Slashdot Mirror

https://www.freespeech.org/

You are utterly cool! Hey they have dumped boddie on your yard?!!! did I get that right?

I appreciate the sentiment, man, but I gotta tell you - it is *not* cool to have stuff like that happen to you - it just really sux, actually. But yeah - it really happened. And I think the technical term for me (when those sorts of things were going on) was not so much "cool" as it was "hotter than a 2 dollar pistol on saturday nite" - as in "if you know me then at least 2 federal agencies have your name on at least one list each" and my best freind was a lawyer. And fwiw, no - I am not wanted (to the best of my knowledge) and am not a career criminal - I'm just a guy who doesn't like to be told to shut up.

.Its good to know that there are intellegent people still hangin in there rejecting all this nazi bullshit.

I just wanted to make sure you knew you're not the only one out here ... And as the guy on FSTV reminds us: "You are not alone"

See also: Open Letter to Cindy Sheehan, Crawford, Texas written by Ralph Nader, 10 August 2005 published on DemocracyRising.US - really you are not alone...

There are many journalists and media sources who do not give in to the profit first mentality, i.e. democracynow.org, freespeech.org, pbs.org. Granted some of the messages from these outlets can be just as hair brained and off base as the paid shills, but they are out there none the less.

I will agree that for profit journalists and media bring in more cash for themselves and have the resources to make more noise and be in more peoples faces. However, the attention they get is not due to demand for their product no more than rubber neckers at a train wreck create a demand for more train wrecks.

And in case you haven't noticed, those same for profit journalists, media, and their corporate backers with deep pockets are funding a massive attack on the linux community because the community threatens their for profit revenue streams. The level of education and susceptibility of the community have little to do with the unethical actions of those who would attack the community.

burnin

(doh, forgot to post anonymously, maybe next time)

no i obviously do not support the filtering of Chinese internet access. nor do i support the filtering of American journalists covering wars such as Gulf War I or Gulf War II. nor do i support tv stations that won't let high school students air commercials about non-smoking. nor do i support radio stations that play the same content across the continent. nor do i support the concentratrion of media ownership in the hands of a very powerful few much to the detriment of people like us.

free speech isn't just about being able to shout, it's also about hearing every voice you need to hear. for analysis of how speech is not truly free in North America see Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.

However flawed it is, support Indy Media in your town.

and what are we talking about? we're talking about Free Speech It is not just about howling to keep the Right, it is remembering that it has to be exercised continually in defense of it -- and that includes questioning how we exercise it.

oh and in answer to the first question about "upset" about it, well we're talking about the Toronto Sun which is just desperate to be seen as a hot and important news source.

Perhaps you should go back and read what tortures the Gestapo & SS used before drawing the analogy?

Why? Because it's uncomfortable to realize that you are supporting terror? Your denial won't change the facts, my friend.

Not to mention this picture is actually a fake, as proven by snopes: foto

Look around under "photos" for the original. I think it originally said "We're Ready"

Will they let you shoot Iraqi women and children, like America's real army?

Yes. They can.

Can terrorists build a nuclear bomb? Yes, we can. And as a patriot I say it with shame.

Lets check these 'facts':

So the Chinese Army did not send in tanks to stop students protesting?
- The US Govt has used the army against its own population. Check the protests in the 60's. The US regularly uses its army both overtly (iraq, grenada) and covertly (cambodia, iran, south america) against other countries.

So those executions I saw where they had the people kneel and put a bullet in their brain never happened?
- The US executes a truck-load of people. In fact, this is a problem highlighted by both Amnesty International and the US Supreme Court.

So there really is freedom of religion and speech in China?
- Freedom on religion and speech? No problem (as long as you are not a muslim). Yes, I will conceded that on this point, the US does provide significantly more freedoms.

And the Chinese did not lob missiles over an island full of people to keep them in line?
- The US government regularly lobs missiles into cities and towns (iraq, afghanistan). Dont be fooled into thinking these 'smart bombs' are really that smart - 17,000 iraqis can't be wrong (but they are dead).

- TV does propogate myths in both directions - dont believe everything your overlords tell you.

The US seemed okay with gassing the Kurds as well. We provided the satellite intelligence to Saddam's military so that they could evaluate the efficacy of their operation.

We didn't make too much noise as long as Saddam continued to pound the crap out of Iran.

Hey, several weren't secret at all. Take, for instance, Salvador Allende. We replaced him with Pinochet.

