Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech

MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

Comments

FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright

[chatooya]

If you're on a college campus and want to work to make copyright law more sane, join FreeCulture.org.

Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate and reasonable copyright law is perfectly inline with the mission of a public education and research institution. So go get linux in the campus computer labs and work up from there!

Re:Democracy..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only an illusion if you *say* it is.

On one level it's that argument about philosophy stemming from Wittgenstien - things are what we call them there are no illusions seperate from "reality" because this *is* what we call reality. So regardless of there being another level of existence, the *name* of this one is "reality" so it cannot be "illusion".

This leads to the question of, if this is democracy it is only such because that is what democracy has come to mean.

And it's only that because people like you don't do shit, they just complain.

see?

I wish every cynical countercultural bullshit artist would pull their fingers out and start organised political parties and actually *do* something, because you are just confirming your own bullshit by lying there and doing nothing.

Bottom line, the definition of democracy is still up for grabs. And until the day we slip into facism, and even after it, people like me will fight for democracy. And no doubt people like you will say "it's not facism" it's just an illusion of facism.

Well Duh

[rsilvergun]

They're our ruling class. They take positions that benefit them, and only them. It bugs me to hear starry eyed morons going on about gov't for/by the people, and never stop to consider that America's got rulers just like any Dictatorship you care to name. The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that. If the people ever really do wise up and start trying to change things, you can bet your @$$ our facade of democracy's gonna colapse real quick.

Voting for the lesser of two evils?

[Alien54]

Strangely enough this article entitled Who Would Jesus Vote for? makes a actual point:

Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing. Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

[...]

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Of course, it's a bit longer in the original article. But definitely worth a read.

Re:Gay marriage

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

So who do the gays vote for, huh?

How about, for the one that didn't try to carve its position into the actual living flesh of the Republic, the Consitution?

I am getting so sick of people saying that there is no difference between the two parties. Guess what? We heard "It doesn't matter which one wins" in 2000. Then we ran the experiment. If you honestly believe this nation would be where it is is now, had Gore been sworn in, then you are either ill-informed or insane.

Nader

[Colonel Panic]

I really want to vote for Nader. I just wish there were a 3rd party (4th party?) candidate on the right siphoning votes from Bush as well. Then there would be less complaining about Ralph being a spoiler. (what is a spoiler anyway? Couldn't Kerry be a spoiler for Nader?)

I went to the local Nader nominating convention here in Portland. It was a 3 ring circus. There were Rupublicans there who wanted Nader on the ballot. There were Democrats there filling the seats and refusing to sign the petition because they wanted to keep him off of the ballot (they were unfortunately successful). And then there were those of us who thought that it would be nice to have Nader on he ballot so we could have a real choice if we decide in November that we can't go with Kerry.

Amazingly, at the end, Nader took questions from the audience. Unfiltered questions. Some of the questions were form angry Democrats. One question was from a guy that was not mentally all there (and Nader was quite gracious with him, I thought). I was so impressed by this Q&A session. Not that the questions were all that great, but that Nader opened himself up to questions like that and handled then well. It would have been unimaginable at a Bush or Kerry rally.

Re:Gay marriage

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Too bad Kucinich isn't still running.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/gayrights.php

I believe that equality of opportunity should be afforded to all Americans regardless of race, color, creed or sexual orientation. For that reason I support the right of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons to have the full protections and rights afforded under civil law including the right to marry the person of their choice.

So there you go. Kucinich is the only politician that I know of that doesn't classify humans into "people with rights" and "people without rights".

Copyright isn't the biggest enemy...

[scoobrs]

It's the mass media that hides stories so blatantly.

Even Slashdot is incapable of demolishing the most creative inventions of the mass media. Watch "Outfoxed" (outfoxed.org) if you don't believe me. Imagine all those FOX News viewers hearing these deliberate falsities repeated everywhere and having their world picture altered to include all of it. Or to include SCO's latest fabrications? What room does this leave blogs and the alternative media to reveal to the mainstream that Kerry really isn't that French and that the Bush administration really wanted invade Iraq long before 9/11?

I wrote a decent essay on this topic four years ago.

A better democracy, alternative systems?

[Spekdah]

You need a better democracy. Nothing wrong with trying to improve a system to have a better representation of its citizens, and the old two party split is far from perfect. Not that I know much about America's voting system and structure but there have been many new systems that have evolved over the years, like those proportion systems vs first past the post etc. I'm out of my depth here heh. Anyone have a list of alternative systems and what Americans here would want instead to give better representation? I remember NZ moving from first past the post of MMP with mixed results, then again I have been an ex-pat for so long I'm likely not the best to comment :p

Re:Deficit spending vs. Tax the ()*&$% out of

[WindBourne]

I think I'd rather see some deficit spending, rather than the lefties method of tax the SHIT out of everyone, then dance by the fire of burning money as they waste it away on foolish, poorly run government programs.

hummmm.

1. Carter inherited 25B/year defict and ran it up to 50B.
2. Reagan inherited 50B/Year deficit and ran it up to 250B/year.
3. Poppa Bush ran it up to 325, then back down to 250B, in an effort to start balancing it.
4. Clinton, did balance it . No deficit spending and loads of waste.
5. W. ran it up and has wasted more than any other admin in history.

I will take Clinton or Poppa Bush (he turned it) any time.

What the problem is, when a president and congress are ruled by the same party. What is needed to solve this is

1. Line item veto
2. Balanced Budget except during times of formal war (as opposed to more of this vietnam shit).

I do not care if kerry ever voted for a tax cut. I want to know if he pushed in waste. Did he push in haliburton? Did he spend his time lieing to us and blaming everybody in his administration. So far, W. has blamed everybody in his admin and not taken one bit of blame. Not "the buck stops here". It is always, "fire that bastard there, he caused it".

Re:Democracy.. & voting strategies

[bretharder]

Thats why I made my promise with my friends.
If everyone voted for the person they really wanted;
instead of voting defensively against the guy that they don't want;
maybe we could spark a new era of American Politics.

The democrats that I know don't like John Kerry.
And I'd say at least half the conservatives I know don't like Bush (Of course the religious ones love him).

But they're going to vote against each other because thats what the media gives them.
John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson.

If they'd only wake up and vote for someone who really represents what they want;
Maybe our political system would change;
Maybe people could control the government rather than business;
Maybe common sense could prevail.

Re:Democracy..

[SavingPrivateNawak]

Doesn't your elections in USA have two turns/ballots? (I don't-know-the-correct-term)

Many countries does this way so that people can vote for the party they like in the 1st turn/ballot and for the lesser of the two evils that stay in the 2nd turn/ballot...

Isn't this the right way??

Why GW does few interviews.

[theolein]

I can see the reason why GW does not often do interviews:Bushisms. The man is so obviously unable to articulate himself in his own language, and very probably think in it (His latest one on Tribal sovreignty was really painful) that I'm am pretty sure his campaign advisors such as Karl "Goebbels" Rove almost crap themselves every time GW has to answer impromptu questions in public. A good deal of the USA might be unable to use their own language properly and appreciate the fact that their president is as dumb as they are, but I think the majority are probably more than a little worried now that GW "The Chimp" Bush is really an utter idiot acting as puppet for a group of far right fanatics.

Lessig's View & Arguement

[KrisHolland]

Copyrighting the President

The US president owns neither his words nor his image - at least not when he speaks in public on important matters. Anyone is free to use what he says, and the way he says it, to criticize or to praise. The president, in this sense, is free. But what happens when the commander in chief uses private venues to deliver public messages, holding fewer press conferences and making more talk-show appearances? Who controls his words and images then?