Slashdot Mirror
John Gilmore interviewed by Greplaw
mpawlo writes "I have just published another one of those Greplaw interviews. This time, John Gilmore had the courtesy of answering a wide range of questions on various subjects such as terrorism and security, spam blocking, censorship, secret laws in airports and of course - sarongs. Gilmore starts: 'I'm a civil libertarian millionaire eccentric.' Enjoy!"
Who isn't these days?!
Not powerful enough. Give me egreplaw any day of the week.
Here I am thinking I'm the only one that argues what he's arguing. The right to travel *IS* fundamental to a free society, IDs and driver's licenses be damned! I'm glad someone with money gets it (meaning that he has the means to do something about it other than speak up).
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I've read many reviews of John. He is brilliant! He knows how to uphold the law theory "all are equal and equally under the law", which United States currently doesn't like to admit. John knows how to use their laws against them. Civil libertarian is somewhat a stretch; John is more of a Jeffersonian, or sometimes known as a Christian Anarchist. If anyone out there dislikes or even enjoys Eric S. Raymond, this John is the gapstop that keeps people together within reason.
PS: Moderators!
*Before you knock this user
*please recognize that Slashdot
*should at-least mirror these
*articles on *the server rather
*than having thousands of people
*click the URL. I happily read
*the article from the parent's post
You all just wait and laugh when Slashdot is charged for server crimes by the FCC. Even Yahoo News mirrors their stories for sake of all!
"I wonder when he will be taken out for thinking too much."
Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?
For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening.
Thanks
From the linked interview, on the subject of secret airport laws: (emphasis orthogonal's) "[i]t even worked at the District Court; our judge decided that if she couldn't see the law then it must by definition be constitutional (she ruled that I had no possible way to show it is unconstitutional)."
Is this the United States the Founding Fathers built, or Stalinism by way of Kafka?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Never mind sarongs, what about the banning of thongs in Florida and Louisiana!! this is going to far by the righteous far right.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Domain Name: GROKLAW.NET
Created On: 03-Oct-03
Domain Name: GREPLAW.ORG
Created On: 11-Apr-2002
Which brings me to the belief that I have had that if every deadhead in this country voted this would be a different place. I can't emphasize how important it is that everyone votes. Please in the national election, everybody cast a vote. Bush won by having less than 60% of eligible voters vote and then only a marginal majority of those choose him.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
"The drug war is an ugly, corrupt set of policies that were bad when Nixon set it in motion to bash the hippie students who were hounding his ass out of office."
the drug war was first created to get returning GI's , from vietnam off of heroin and originally focused on treatment over criminalization. Of course later Nixon was forced by the right to increase the drug war's focus on criminalization. Oh yeah just as an aside the hippies did not force nixon out of office...he won both terms of his presidency. It was his own criminal activities that forced him out of office....not a bunch of inefectual hippies. They had nothing to do with ending the vietnam war and nothing to do with forcing nixon out of office.
Guys like this, history revisionist, asshole really make it hard for libertarian minded people to support ending the drug war. I mean any time i say the drug war is a waste of money regularly open minded people close thier doors to the idea becouse they have heard all the other consperiacy bullshit guys like this asshole have heaped on to a fairly straight forward argument. What is the saying "With freinds like this who needs enemies"
stendec@gmail.com
Last August John Gilmore was on the cover of and interviewed in Reason. Good reading from a great magazine.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
We can start with Galileo.
Then we have Sherman Austin under the Patriot Act.
http://rwor.org/a/1217/austin.htm
With the Patriot Act, there is the distinct possibility of people being silenced and no one ever knowing.
The point is not how many are being silenced now, but how many can and probably will be in the future.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller
See his posting history
'nuff said
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US Government."
THis should read.
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than the US or the Israeli Government."
Thank you.
evil is as evil does
"Would you care to post a list of other people that have been taken out for thinking too much?
U s.gov and get the list. Oh wait a minute the US does not have a web site where they keep a list of people they assassinated. I guess that means the US govt has never assassinated anybody then.
For as much as some tend to complain about oppression in America, I'm not aware of such things actually happening."
Well if you are not aware of it then it probably never happened.
Here let me go the TheListOfPeopleWeKilledBecauseTheyDaredToQuestion
evil is as evil does
That is, of course, if he happens to have permission from the U.S. Government in the form of a drivers' license.
The point is not that airlines or private individuals don't have the right to choose how they wish to restrict access to their property. The point is that the government doesn't have the right to force airlines or private individuals, as proxies, to restrict access to their property.
Although the kidnapping example is technically in the same category of movement restriction, perhaps a better example would be if police set up checkpoints at every major intersection, and required the identification of anyone who wished to pass. This would differ from the current system only in degree, and has been thus far prevented from taking place by both popular opinion and by the logistical nightmare that would ensue, although with the advent of cheap RFIDs, I wouldn't place too much faith in the latter, and I've little in the lasting ability of the former, given the example that you provided with your own comment.
Arrgh. Now I'm all riled up.
Join the ACLU. It's safer than direct action against "the Man."
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
The distinction you are failing to make is that Gilmore is speaking of public infrastructure. Now whether or not airports are private property (many are not) may be up for argument, but not many will deny the fact that they are still part of a public infrastructure system. Note, also, that the internet is a public infrastructure.
You also make the point of ones passage being inconsistant; and use that as an example against Gillmores arguments, I fail to see how millions of passengers flying in the United States, each one who had to show ID, are demonstrating 'inconsistant pasage'.
As for your statement about people wandering around nuclear plants; this is not what Gillmore is speaking of at all, he is talking about our transportation system, so stick to the point.
I could go on, deconstructing the rest of your arguments, but I just realized I was suckered into replying to a troll. Ill leave it as an exercise for the reader to eliminate the rest of this commentators arguments. I got the ball rolling you may as well do your part. . . . . .
You just can't just have anyone wandering about nuclear plants, or onto planes while carrying bombs.
Let's not even worry about the legalities, but let's think about the usefulness of your statement.
Nuclear power plants can and should restrict who enters. The list of people allowed in the plant is small and known. The list of people carrying bombs on airplanes is small and unknown. Therefore, checking ID's makes sense to keep people out of nuclear power plants and checking people's bags for bombs makes sense in keeping bombs off of airplanes. Since no one's ID says "I AM CARRYING A BOMB" checking their ID is worthless for the purpose of keeping bombs off but is useful for infringing on civil liberties by preventing people who disagree with the government from traveling, and even people who are part of the government from traveling (Senator Ted Kennedy was recently put on the no-fly list - read about it here.)
If you would care to explain how checking ID's will keep bombs off planes I'm sure it would be very illuminating for all of the readers.
Nope. The correct wording is now:
"Terrorism is now defined as force applied for political reasons by people other than any government included in the secret amendment to this regulation."
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.