Link. If you claim this is simply tinfoil-hattery, I'm done talking to you.

I truthfully don't know the whole story either

Not necessarily. If 8-10% or 5-30% of cluster-bomblets lie unexploded in schoolyards in the mid east, it doesn't matter that much to the military so long as the 60% that exploded killed whomever they were trying to drop them on.

Same probably goes for ICBMs. It doesn't as much how many fail, as much as how many happen to work.

The French resistance, for example, known for the excellent work it did and the dangers it exposed itself to.

The French didn't even complain after allied raids during WW2 killed thousands of civilians.

Had the allies allowed Hitler to gain an even stronger foothold, the US would have been doomed, and the US knew that.

Shouldn't the officer go to jail and you be rewarded?

A police officer will go to jail for his illegal actions when hell freezes over.

I hate cops. Maybe I have a bias towards them, or maybe I just read too many fucking articles

Europe has [...] been subjected to [the] IRA, ETA, Bader Meinhof and the likes.

Question: Exactly how many of those are foreign terrorists instead of domestic terrorist?

Europe hasn't really suffered much under foreign terrorist attacks until the same timeframe that the US did. Spain's first foreign terrorist act seems to be a result of their getting involved in Iraq. Other than that, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Armenia, Russia, and the like have all suffer attack from home.

Oh, and the US has negotiated NUMEROUS times with tyrants. The CIA put many of them into place in South America to keep democratically elected Communist governments that weren't friendly to our businesses from staying power. We also did or still do business with Saddam Hussein, the Saud royal family, the Shah of Iran, Kim Jong Il, Aristide, Ceausescu, and Musharraf. Put any of those names into Google along with "America" and "business," and you'll get some pretty damning history. In the realm of negotiating with or surrendering to terrorists, what do you call our willingness to negotiate with Arafat or our withdrawal from Lebanon with our tails tucked between our legs in the 80s?

As long as Dish Network still carries FreeSpeech TV I am happy, who needs Viacom's corporate channels anyway.

Dish has Free Speech TV. Probably most of interest to progressive leftists it has programming that you can't find carried anywhere else.

Perhaps in Europe everything is opposite (well, having been there, it'd come as no surprise to me if this was true :-) ), but I do know one thing: There's a great deal of broadcasters in North America who lack any form of commercials.

Some of them are paid directly by people who subscribe to the programming, for example, HBO, and FSTV. Some of them broadcast for free and have absolutely no charge attached to them, for example, PBS, and, to some degree (if you live outside of Ontario) TV Ontario. FSTV also has a station without commercials.

Commercial free stations such as TV Ontario, PBS, FSTV, and the various religious stations regularly broadcast content which a great many would find objectionable if they didn't keep their TV sets glued to stations they actually enjoy. In fact, in spite of the fact the BBC forces a license upon people in the UK for their content, PBS manages to give away many of the exact same programs developed by the BBC themselves, and has continued to do so for years. Also, I am certain that the content broadcast on FSTV is FAR more objectionable to many than just about ANY other station I know of, especially the BBC.

Why it is that there are more commercial free programs being broadcast that I can pick up in North America for free than there are in the UK under forced licencing will always remain an unsolveable enigmah to me.

Perhaps in Europe everything is opposite (well, having been there, it'd come as no surprise to me if this was true :-) ), but I do know one thing: There's a great deal of broadcasters in North America who lack any form of commercials.

Some of them are paid directly by people who subscribe to the programming, for example, HBO, and FSTV. Some of them broadcast for free and have absolutely no charge attached to them, for example, PBS, and, to some degree (if you live outside of Ontario) TV Ontario. FSTV also has a station without commercials.

Commercial free stations such as TV Ontario, PBS, FSTV, and the various religious stations regularly broadcast content which a great many would find objectionable if they didn't keep their TV sets glued to stations they actually enjoy. In fact, in spite of the fact the BBC forces a license upon people in the UK for their content, PBS manages to give away many of the exact same programs developed by the BBC themselves, and has continued to do so for years. Also, I am certain that the content broadcast on FSTV is FAR more objectionable to many than just about ANY other station I know of, especially the BBC.

Why it is that there are more commercial free programs being broadcast that I can pick up in North America for free than there are in the UK under forced licencing will always remain an unsolveable enigmah to me.

I'll never figure out why we'll use a bomb which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to snipe someone... when a 10 cent bullet would do the trick just fine.

