Slashdot Mirror

. . .planted the seeds that have bloomed, revealing what is tantamount to aristocracy.
1. The Big Senate no longer represents the people meaningfully.
2. The Little House no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.
3. The federal government has eminent domain over your wallet.
4. DC is printing money at will, demolishing the value of what you think is in your wallet, and obstructing reform.
5. We're all modern monetary theorists now.
So shut up, peasants, and avert your gaze when your Progressive Overlords pass by.

Unlike here in Amerika, where Emperor Hirohi-, er, Obama, will be forcing CISPA down our throats Wednesday, via an executive order...

Similar thing happened in Missouri recently. See : http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/ron-paul-supporters-terrorists

The government is out of control... They should not be calling out places/groups/persons that express dissent. But this is what is happening. Hell it's been happening for decades, but that doesn't justify it... COINTELPRO?

Why is it that nowadays any significantly high profile criminal activity has been reclassified as terrorism? I thought that terrorist acts were supposed to invoke terror in the pursuit of some political end by blowing up/killing buildings/planes/hostages, the idea being that a population would be in so much fear (terror) that they would pressure their government to give in to the demands of the terrorists.

The answer is that there are probably too few of the above classification of terrorists to actually have a war against (as in the war on terror) here in the United States. Those in control need to expand the definition of terror so as to actually have something to have war against. Why have a war on terror at all? Many people are willing to cede their liberty and freedom to catch terrorists of the ilk that perpetrated 9/11 (a la the war on terror) and the government is using that sentiment with regards to the newly reclassified definition of terrorist (pretty much anyone they don't like that they are willing to label as terrorist...protesters, constitutionalists, libertarians etc etc etc. See Missouri's MIAC report which associated supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr, three presidential candidates all espousing constitutional government)being associated with terrorists. The Bush administration (and now Obama administration) has taken full advantage of the flexibility of the term "terrorist" to assault personal freedoms on an unprecedented scale.

If you see the scales of freedom tipping in the wrong direction, get involved. There are left and right leaning organizations that are trying to restore our freedom:
American Freedom Campaign
The Pen
DownsizeDc.org
The Campaign for Liberty
Restore the Republic
Young Americans for Liberty

*YES. FAMILIES CAN EXPLAIN THINGS TO CHILDREN.*

That's sort of the problem here. There was no warning so you don't know if the child saw it and needs some explanation or not. When nudity is shown without warning or cusswords and so on at times when children would be watching TV normally, you don't know that they were exposed to it or that they need something explained until after it becomes an issue.

Pay channels and cable channels are one thing, but over the air broadcasting during an awards show or the Superbowl or during the time kids would be watching TV at night really does need a warning before it happens and the warning needs to be apparent enough that the parents and families can take actions they deem appropriate for their children. And sure, each child is different, some will be perfectly fine, some might not be, some might repeat the words at the worst possible times, some might even get into legal troubles over it and so on. Here is a story about a girl who's family obviously didn't explain things to her. Of course there are others.

You would be surprised at how many like this should have had things explained to them. I'm betting their parents had no idea before the cops made them aware. I'm not saying that the TV put them in that position, it could have influenced them a lot, a little, or not at all. But I am saying that if they had parent explain things to them, there is a good chance that things would be different for them. OF course they could of also had shitty parents who did explain things to them and didn't come off right, but you shouldn't have that opportunity removed because someone else doesn't care.

You've made an implicit assumption that every sex offender on the list deserves to be there. The law means that the 16 year old couple that got caught having sex would never be able to use any social networking sites (ever do something stupid as a teenager? I know I did). Perfectly honest, law-abiding "sex offenders" that are now prevented from normal social activities. This law, and the sex offender registration issue in general, is bullshit. Either they're safe on the street, or they should be in jail. Why not let some pot smokers out of jail instead of the assault and battery convicts? You know, people who actually hurt others?

Right now no one will revise the law, but we must 'Protect the children!' but it seems that more and more the ones being caught in these laws aren't the ones we care about.

Right now there is no difference (to you, the one that reads the 'sex offender list' when someone moves onto your block) between the creepy older man that molested dozens of children and the 18 year old that had a 17 year old boyfriend/girlfriend in High School.

How about the 16 year old couple that got child pornography charges for keeping private photos of each other?

How about the 15 year old girl that could be forced to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years?

Yes, those dangerously disturbed should be kept away from the innocent, but you really want this kind of signal to noise? Do you really want your law enforcement to waste their time arresting High Schoolers with like-aged significant others?