the wall, into a position where children will not see the things they object to, conservatives (that's a small c, I mean people who favor the status quo from 10-20 yrs ago, whatever their political affiliation) are still interested in censoring those things. I think they sincerely think that these things are worse for children than adults... but that's only because they think these things are bad for everyone and ought not to exist at all.
If theaters lose money over this, expect the majority movies to be moderated down to PG-13. After all an unfortunate side effect of this new technological age is that the affluent can always see the directors cut on their DVD players and digital TV while the working poor can probably only get the "Blockbuster Version" of the movies. Which creates a side effect that the elitists in our government are probably happy about, unrestricted access to culture may become a province of the upper class in this society while the working class are all treated as children.

When the government _asks_ you to do something voluntarily, remember that they do it while holding a gun.
See the following article:

Hollywood: the power and the evil

Hate to say this, but this article is pratically the same (it may be exactly the same, but I'm not about to perform a byte-by-byte comparison) as the one at The Freedom Forum (one of those first-amendment-only freedom sites, from what I can tell).

Actually, on reading it I notice that there are a few minor differences. Can't Katz put out some original work?

That said, neither article was particularly ground-breaking. I learned nothing and my interest failed to be sparked. The articles are rehashes of facts. What they need is an analysis of said facts. That's the problem with much of Katz's writing: it lacks analysis. If I want facts, I can go to the encyclopædia.

Slashdot is not the forum for posting authoritatively. If you are Neal Stephenson, RMS, ESR, or Madelyn Albright, you post an article on your own web server (www.well.com/~neal, www.fsf.org, www.tuxedo.org/~esr, or www.state.gov respectively) and then we can link to it. There is authority in posting on official sites. Top level articles are not usually written specifically for slashdot, except maybe Jon Katz's articles. But even then he often recycles them on other sites, like www.freedomforum.org

To whom it may concern:

I have been watching with great sadness the events of the previous days. The actions of the two young men, and any who may have assisted them, cannot be explained or justified. There is nothing that I, or anyone, can say to help those affected by this tragedy. For what it is worth, I am truly sorry for what has happened.

However, I have noticed that in the aftermath of this tragedy there have been a number of responses which I feel are both inappropriate and ineffective.

Many schools have banned trench coats. Others have singled out certain activities, such as computer games or role-playing games, as causes of this type of attack. Students who do not "fit in" with the majority have always been harrassed both by other students and sometimes even the administration. Now this has intensified, as these students are being threatened with suspensions, mandatory counseling, and even verbal and physical abuse, simply based on how they look or dress.

Such harrassment is nothing new. In fact, during my time in high school, I myself was one of the outcasts. I was often verbally abused, and sometimes physically. I know for a fact that my experiences were relativly mild compared to the abuse some of my fellow classmates recieved.

There exist, in every school, those who are popular and those who are not. Typically, people become outcasts because they happen to enjoy intellectual pursuits instead of physical ones. In some cases they are simply shy or reclusive. The high school environment is not friendly to this type of person. Often times members of the "popular" crowd attack the "outcasts", in order to feel better about themselves or to impress their peers. I speak from experience when I say a large amount of resentment builds up in those who are affected by this kind of treatment.

Sadly, in my case, most of the administration appeared to be against us as well. My friends and I did not feel that we could go to them with our problems, because they seemed to be "out to get us", instead of trying to help us. I fear that this rift between "fringe" students and the administration has only worsened in light of the response of some schools to this tragedy.

I do not write this to condone the actions of the murderers, or even to try to reduce their accountability. Ultimatly, the blame for this act rests on their shoulders. However, I would like to ask you, as the administration, to dig deeper into the circumstances surrounding this horrific event. Please don't believe that by placing the blame on video games, rock music, or the internet, you can make the problem go away. The problem is much more difficult than a person's choice of clothing or how well they conform to social norms.

The problem is a few children are persecuted by everyone else, and everyone else gets away with it. The problem is that students do not always treat other students with respect or even decency. The problem is that these school-yard bullies get away with their actions.

Attacking the outcasts is not a viable solution. It will only serve to increase the bitterness that they already hold toward their school. Calling out "witch-hunts" on those who do not fit in will certainly not increase school solidarity or improve relations between the students.

The mainstream media has barely hinted at this deeper cause, despite the notes left by the killers themselves. I would like to point out two articles which I have found on the internet regarding the potential effects of high school on children. These articles are much more eloquent then what I have written here.

Colorado Denver Post

Jonathan Katz article

Those who have been labeled by society as "outcasts", "misfits", or "fringe", are not evil people. Although the attack on Columbine was perpetrated by a pair of students who fit these descriptions, most of us who were not popular in high school simply did not want to interact with those who did not like us. Please take the initiative to examine all of the aspects of this problem. Please act constructivly to prevent such occurences from happening again, instead of simply repeating the superficial and self-defeating actions that many schools have already taken.

Thank you very much for your time,

Sincerely,
Robert Dillon
Heritage High School, Littleton, CO
Class of 1995

foxfire10@hotmail.com