The public is more forgiving of civilian massacres when bombs are used rather than rifles a la No Gun Ri.

Why is that great?

would you want to live in the world with the same freedoms of uncivilized times?

9/10/2001 was uncivilized times? In that case, yes! The only way to ensure democracy is transparency in the government, not in the citizenry. I would consider this age of secret trials, secret military tribunals, and illegal captivity without due process to be uncivilized.

I'm still miffed that I lost my freedom to dump toxic waste in drinking water.

I can't believe you really did that. If you did, and when you say "I lost my freedom", I hope that means you're in jail for violating the rights of others. But, what I don't understand is how that relates to the State monitoring your every move in public, and after that's allowed who knows how much longer before they do it in private?

Why can't I take guns on airlines?

Because, unlike guarding your privacy from intrusive government, carrying a lethal weapon can be contributive to intentionally lethal acts? Couple that with the ease in which a single bullet could quickly wipe-out hundreds of lives, on the plane and on the ground, made the argument for a gun-ban on planes that much easier to swallow. Mass murder, as it happens, was illegal pre-9/11.

Why can't I have the freedom to molest young children?

Because you would be violating their rights?

This cameras sounds like a good one. Do people really have an expectation of privacy when they're on public streets?

Not from each other, but from a government proven to abuse the power granted to it by the people at every opportunity. Your unreasonable fear of everything in life (from sudden heart-attacks to skidding in the rain), and incessant need for safety, encroaches upon my liberty to enjoy life without intrusive government. Just behave sensibly and you'll survive as your forefathers did across millions of years simply to produce the unique individual known as *you*. There's no government-monitored camera on you right now, and look you're still breathing!!

I'd love to see national ID's, I don't even understand the privacy argument against it.

The reluctance you don't understand stems from years of documented abuse by what at first appeared to be reasonable (to the population at the time) requests and benign acts by various governments to keep order. The arguments are always the same, as are the results. I don't have to name recent government abuses to you, you know them. We won't even go into the governmental abuses throughout history. To ignore the lessons from the past and think that they won't be repeated is naive. People haven't changed, and it's people in government who abuse their responsibilities and their authority. Most do so without penalty.

It's simple the government needs a way to identify it's citizens.

How does it do it now? Have

Wiping out villages...

Curse my terrible memory, but that does remind me of something...

Why is it that when someone tries to compare the great AMERICAN (insert state/action/policy here), they get accused of oversimplifying? How much of an oversimplification is us-good, them-bad?

1. Kill a million peasants who try to establish justice
2. Sign free trade agreement
3. PROFIT! Big time - by sending your jobs south.

the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.

Some would argue that American imperial ambition began with the Declaration of Independence, and continued throughout the Western expansion -- that every square inch of what is today America was taken by force.

Even a less sanguine historian -- say, Mark Twain -- would agree that American imperialism was obvious by the time of the Phillipine war.

-kgj

No doubt, after all, you aren't subjected to or influenced by any propaganda or censorship are you?

culture fostered by religious zealotry

Ah. I see, you imply the influence of christian fundamentalism [and capitalist fundamentalism, as identified by Time magazine] on the political culture of the USA is not significant. Hmm.

This same culture that still thinks it's ok to stone people to death, and cut off body parts

Ummm, can you say electric chair? Years of death row? Solitary confinement, chain gangs, nasty nasty prison demographics driven by race and personal drug use? Drug use ennabled by USA semi-covert geopolitics. That's not backwards, barbaric, and oppressive, it's justice, right?

we aren't like them, so we MUST be evil

Actually, in my somewhat removed yet close enough point of view, I think that key elements in the dominant USA political culture are very much like the more bizarre cultural aspects of your avowed enemies. Sexual repression and an obsession with hooters, however, to me, are opposite sides of the same coin.

terrorists never tried to explain WHY they did what they did

Fair enough. Though perhaps it has something to do with all those weapons of mass destruction you stockpile and use occasionaly [and continue to develop, to stay on topic]. Could you please explain to me just why water and sanitation facilities were targeted during the war? Or the Highway of Death during the previous invasion of Iraq? Is al-Qaeda's death toll anywhere near the 6 million plus (estimated by Philip Agee and many others) dead by '87 thanks to American covert wars? Oh, and are you SURE they never tried? Did the USA provide an accurate explanation in Arabic of why you were actually invading? Maybe to those who are virulently opposed to the USA's foreign policy it's either self evident, or you just aren't going to get it.

