Slashdot Mirror
Want Freedom?
Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.
Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar. - Julius Caesar
You're using her as bait, Master!
Trade freedom for security, and you'll get neither. If only people would understand.
Bumper sticker suggested by a friend of mine. Says it all, really.
What part of "question the government" means "reveal classified information," Mr. Ashcroft? Or am I committing treason by asking such a question?
Intellectual property and copyright law in the digital era = censorship.
The computer is a communications tool which is an extention and enhancement to our ability to communicate and express ourselves, source code is the method of expression, 1s and 0s are the output of this expression.
However current intellectual property law is designed to reduce our abilities to express ourselves via code or even to copy a file.
Copyright and Intellectual property is out of control right now and its slowly removing our freedomm of speech and our right to expression.
Why is it ok to censor people in the name of capitalism, no one but rogue pirates dare step forward and say what we all know is happening.
Freenet, GNU, etc etc, its all about freedom of speech. Alot of people claim "well if you are going to have freedom to be open source you should also have freedom not to be"
However when you arent open source and you support the patent system you support censorship. Its very funny how Americans can jump to complain about China and the evils of Communism, claiming USA is all about freedom, claiming the constitution, but its all bullshit.
USA is about Capitalism right now, not freedom. While we are more free than China, we are only more free than China for now, eventually Capitalism will remove all freedom from us due to our own greed.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You've got it confused. We are NOT a capitalist system, we're pushing more socialism and mercantile protectionism than capitalism.
In a true capitalist system, government can NEVER subsidize, tariff, or embargo companies. They can't regulate or control. They can't tax.
In America, our government protects its friendly businesses with subsidies, while harming the competitors to its friends with tariffs and regulations.
Its not Capitalism that hurts our country (greed helps EVERYONE, not just the greedy), its excessive government regulations and subsidies that hurt us.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemöller
Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.
Unanswered Questions about 9/11
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
We interupt your surfing session with a special bulletin:
The Internet is now under martial law. All constitutional rights have been suspended. Stay in your homes! Do not attempt to contact loved ones, science fiction authors, or software developers.
SHUT UP!
Do not attempt to think, or depresion may occur. Stay in your homes. Curfew is at 7 pm sharp after work. Anyone transferring content on ports other than those allowed by their subdivision router - will - be - shot.
(Remain calm.)
Do not panic. Your neighborhood Digital Rights Inspector will be around to collect access logs in the morning. Anyone caught interfering with the collection of access logs - will - be - shot.
Stay in your homes! Remain calm! The number one enemy of progress is questions! The security of Hollywood's business model is more important that individual will!
(All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.)
No more than two people may discuss programming techniques without permission! Write only the code prescribed by your boss or supervisor!
SHUT UP!
BE HAPPY!
Obey all orders without question!
The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory!
BE HAPPY!
At last, everything is done for you...
The Orwellian reference is most often quoted, but the society in which we increasingly find ourselves bears more similarities with Huxley's work than that of the overrated hack. Our freedoms are not corroded because of fear of any particular oppression, but rather because it's generally more comfortable, more stupefying, to give those freedoms away. People *will* trade their freedom for security - hell, people will trade their freedom for pretty much anything that makes their lives a little easier in the short term, and that allows them to think a little less, to make a little less effort.
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
Just a quick rant.
I have no problem with the government monitoring religious groups, so long as they do it on the same basis that they would monitor any other organization. That is, it must be done based on a warrant, must be reasonable, and must not target groups solely on the basis of their religion. For example, if a judge agrees that sufficient evidence exists of possible meetings by a terrorist cell at a mosque; and if the monitoring involves only the suspected people, rather than the population of the mosque at large; and if it is a specific group at a specific mosque that is being watched (rather than any gathering of young men at any mosque); then I am OK with it. Now, if the same evidence were presented for a synagogue or a temple or a Baptist church, I'd be similarly OK with it. On the other hand, if there was no judge's warrant (or if false information were presented to the judge to obtain the warrant), or if the monitoring was of everyone (or most people) at a certain mosque, or if the monitoring covered several mosques as a linked investigation, without evidence that there was a link other than that they were all mosques, then this would be very, very dangerous.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Yes, because there is no such thing as body language. Or emphatic gestures. And deaf/mutes, that sign language isn't speech either.
