Slashdot Mirror

Even in the states, there's a fairly sharp change in a person's treatment if they piss off someone rich and (somewhat) powerful.

I know I'M certainly not smart enough to understand its intracacies at any rate.

None of us are, I'm sure. Which is probably why the people paid to analyse it get a hit rate worse than random chance...

On one hand I am disturbed that a government is blocking a web site but imagine if this was a skinhead rally... few would be debating the wisdom of blocking web access to them or whatever it is they want to use to spread their message. (Facebook, hate sites, etc.)

Bullshit. The whole point is that we defend the freedom of those we abhor just as fervently as that of those we support; "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it", remember? The freedom to espouse one's views as a bigoted, racist, asshole should be just as strongly protected as any other - it's a matter of principle.

The government can't pick and choose which groups get a protected soap box and which don't...

No, they can't, because everybody's speech should be protected.

The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak - but does not provide the tools to do the speaking nor the audience. (You have to acquire those yourself). You can write a book but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to a printing press.... you need to buy or make one yourself. Saying government employees can protest against the taxpayer using wi-fi provided by that same taxpayer isn't protected "free speech"... it is yet another entitlement and the root contention of the protest in the first place.

A more reasonable point than the beginning of your post, though I still disagree. There's a difference between selectively providing a platform for speech and selectively restricting access to it. This case is an example of the latter; as a government organisation their rights to restrict access are already more controlled than those of a private company, and when it comes to political speech, favouring one side of an argument by blocking the ability to view the other is murky at best.

On one hand I am disturbed that a government is blocking a web site but imagine if this was a skinhead rally... few would be debating the wisdom of blocking web access to them or whatever it is they want to use to spread their message. (Facebook, hate sites, etc.)

Bullshit. The whole point is that we defend the freedom of those we abhor just as fervently as that of those we support; "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it", remember? The freedom to espouse one's views as a bigoted, racist, asshole should be just as strongly protected as any other - it's a matter of principle.

The government can't pick and choose which groups get a protected soap box and which don't...

No, they can't, because everybody's speech should be protected.

The First Amendment guarantees your right to speak - but does not provide the tools to do the speaking nor the audience. (You have to acquire those yourself). You can write a book but that doesn't mean you have a "right" to a printing press.... you need to buy or make one yourself. Saying government employees can protest against the taxpayer using wi-fi provided by that same taxpayer isn't protected "free speech"... it is yet another entitlement and the root contention of the protest in the first place.

A more reasonable point than the beginning of your post, though I still disagree. There's a difference between selectively providing a platform for speech and selectively restricting access to it. This case is an example of the latter; as a government organisation their rights to restrict access are already more controlled than those of a private company, and when it comes to political speech, favouring one side of an argument by blocking the ability to view the other is murky at best.

And we all know that playing fantasy games in school makes you a felonious terrorist...

That's an awful nice schedule you got there, Senator, be a shame if someone were to put you on the No Fly list!

Particularly worrying is the fact that recent developments suggest that they could very easily do exactly that - oversight seems to be pretty much non-existent. Unfortunately, the news media seem less than concerned about this one - I'm not suggesting any government conspiracy, it's just surprising given their common cries of "the sky is falling" to boost sales.

eBook prices are rather close to printed book prices because apparently the printing costs are very low (or so I've read...)

To say that per-unit printing costs are very low is true but misleading; once you've added in storage, distribution, and the initial overhead required to produce a print run of economical size, it has a significant impact on the market.

At a slightly more abstract level, the fact that a large quantity of start up capital (for the initial run of 'x' thousand books) is no longer necessary greatly reduces the necessity of a publisher in general. Without a publisher in the middle taking a significant cut, prices can drop like a stone. They still serve some use as marketers, but they're trying to hold their position as patrons to whom the artists are beholden, and that's going to change soon whether they like it or not.

I'm tentatively accepting of this case so far - they were engaging in vigilantism, with no reasonable 'self defence' argument to be made, which most people agree is (if not always bad in terms of results) too dangerous to allow. Unfortunately, precedent suggests some serious inconsistency in sentencing when it comes to cases that catch the public eye; rather than a mid-sized fine, I can quite believe that a custodial sentence will be handed down. We shall, however, have to wait and see.

Let me preface this by saying that the guy was an idiot and had absolutely no right to go reading someone else's email. He deserves some form of punishment. The legal system is supposed to be fair and consistent, however, and that does not in any way appear to be the case here. Take a look at a few other crimes which have been treated equally harshly.

Seriously guys, when you're incarcerated, you don't have a choice which facility you will be housed in.

Sure you don't get a say, but I find it a little surprising that the judge's recommendation was ignored.

The USBOP is obviously making an example out of this guy, and I can totally understand why. What I don't understand is why this article seems to be doing a lot of crying on behalf of Kernell. Don't commit the crime if you're going to whine all the way to prison. It's that simple.

The fact that they are making an example of him seems to reinforce the view that an individual invading the privacy of a political figure is somehow worse than the reversed situation. Sounds like a very bad message to be sending, to me.