The citizens of Iraq, Vietnam, Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you there.

You must flame me because you know I'm right.

I wish someone would hook this up to a KU satellite and make it public. There's a lot of content that flows across there that's copyright clear. Heck there's even copyright clear stuff on DISH network satellite, a bunch of the stuff on Free Speech TV is available for noncommercial copying/viewing, like Democracy Now! and Indymedia Newsreal.

or somebody is trying to rip off an already popular picture. The whole David vs. Goliath thing sells.

>If that's the case, then why do people need to pirate Windows to get a job as you suggested before?

Because the want the same "leg-up" that everyone else has. Perhaps need is too strong a word.

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that. Pirating satellite TV is probably illegal, even if you're in Canada, and definitely unethical.

You can consider it unethical. I don't.

Here's the law at the time:

9. (1) No person shall
(a) knowingly send, transmit or cause to be sent or transmitted any false or fraudulent distress signal, message, call or radiogram of any kind;
(b) without lawful excuse, interfere with or obstruct any radiocommunication;
(c) decode an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed otherwise than under and in accordance with an authorization from the lawful distributor of the signal or feed;
(d) operate a radio apparatus so as to receive an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c); or
(e) retransmit to the public an encrypted subscription programming signal or encrypted network feed that has been decoded in contravention of paragraph (c).

At the time, as you can see, you were required to be a lawful distributor to have protection against having your signal hacked. DirecTV/Dishnetwork/whoever were not lawful in Canada, and therefore not protected by this legislation.

BTW: I can't do that anymore because the Supreme Court redefined the definition of lawful (only in Canada can the Supreme Court basically re-write a law -- So lame, it's beyond definition) to mean anything that is lawful in any country. Technically that means that if sealand beams a pirated, but encrypted, signal to Canada, Canadian citizens wouldn't be able to legally turn them in. :-)

>You can have an interest in whatever the heck you want; there are no laws against that.

Yes, there are. That's the problem. It is illegal for me to watch TV with too low an amount of Canadian content in Canada.

BTW: During the time it was legal to pirate American TV, it was still illegal to pay for it. So, is it unethical for me to have an interest in foreign cultures, in free speech? That's the real question you have to ask yourself.

Piracy isn't always unethical.

What really grates my nerves is that Free Speech TV is outlawed. Isn't that a twisted way for a government to operate!

I wouldn't say "worse" but just as bad. First go read "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong". Here are some examples:

Genocide of American Indians: (One example) "In 1851 the Governor of California officially called for the extermination of the Indians in his state. [3, pg.144] "

The Lynching of Blacks up to the 1980s.

That's just two..there's plenty more..read that book...

It's about advancing US nuclear reactor technology enough to replace our hydrocarbon-based power plants with generators that don't fund al Quaeda?

No, it's about funding projects which are far worse than al quaeda

It works.

We hit a carpool of hundreds of escaping Iraqi rebels who had just raided Kuwait houses and raped and piliged Kuwaiti citizens.

Remains of an Iraqi soldier
The even is known as the "Highway of Death" and it was a war crime.
They were killed AFTER Saddam had agreed to pull his troops out of Kuwait and surrender and they were bombed with Napalm, an anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols which the USA had signed.

Lets no forget that most of the Iraq army during the Gulf War and Iran/Iraq war were just civilians in military uniform. Of course they surrendered.

You might also be interested in reading this
"The double perimeter may be designed to draw U.S. and allied forces toward Baghdad and then conduct artillery attacks on them using shells filled with chemical and biological weapons."

Because without passive-aggressive complaining about Microsoft we'd have nothing to talk about. The whole approach that Slashdot takes on Microsoft with is not helping the common cause.

Like the story about X-Box mods being banned. Blizzard does the same thing with Diablo and Warcraft hackers as it is a very good idea, so no need to heap on the accusatory tone.

This reminds me of two things: the criticism of Dilbert that it makes workers more content to whine than change the system, and the lament by CmdrTaco about childish anti-Microsoft tactics, framed nicely against the Slashdot topic icon for Microsoft.

People ask why nobody cares about this sort of stuff, when the answer is obvious. At large, nobody knows about this.

I think the bigger problem is that the general populus doesn't understand technology enough to realize how important these "online rights" issues are. And thus they don't care. If you try to explain, they quickly lose interest because it requires too much technical background.

I sometimes feel frustrated and powerless when I see Microsoft getting away with what it does... or any u.s. corporation for that matter. Enron, anyone? No indictments yet? Can you say "plutocracy?"

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." -- Robert Heinlein

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." --Martin Luther King, Jr.

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its ruin." --Samuel Adams

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." --Benito Mussolini

""I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." --Thomas Jefferson 1812

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." --Abraham Lincoln 1865

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power." --President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The goal is to keep the bewildered herd bewildered. It's unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it's undesirable -- if they see too much of reality they may set themselves to change it." --Noam Chomsky

Free Speech TV.
On DISH Network, and
www.freespeech.org.

It is owned by a non-profit organization, and airs social, political, cultural, and environmental programming. I have seen some very well-done programs critisizing governments, corporate media, advertising, etc. on FSTV and they are all advertisement free.

DISH Network was also cheaper than cable for me. $200(US) equipment +$9/month = $25/month for one year, compared to $40 or $50/month cable fees in my area.

[Adams] added: "In contrast, small companies don't even consider such things because they don't have the luxury to do anything but important things. I personally experienced a huge decrease in bureaucracy at Pacific Bell that seemed mostly related to the downsizing. It's obviously not an absolute statement, but it's certainly true for many of the white-collar groups in previously bloated companies."

I agree with him that, in the white-collar world at least, smaller groups are more productive; the workforce should be just sufficient enough to handle the workload. If you're spending all your time at meeting or focus groups, it's time to move some folks out of there and you should bring that up to your boss. I also think that it's better to have 100 small companies than 10 large companies.

Scott Adams has never made it seem that Dilbert was anything more than a money maker for him. I read Dilbert because it's funny, I don't see any of that "officer worker underground" type stuff in it. I'm sure your PHB tapes Dilbert cartoons at his desk because he feels the same way about his PHB.

You should check out The Trouble With Dilbert, the full text of which is now online (if you can't get it there, other places may have it by now). It's a worthwhile read, I enjoyed reading the print version. In case you can't get to the artwork in the print version, see if your local library has a copy you can borrow. The artwork is worth seeing as well.

Is this Norman Solomon the same idiot who published the The Trouble With Dilbert??

He obviously has a problem with corporation or person who is willing to market themselves to make a little money. Yeah, Dilbert is a little overmarketed, but somebody is still buying all the crap, right? Yeah, the internet is dominated by a few corporations, but everyone is still going to their websites, right?


This guy doesn't care that the internet is becoming more of a corporate entity. He doesn't care that the commonly held view of the net as the last bastion of truly democratic mass communication is, in fact, a myth. He's just pissed that people aren't buying books or going to his website, so he decided to fire off a few well carefully worded editorials, and try to extend his 15 minutes of fame.

And the really sad thing is this: He got his 15 minutes from /. -- a website owned by a publicly traded corporation --


The shame! The horror!

The mp3 engineers hire a bean counter who tells them how much money they are losing annually because of the popularity of their format. They begin to enforce royalty and licensing issues with an iron fist.

As providers of mp3s encoders and content providers begin to get hit financially by the Germans they set out for a new alternative to mp3. Something similar, if not better in quality than mp3 which would contain no financial implications. Ogg is discovered in 2002! Marketing and PR dollars by many organizations are spent on promoting Ogg as the next evolution in digital music.

Other forward thinking production companies, music labels begin to release music using EFF's new open audio license therefore by passing all the BS of copyrights for music that will be exchanged by the masses anyway.

Additional companies begin to insert FreeDB tags into their ogg files so that players released in 2003 can pull info off their now completely free and open music system. Early adopters include NPR, IndyMedia and other production companies. By 2004 WMP and QuickTime have codecs for playing ogg files.

The only twist here is if Franhofer never attempts to forcefully collect on the mp3 codec formula. If it doesn't cost anything for developers to use, there will never be reason enough to switch at this point of acceptance.

excuse me, I don't know how that space got in there.
Here's the link

I like that the Salon article presents a different view of this case, but I believe this is more 'wound-licking' on the side of free speech. If there is an industry that has more than enough resources to avoid the simple formality of appearing "anti-academic", it is the entertainment industry.

More likely than not, the RIAA (if even presented with this at all) will trumpet the unpublished paper as a victory for the DMCA. The DMCA in this case has been used to protect corporate interest/intellectual property. So a professor got bullied, who cares if entertainment is so vital to the economy? Such rhetoric is what really matters in these situations. Money will always win over free speech.

As a disclaimer, I am a musician that gives away all of my merchandise freely. That includings CDs, tapes, clothing, and anything else we do. We record, manage, and distribute our work and performances. Interested? mp3.com/leftunsaid and freespeech.org/leftunsaid.

I would like nothing more than the collapse of huge industry trade groups, but we must realize that nothing short of convincing the masses that the system they are used to is wrong will fix things. Etertainment existed centuries before people charged for it, but its strange to think that in this day and age. Thanks.

please donate money to PBS

1. Pacifica Radio. Still good, even with all the current problems. Be sure to listen to Democracy Now! with your RealAudio player.
2. Radio for Peace International Free Speech non-commercial shortwave station broadcasting from Costa Rica
3. Public Access Television. NOT affiliated with PBS. On your local cable network. Watch it, and support it by taking the classes and MAKE YOUR OWN SHOW!
4. Deep Dish TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.
5. Free Speech TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.
6. Paper Tiger TV. Available on Public Access and on some Satellite networks.

With the large number of blackhats likely to be in the population of those pissed-off about the way things have been going, I'm surprised that the RIAA and its major members still have intact web prescence. Not that I'm advocating or condoning civil disobedience as a means of political action. Oh, and I'm also surprised to see that the MPAA site is up.

"the so-called "pro-life" [highly ironic since people have been killed in the "pro-life" battle] movement wants to impose their will on all others. pro-choice does not. "

FYI, Pro-Choicers Are not Innocent in the Violence Issue

Insane Abortionist

Dr. Bruce Steir, Abortionist, Charged With Murder

before you continue basing your opinion in the misconception that the pro-choice side is any less violent to grown-up people (as they are already are encouraging the killing of the unborn from 2 weeks to 9 months).

We here at Anarchists for Life took a stand against violence when we adopted this as part of our faq that "We do not support violence inside or outside of abortion clinics. We do support peaceful protest." We are hardly alone on the issue

Pat Goltz's Pro-life and Feminist Writings

Leftout: A Haven for Progressive (Liberal) Pro-Lifers

Pro-Woman, Pro-Life: Stop Abortion

What A Wonderful World

"A Life Is..."

Serena & Semira's Home

Check Your Stereotypes At the Door

neon goddess page

Idle Hands Productions

MaeFlowers

Straight Edge Power!

Christian Morality

Tree of Life Pro-life Page

Human Life is Sacred

Vox Crying

Laura's Homepage

Respect Life Ministry

Rennaissance Suffragettes (Pro-Life Feminism)

Star Angel's Pro-Life Page

Lutherans for Life

DazedHippie's Causes

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League

RightGrrl: Conservative Pro-Life Women

Life Links

Linkie's Place

Sweet Pain's Causes

An American Patriot's Page of Thanks

Diogenes's Friends

Anarchists for Life

(( apprehension ))

Versailles Artists for Life

Matt Wallace: A Pro-Life/Anti-Violence Secular Humanist Atheist

BroPeace's Page: Shalom!

Carol's Pro-Life Page

Mallory's Owner's Page

Jim Sieffert's Page

Military Spouse Club

Rebecca's Pro-Life Page

Reality Check-Canada

Rochester Area Right To Life Committee (Rochester, NY)

Joel's Journey

Indiana University Students for Life

Consistent Life Ethics

Electric Cheetahland

Central Truths

Linda's Lair

David Horne's Gay Pro-life Christian Homepage

Roy and Joanna's Beliefs

In Susan B. Anthony's Footsteps: Pro-Woman, Pro-Life! Webring

The New Abolitionists (or "Funny, I Don't Feel Like A Conservative!")

STAAR: Standing Together Against Abortion Rights (Canada)

Do Babies Have a Choice?

Weird Politik: Because Politics Can be Very Strange Sometimes

Elizabeth's Place

Sehlat's LifeLinks

Sleepless in Atlanta

Bill Samuel's Pro-Life Links

Pro-Life Activities in Maryland / Washington DC

Daweena's Political Page

Glitched

Doubet Family Page

http://www.fre esp eech.org/sharelist/SHACTEMP/archives/000622.html
Account of Huntingdon Life Sciences [UK]- researchers who do animal research, they suffer a daily barrage of abuse, have been firebombed and are effectively under seige from animal rights protestors.

Genetically modified crops are frequently destroyed in the field and when in test because "We don't know what might happen".
Guess we aren't always as enlightened as we think we are.