And if you pose for a camera, that's not speech, nor is letting your words be recorded on videotape. Speak all you like, but if the words end up in a fixed format, then damn you, you seditious criminal.
And if you want to wear a black armband to school during wartime, as a peaceful non-disruptive protest, then that "expression" is surely a crime too, and I hope you burn in hell.
Language and communication aren't limited to vocal sounds. As long as the action is without doubt, communication only, who are you to claim it's not protected?
Burning the US flag might be wrong, but only because it's the one country in the world where you are guaranteed the right to do it.
And we are becoming more and more an information based economy.
True Capitalism couldnt work in the real world just like true Socialism cant work. Theres a reason we are a mixture of both, because this is the only thing that could work.
Without public schools, police, government, etc we'd have complete chaos because the people in this country arent intelligent enough, arent responsible enough, and they arent mature enough to successfully govern themselves.
Greed helps everyone? Thats not even logical, Greed only helps you, it doesnt always have to harm everyone else, but it only helps YOU.
Greed helps you. Depending on how you make your money decides how many people you help or harm.
I could say Socialism helps everyone too, you go to the police when you need them, you depend on the military to defend you from al qaeda, without socialism you wouldnt even have the internet, we would have never gone to the moon, we wouldnt have big industries.
Look, pure capitlaism can never work, its a pipe dream, pure socialism most likely can never work either, the best we can do is have a mixture of both, as the economy becomes less labor based and more information based, and we dont have to work as hard, we'll become more socialist, progression forces socialism because you cant sell something when theres unlimited amounts of it.
Capitalism if it was pure, it could work if it were 100 percent fair capitalism, this means capitalism without globalism, this means forcing companies to raise the minimum wage they pay their workers along with the amount of money the company brings in, meaning dynamic salary which increases when companies do good and decreases when they do bad, equal salary for everyone in the company this means the CEO shouldnt make billions and everyone else thousands unless the CEO actually is working the hardest and has been working there the longest.
Enron and Worldcom situations should not be tolerated at all, a person should go to jail for life and their assets removed from them.
Globalism cannot work in pure Capitalism because Capitalism is all about small businesses not big businesses, big businesses are like governments and we dont need this.
No tax? Theres always going to be a tax because people always have to pool their money together to pay for say military forces or hospitals, however by making paying the tax a choice such as a donation you could still have pure capitalism while increasing freedom.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
From the above, it has been inferred that any kind of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, that putting the 10 Commandments on public property is unconstitutional, that pr0n is legal, that a woman has the right to privacy and, consequently, the right to terminate pregnancy, that public libraries may not filter web sites, and so on and so forth.
The point I'm making is that we have become accustomed to reading an awful lot into that one small amendment. As a student of political science, however, I find it both amusing and disturbing that the first five words of the amendment are the ones most frequently ignored: "Congress shall pass no law..."
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
I don't know exactly what that means for us today, but it is food for thought.
----------
Something cleverThere will never be a pure anything for a long long time.
Currently the best we can do is have a mix of Capitalism and Socialism.
Socialism to give everyone universal benifits, the right to have the military protect them for example, the right to get an education, etc
People arent always born with the money to go to private school, buy a shitload of machine guns, pay their own personal doctor, and so on.
And if people did have to do this, doctors would make less money on average because people wouldnt have any money to pay them with, teachers would be working for pennies literally and poor students would never have access to good teachers, etc etc.
People can argue all they want for a pure Capitalist world but its just impossible, just like a pure Socialist world is impossible, the only way we could have a world like this is to have a utopia where everyone is responsible,mature, intelligent, and we have a perfect democracy.
When we have a Utopia then we can decide if we want it to be a Capitalist Utopia or A Socialist Utopia.
Right now we arent there yet.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That on average, citizens of countries with more freedom tend to be much safer than citizens of countries with less?
Think of the world's non-democratic countries, like Iraq, or Argentina under the fascists. Are the people there safe? NO! People are taken from their homes in the middle of the night, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Why? Because people arent' free to question and criticise the government. Because people either believe that their government cannot be opposed, or that opposing it would weaken their country.
Your freedom doesn't harm your safety. It guarantees it. Freedom exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
And as soon as you try to trade your freedom for safety, you will find that you've lost them both.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
"Shut up."
The question the article makes a lot of noise over (question 2.) Question 2 is basically a recitation of the text of the first amendment, followed by the text:
"Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.'
In this context, more people agreed than disagreed (by 2 points) that the First Amendment goes to far.
Now, if you look at questions 3-9, each of which ask the interviewee to rate the importance of each freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment individually, there's a solid and vociferous defense for the freedoms guaranteed (on average, between 65% and 80% of people feel that any given freedom is 'essential'.)
What does this tell us? It tells me that there is an effective lobby against "The First Amendment", and that, when the freedoms are disassociated from "The First Amendment", Americans are rabidly supportive of their First Amendment rights. This leads me to hope that, while First Amendment attacks are en vogue in a number of circles today, that the people will lash back should the Frist Amendment face too concerted of an attack.
If we want to draw attention to the erosion of First Amendment rights, we need to step away from the "XXXXX is taking away our First Amendment rights" argument and approach the problem from an "XXXXX is taking away your (right to assemble/right to practice religion/right to privacy/right to speak your mind)."
Sadly, it seems that people cherish the First Amendment considerably less than they cherish the rights that amendment provides.
(My views are my own. They do not reflect those of my employer. I am not a real political analyst, I just work with them.)
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
It's not that we *invented* freedom, it's just that we were first to the patent office with it. Now, a la Fraunhofer, we're just waiting for the democracy standard to catch on; once it's really rolling, we're going to spring MAJOR licensing fees on all countries that want to continue being democratic.
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
These are inalienable rights, not privileges. The question is whether you choose to excercise them.
The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Like old Campbell said, 'Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.' - Utah Phillips
Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
Nope. The usual party line is that the Greeks invented Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; and that the Americans re-established it after getting sick and tired of Monarchy.
That's the party line anyway. The reality is probably more complex, involving a mix of Masonic ideals, romantic ideals about the Greeks and Romans, and English corporate traditions.
I do think it's safe to say that The American Revolution inspired (or was one of the inspirations for) the French Revolution, which laid the foundation for the spread of Liberal Democratic ideals throughout the world. At least, that's my rather provincial, and admittedly somewhat chauvanistic, take on the matter.
Of course, what's going on now, IMO, is laying the foundation for the spread of tyrrany throughout the world.
Finding God in a Dog
I asked my mother a few questions:
Me: Should the government be allowed to read suspicous people's email without a warrent?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to stop media that they view as a threat?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to hold suspected terrorists without trial?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to censor the internet?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to put cameras looking into suspected terrorists houses?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should people give up any liberties to make our country safer?
Her: NO!!!!
exactly.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Congratulations! You're on our new list!
Love,
The FBI
If this is not a skewed servey, as some might suggest, it is very scary. It would be scary to me if 1/10 or 2/10 would support any restriction to the first ammendment.
It is very scary to me that even more people in this survey think that government criticism should be prohibited.
It also sickens me that there are plenty of people who think that the government should be able to spy on religious practices. People think that their religion will be safe because they aren't muslim. They think: "Only muslims are terrorists, after all."
I have news for these ignorant people. Every major religion has terrorist groups associated with it. This includes ultra-right-wing psuedo-christian groups who think it is okay blow up abortion clinics. This includes the IRA. This even includes some fringe Jewish groups who plan mosque bombings.
The government WILL eventually use groups like these as an excuse to spy on everybody's church if given the opportunity.
You have to stand up for our rights, period. When the government starts raiding mosques routinely, don't just think "Oh, they're just going after the muslims. Everyone knows that only muslims are terrorists, so won't affect me." It will.
It would also help to get your ass up on election day and go vote.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah