Blogging as Press Freedom in Repressive Places

museumpeace writes "CNN is carrying an AP story from France on the release of guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments to get out their stories without getting caught. "Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.' Makes me proud to be a developer of communication software."

Comments

Yes, but...

[Luke727]

...where is the guide on how to blog about something interesting? FUCK WHATEVER YOU HAD FOR BREAKFAST TODAY!

Why not before?

[USSJoin]

Why when the press was being stomped before, did governments-- those people in *charge* of protecting rights-- never do this? Why is it that because we have a web-related buzzword, governments finally get with their societal obligations?

Oh, sorry. Votes are proportional to interest.

Please excuse my liberal-minded rant; just a slip, won't happen again...

Re:Why not before?

[schngrg]

"Why when the press was being stomped before, did governments-- those people in *charge* of protecting rights-- never do this? Why is it that because we have a web-related buzzword, governments finally get with their societal obligations?"

Probably because "irresponsible" governements never listen unless they have to.

A part of the blame goes to citizens too.. for not speaking up loud enough... but that probably is because they didnt had the means to be loud enough... till now.

If likes of Google, Yahoo and MS stop helping the "suppressive governments", maybe this "means" will live long enough to make a difference. But hey... just like its all about votes for the government (assuming democracy)... its all about money for these guys (no assumptions needed here)...

Re:Why not before?

[slashdotnickname]

Why when the press was being stomped before, did governments-- those people in *charge* of protecting rights-- never do this?

Governments can barely manage to keep the basic civic tasks withing budget (if they can complete them all) much less produce educational handbooks. Not only is that the least of their responsibilities, if it even should be one, but if you need the government to give you tips on clever anonymous blogging then, chances are, you're not going to pen anything more than the usual blarbage to clutter google with.

Re:Why not before?

[slashdotnickname]

and pardon my above post's spelling. I can't seem to find my government-issued dictionary atm...

Re:Why not before?

[RWerp]

Maybe because this is not government's main job? I mean, the government protects my right to free speech by maintaining a judicial system which I can use as a weapon against those who try to impede by right of speech. Publishing booklets like this one is an addon, useful but just it.

Re:Why not before?

[weighn]

Please excuse my liberal-minded rant; just a slip, won't happen again

Nevermind, the DOD's liberal-thought-zapping satelites will take care of comments like that.
Take THAT! Reportiers Sans Frontiers

Yours, General Lance Lord

Re:Why not before?

[Thumpnugget]

Why ... did governments-- those people in *charge* of protecting rights-- never do this?

Laughing out loud at this, quite literally. Governments aren't in charge of protecting rights. That's a lie you've been sold. Governments are purchased and propped up by those with wealth for the purpose of protecting the privileges of same wealthy people.

(feeling very cynical today. my post is myopic but only half-sarcastic, i understand your post was also sarcastic)

Re:Why not before?

[Anonymous Coward]

haha idiot haha

Re:Why not before?

[cuby]

Why when the press was being stomped before, did governments-- those people in *charge* of protecting rights-- never do this?

If you had checked, in the end of the RSF book you would see:
"WITH THE SUPPORT
FROM
THE FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY"

We need this here in Jesusland

[macdaddy357]

This how to blog anonymously book is a great thing for free speech. We need it here in Jesusland, too. I sure do miss America.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[RLiegh]

macdaddy357 wrote:

This how to blog anonymously book is a great thing for free speech. We need it here in Jesusland, too. I sure do miss America.

From TFA:

"We can write freely in blogs," writes Arash Sigarchi, an Iranian journalist who was nonetheless sentenced to 14 years in prison for posting several messages online that criticized the Iranian regime.

That's routine in countries such as Iran and China; here the worst you can state is that you don't like the liberal slant of CNN.

Really, things here could be much worse; wake me up when we've got our own Falun Gong problem here.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Distinguished Hero]

Tell me, which America do you miss? Do you miss the America of the 17th century? The America of the 18th century? 19th century? 20th century? Or the America that existed for the brief period of time when Carter and Clinton were in office? Tell me which America you miss, I truly am interested.

By the way, America was Jesusland for longer than it was whatever it is you desire. To refer to America as Jesusland and to say that you miss "America" indicates very little knowledge of America (historic or otherwise.)

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Arandir]

Every notice that most people bitching about the the lack of freedom for the press are doing it via a blog or a comment in a blog? It's sort of like all the people standing on soapboxes on street corners bitching about not having any freedom of speech. Or like protests demanding the right to protest.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[KillShill]

the only problem being that the US govt is funding a massive regime change in Iran, using many Iranian immigrants as enemy agents to stir up "dissent" over there.

they send propoganda based programs through satellite (since that's what most tv viewers in Iran have) from the US, funded by taxpayer dollars.

the neocons on one end, keep pushing the US govt to start a "regime-change", then there's Israel who keeps saying Iran is developing nuclear weapons (never mind that they kept saying the same thing about Iraq before 2003). all the inspecters and IAEA reps that have been there all found only plans for a nuclear energy station.

there's an enormous campaign being waged against Iran, seeing as they're one of the few states in the middle east not under the control of the US and UK. they used to be though... if you remember, even just recently they tried to install the brutal and totalitarian regime of the shah (not ironically after the British empire got tired of them). they wanted the oil and natural resources of a soverign nation, so with the help of the CIA, they pulled off a coup d'etat.

frankly, every time i hear a story about "Iran suppressing and jailing journalists" i don't see a story about freedom of speech, i see them jailing enemy agents and spies. oh, how the US would benefit from doing the same to all those spies in America. and i mean the US people, the govt just overlooks it, cause most of the spies are from "favored" nations... you can probably guess which.

it must take a real braindead Iranian immigrant to want the US to take over to help propogandize their own people. it's like those colloborators in V... selling out the human race to the reptiles so they can be a little richer or have more power. (that sci fi reference thrown in cause we're geeks). there are plenty of real world examples of being a backstabbing judas but that's what history class is for ;-).

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Anonymous Coward]

CNN is hardly liberal. Outside the US it is known as the "Combat News Network" for its sycophantic support of the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. It is generally seen as being marginally better than Fox, but still quite conservative.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[RLiegh]

A great many americans consider Fox to be neutral, and CNN to be quite liberal; and they often bitch about CNN on various blogs.

And the government doesn't round them up and haul them to the gulags for doing so, either.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Tell me, which America do you miss? Do you miss the America of the 17th century? The America of the 18th century? 19th century? 20th century? Or the America that existed for the brief period of time when Carter and Clinton were in office? Tell me which America you miss, I truly am interested.

The America described in that little document called the Constitution of the United States, the one that doesn't mention the words 'God', 'Creator' or 'Jesus' even once.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Anonymous Coward]

A great many americans consider Fox to be neutral, and CNN to be quite liberal; and they often bitch about CNN on various blogs.

And the government doesn't round them up and haul them to the gulags for doing so, either.

I think it is strange if some Americans think that Fox is neutral, but they are entitled to that opinion. However, the notion of Free Speech isn't an American concept, nor something linked to US conservatism. Free speech is considered just as important in most Western European countries, or in Canada, or in Australia or New Zealand, or a great many other countries.

However, the conservatism of the US media leads to a lot of censorship based on wanting to not offend or challenge readers/viewers. Hopefully the Internet will help arrest this problem, but with the majority of people receiving information from one or two news sources, it will be a challenge.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[macdaddy357]

Fox neutral? They say in their advertising claims "Fair and balanced: we report, you decide", and that must be true, or they couldn't say it on TV, huh? Many Americans believe that just because they say it. They also think CNN is liberal because Rush Limbaugh told them so. These are probably the same ones who think pro wrestling is real. Right wing politics appeal to small minds on a gut level.

By the way, I love your sigs. you used to have something like when you outgrow Salshdot, come to Fark.com with the adults. HA HA! What a farce. Fark is for horny teens desperate for some free boobies. No adults there, or free speech. The boards there are censored constantly. Now your sig is "When it has to be reliable, it has to be ... [msnbc.com]". That should read "We're making this stuff up as we go along ... MSNBS". What will you chage it to next?

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[commodoresloat]

wake me up when we've got our own Falun Gong problem here.

Oh don't worry... we'll take care of them heathen religious nuts if they ever show up here... Remember what we did when we had that little Branch Davidian problem here? We sure showed them....

Wait a minute - what did you mean?

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[greylouser]

Things could be worse in the States, and the GP is a troll, but don't forget that if the President of the US declares you an enemy combatant, you can be imprisoned indefinitely without trial (pending Supreme Court review). So, the worst isn't that you don't like the liberal slant of CNN, but rather that you go to prison for life and never get to defend yourself.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Anonymous Coward]

For refernece, folks should look up Mohammed Mossadegh. While there may be a NeoCon consipiracy to topple and control Iran, there is still an oppressive regime ruling that land. What is going on in Iraq is the equivalent of a one party state, with hardcore Islamists, some 25% of the populace, controlling the remaining ~75% in an oppressive manner. Putting more power of free speech in the hands of that 75% is not a bad thing in and of itself. Certainly much easier than invading.

-sam

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[famebait]

A great many americans consider Fox to be neutral, and CNN to be quite liberal

And to all other westerners that claim is utterly hilarious. First of all, there is no such thing as neutral. Secondly: by the standards of media in other democracies (which I'm sure you'll agree is a relevant one, at least more so than the alternatives), FOX is a ridiculously extreme far-right/nationalist freakshow, and CNN is pretty damn conservative (though the european broadcasts is mildened down a bit so us furreners might not notice and think it's objective).

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[varjag]

By your logic every dissent in a society is the result of enemy conspiracy, and must be punished.

Sorry I don't buy that. There are plenty of Iranians who are not associated with the USA, UK or whatever, and still voted against the current government.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[famebait]

This is ridiculous. That the US is once again trying to meddle in its affairs does not make the Iranian regime benign, or remotely popular with the masses. I have spoken with several exiled iranians; they hate the the ruling priests, and in equal measure they hate the US (for their previous disatrous interference which has screwed them over several times before), and have no faith whatsoever in American intentions or competence to fix anything at all (come to think of it, who does?). It's not a question of wanting the americans or the priests, but wanting a proper, peaceful, democratic iranian rule.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[gowen]

Well, the founders missed that America as well, which is why they composed their little fantasy about it, and had it installed as the Constitution. The fact it was a fantasy is clear from the fact that 100-odd years passed between the declaration that "All men are created equal" and the realisation that that could possibly apply to Negroes, too.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Stalky]

The fact it was a fantasy is clear from the fact that 100-odd years passed between the declaration that "All men are created equal" and the realisation that that could possibly apply to Negroes, too.

Not so.

The Constitution was written in 1787.

The original text of the Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, accused King George III of having "waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither."

You can see that Africans, the "distant people" referred to here, are recognized as having the same "sacred rights" that the Constitution was later written to protect.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[gowen]

You can see that Africans, the "distant people" referred to here, are recognized as having the same "sacred rights" that the Constitution was later written to protect.

You misunderstand me. Fair enough, I'm didn't express myself clearly. A mild facetiousness muddled my point.

My point was, the founders wanted a country in which men were created equal, and wrote the Constitution to reflect that. Despite their best efforts, and the longings of the OP, that country has never existed. Sure, black people were afforded rights in the constitution, but in reality those rights were simply not worth the paper they were written on.

It makes no sense to long for an lost, benevolent America that respected the Constitution, and afforded its freedoms to all. The failure to extend the Constitutionally guaranteed rights to the Negro proves that that country has never existed, except in the ideals of the founders (and the OP, and I guess, myself).

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[glesga_kiss]

You can see that Africans, the "distant people" referred to here, are recognized as having the same "sacred rights" that the Constitution was later written to protect.

Then why were many of the authors of the constitution directly involved in the slave trade? You have no "sacred rights" as a slave.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Liam Slider]

And the only reason that it took so long to deal with the issue domestically (the international slave trade itself was banned fairly quickly), is that everyone was trying to avoid a war to do it. Even back when the US was under the Articles of Confederation, and even earlier...to the revolutiuonary era...they knew slavery was going to be a major issue that needed to be dealt with, but also felt that keeping the new, unstable nation together was more important. So basically...they put it off until later, hoping that slavery wouldn't drive the nation apart. Of course, that happened anyway, but at a point where we were better able to handle that.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Anonymous Coward]

It also didn't mention welfare, social security, victim disarmament ("gun control"), corporate subsidies, regulation of voluntary trade, government-sponsored monopolies (telco, power), foreign "aid", national ID card (social security #, driver's license), prohibition, war without an explicit congressional vote, or a federal government that has the slightest bit of authority beyond national defense and border control. Weird, huh?

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Luscious868]

It also didn't mention welfare, social security, victim disarmament ("gun control"), corporate subsidies, regulation of voluntary trade, government-sponsored monopolies (telco, power), foreign "aid", national ID card (social security #, driver's license), prohibition, war without an explicit congressional vote, or a federal government that has the slightest bit of authority beyond national defense and border control. Weird, huh?

Don't forget income taxes, social security, medicare and medicaid.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Jagasian]

While some of the people jailed are probably USA funded propagandists, I think that the majority of them are real journalists. Did you read Sean Penn's diary of his trip to Iran? I doubt that Penn is working for the Bush adminstration to spread bad stuff about Iran. His diary seems to be a "call it how he sees it" diary of an American in Iran. He saw tons of heavy-handed government practices towards journalists. It is real.

I personally know Iranians, and they too admit that the government locks up people for saying bad stuff about the theocracy. Not all of my Iranian friends want regime change (only the Bahai wants regime change), but they aren't delusional like you. There are real problems in Iran and especially its theocracy.

Yes the USA has and most likely continues to interfere in Iranian society, but you are batshiat crazy if you think that all of the jailed journalists are working for the USA. That is the same reasoning used by Bush supporters who claim that anybody that speaks against the Bush adminstration supports Osama bin Laden.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Liam Slider]

You guys are ones to talk. Your media is well over to the left in what they choose to report, and how they report it. Even more so than most American reporting. Comes from living in socialist nanny states I suppose.

But American press isn't immune to this garbage either. There used to be journalistic standards (at least here)....simply report on the facts and leave opinions to the editorial column. That's well out the window now. Now everyone pushes their agenda, newspapers hold stories to release until it's politically useful, TV news exaggerates and is quick to point fingers at those not even responsable...provided it's useful politically. Or reporters simply let personal, political bias leak into their stories at every turn. "Good journalism" today means anything that is so sensational, so capable of grabbing ratings, that it doesn't even matter if it's true or not...or if anything beyond the barest of facts is true.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[jmrSudbury]

I agree whole heartedly with your premise that some if not many Iranians would like democratic Iranian rule; however you seem to overlook some facts. The USA is the only super power left. I think that means they have shown a great ability to do something right and thus competence. Of course they made some mistakes, but all in all, they have done well.

Even if the US is trying to spew propaganda in Iran, there is no reason for Iranians, or anyone else to have to watch it. They can change the channel or just turn it off. Perhaps some want to get the other side of the story that they are not getting from their mainstream media. It was the Iranians who revolted several years ago and brought in the Mullahs. Now the Mullahs are enforcing their power over the democratic process such that some Iranians want another revolution. Iraq just had a regime change that would have only occured with help from the outside. It would have taken generations for an internal revolution to have occured. I doubt Iranians need nor will accept that same outside help.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[RobotRunAmok]

Did that "original text" make it into the final Declaration of Independence? Being too lazy to check, I'll guess 'no,' cuz I know that many of the signers from the southern states were dead against producing any document that even sniffed of offering any form of independence to the two-legged cattle for which they had paid good money.

Similarly, many members of the Constitutional Congress were ginormous slaveholders, and would have set fire to the building had they thought for a moment that they were granting any kind of human rights to blacks.

The African slaves then, kind of like the unborn today, were regarded merely as "property" and "not quite human."

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[Anonymous Coward]

Not much for the Declaration of Independence then, eh?

I'm sure you think highly of yourself, but you're just being a bigot.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[legirons]

"I have spoken with several exiled iranians; they hate the ruling priests"

And have you spoken with those deported from the United Kingdom, about their view of the UK government?

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[dancpsu]

To be fair, income taxes is in the constitution now. The rest of course, are not.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[famebait]

And have you spoken with those deported from the United Kingdom, about their view of the UK government?

No, but friends who have been to iran say they got the impression that the priests represent the minority, and most people would prefer to just have a normal democratically elected government. And it is not exactly a shocking view in international politcs either. It is well known that the revolution was driven primarily by a desire to depose the sjah, and that a lot of its supporters woke up to asurprise when they discovered whom that revolution enabled to take power.

Re:We need this here in Jesusland

[famebait]

you seem to overlook some facts. The USA is the only super power left. I think that means they have shown a great ability to do something right and thus competence.

Becoming a superpower does not demonstrate competence in creating peace and democracy in other nations. Chaos and conflict in and between your rivals is much more useful for dominating the world. Not saying that that is a conscious strategy; just that a position of power doesn't demonstrate anything but the ability to get power.

An Example!

[bnf]

here is an example.

practicality?

[CupBeEmpty]

I am truly, before anything else, a proponent of personal freedoms. I know that this is definitely something that is common in technology communities. I am really heartened by an article like this.

The only question is how much impact will a blog have on a repressive government like China (or worse N. Korea... if blogging is even possible there). Will the next Thomas Paine be a blogger?

Re:practicality?

[Guppy06]

"The only question is how much impact will a blog have on a repressive government like China"

Maybe it will help keep Congress from giving them Permanent Normal Trade Rela... er, nevermind.

Re:practicality?

[CupBeEmpty]

Well free trade may be the thing that really blows China open a little. People with a lot of technology and consumer comfort tend to be the ones that get pissed off about things like... repressive government. While people struggling to live are more worried about things like... food.

Re:practicality?

[antifoidulus]

If anything this will make it worse in North Korea, the government will see what is happening in places like China and make sure nobody but the elite of the elite even get internet access at all, let alone unfiltered access. China can't keep up a high level of policing as more and more people get internet access, the sheer numbers make it impossible. However propaganda is still valuable there. It seems that most people won't get upset if you tell them that the government is blocking something for your own good...

It's interesting to see how NK and China diverged. About 30 years ago they had very similiar styles of government, but China decided that in order to become prosperous it had to give up some control, but in the end China itself would be more powerful, whereas NK chose to keep it's people in the dark as much as possible. Interesting to compare the "success"(of course it depends on your definition of success in this case) of each government and it's plans

Re:practicality?

[Guppy06]

Unless the government and the Beloved Party is painted as the provider of all those creature comforts. People only really care about freedom so long as they're free to get their creature comforts, then they're done.

Re:practicality?

[Propagandhi]

Will the next Thomas Paine be a blogger?

If the next Thomas Paine is a blogger, how will we find him/her through all the spam? Honestly, the internet as a publication option is becoming less and less viable with all this white noise...

Re:practicality?

[CupBeEmpty]

If anything this will make it worse in North Korea, the government will see what is happening in places like China and make sure nobody but the elite of the elite even get internet access at all, let alone unfiltered access.

The sad thing is that this may be true. While Thomas Paine may have had an easy time of printing leaflets against the rule of King George despite any crack downs by the government, internet access requires a lot more infrastructure in most cases. With more requirements for expensive infrastructure it becomes easier for the government to repress. I would like nothing more than watching the people of North Korea rise up and denounce Kim Jong-Il and that entire f-ed up government, but it seems unlikely without some kind of outside intervention. Maybe the US should park ships off the NK border and implement a little Wi-Max and drop laptops the way we dropped food in Afghanistan. But then again folks at home might have problems with their children getting killed airlifting internet access into North Korea.

Re:practicality?

[antifoidulus]

Well, they would also have to well....
a) have electricity unless we are planning to have them use them for only 2 hours
b) know how to use a device they have never seen before in their lives
c) be literate, a lot of North Korean kids are skipping school to go help their family forage for food. Obviously North Korea does't release reliable statistics on literacy, but my bet is that it's dropping, and of course, it's in the governments best interest to let it drop for all but the smartest of individuals(somebodys gotta build those bombs)
d) find a way to hide/dispose of the laptops in houses that don't even have enough plates/bowls for people to eat out of, let alone furniture. You could bury them, but that has the potential to harm already poor farmland, exasperating famine.....

The North Korean government hates it's people, but damn if it isn't good at what it does.....
Not to mention, provided you don't have you know, a concience, Kim Jong Il lives better than Bill Gates and anyone else on thie planet for that matter; he gets as many virgins as he wants, drives whatever he wants, drinks whatever he wants, hell even kills whoever he wants just for fun I bet..........

Re:practicality?

[Fred_A]

It doesn't matter what the source of the comfort is (and I doubt that people will actually believe that the Party is the source of it all - even though in a way it is since it likely has a hand in every local corporation).
The point is that people who actually bring change have always been the ones who have had some comfort and who have seen it whither away. They have been called "bourgeoisie" or "middle class" depending on the times, but they were always the ones that brought the changes, never the people at the top or at the bottom of the socoal scale.

So more middle class in China (or wherever there wasn't any previously) is always a good thing IMO.

Re:practicality?

[complete loony]

So maybe I should move to a different country and start protesting about the DMCA or any other law I don't like.

Re:practicality?

[hcdejong]

It's already 'worse in North Korea'. Internet access is very restricted there, right now.
In NK, it's cellphones rather than the internet that are breaking the government's stranglehold on communications. The fact that it's China that's providing the tools, is ironic, to say the least.

Re:practicality?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am truly, before anything else, a proponent of personal freedoms

Then please don't say "freedoms" (plural), implying that "they" can be enumerated. That is exactly what government wants you to believe: that an individual's "freedoms" can and should be enumerated one by one. (In other words, "freedoms" are derived from and defined by a ruling authority, not human nature, and without that ruling authority there would be no "freedoms".) That's just plain bullshit.

In reality, there is only one freedom, and it eclipses any "freedoms" one might try to enumerate. This is the individual's natural human right to be free from aggression (theft, fraud, physical force, or threat thereof) -- and to defend himself against it. We know this principle is moral and just because human nature says so -- the principle is learned by every child at an early age, with instinct playing a major role. (Some may be tempted to disregard the principle, but that doesn't mean they don't understand it perfectly, just as one might refuse to eat but still understand that he needs to eat in order to survive.)

It's as simple as it gets: respect me and my rightfully-acquired property (including my body which I exclusively own), and in return, I respect you and your rightfully-acquired property (including your body which you exclusively own). Mutual respect. For example, you have freedom of speech not because government grants you that right; you have it because speaking your opinion is an act of non-aggression, and for somebody to forbid you from speaking your opinion would be an act of aggression. Every single one of our "freedoms" can and should be defined by this simple principle, not by what some arbitrary authority figure (even a majority) says.

Don't let anyone tell you that this principle can be altered, suspended, or reformed. That's impossible, just as eliminating your need to eat is impossible. Either the principle is honored, or it's not. Today, unfortunately, it's not.

Re:practicality?

[mrogers]

Without political and civil rights, what will stop the people at the top from keeping all the "consumer comfort" for themselves? If China adopts market capitalism then most Chinese people will work in Nike sweatshops instead of government sweatshops, but they still won't have the means to improve their situation, ie political power. (And please don't say they'll have power when wages go up, because no rational corporation is going to pay its workers more than the minimum demanded by law.)

Re:practicality?

[F_Scentura]

"the government will see what is happening in places like China and make sure nobody but the elite of the elite even get internet access"

That's *already* the case.

Re:practicality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until those contries ban vpn traffic (which would mean banning ssl so it prob. won't happen) there will always be alternatives (think darknet with a light on).

We have been running for over a year now and have people from many VERY oppressive coutries. They do as they please, say what they will, and there have been no issues. For that matter there are people from less _outwardly_ oppressive countries that discuss some pretty "out there" ideas. Things that the US, UK, etc...etc... prob. don't want people talking about.

See Wikipedia for some more info.

Re:practicality?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If anything this will make it worse in North Korea"

The country with a single dial-up internet connection to a Chinese ISP? How will their internet suffer any more?

choice quote

[jest3r]

"We can write freely in blogs," writes Arash Sigarchi, an Iranian journalist who was nonetheless sentenced to 14 years in prison for posting several messages online that criticized the Iranian regime. I guess freedom has a different definition over there ...

Re:choice quote

[masklinn]

I guess they can write freely as in their words aren't checked and they are not in prison before the publishing.

They can at least get their rants read before getting their ass pounded (which is why they get in both cases anyway) which is somewhat of a progress.

Re:choice quote

[hcdejong]

He wasn't posting anonymously. His site clearly states his name.

His use of 'freely' stems from this:
"As I have already mentioned, if you want to print a book, poem, story, or even newspaper or magazine in Iran, you have to obtain permission from the authorities. Very many writers and journalists are affected by this.
But if you want to publish a story, poem or essay in a newspaper or magazine, it will be censored. So many Iranian writers publish their views in blogs, at less cost and they are not forced to censor themselves. So the government, as in China and elsewhere, restricts Internet use."
(quoted from the Handbook for bloggers and cyberdissidents, p50, italics are mine)

So yes, different definition.

Deaf ears?

[saskboy]

The problem may be more keeping the content accessible, once you've sufficiently annonymized yourself so you can keep publishing. Because for every One blogger in an oppressive country, there will be 3 government workers with the task of silencing that person, and making sure anyone who reads the subversive material will be afraid to pass on the information to others.

""A call for free elections ... has a maximum online life of about half an hour," Pain writes of censorship in China."

We don't know how lucky we are to be in areas that still have an essentially free [although lackluster] press.

Re:Deaf ears?

[RWerp]

The only solution is international pressure. No internal opposition to an authoriarian regime will survive if it does not receive support from abroad. For example, in Poland in the eighties people were publishing illegally books. When caught, their equipment was confiscated and they received some jail sentences -- but that was just about everything the government did to them. Why they were not killed? Because the West would make a ruccus about it, Radio Free Europe would make a ruccus about it and Polish communists would have problems with, say, economical negotiations or face sanctions. That saved Polish dissident's asses. If West (America and the EU) don't do the same with China, things won't change there for the better for a long time.

Re:Deaf ears?

[glesga_kiss]

essentially free [although lackluster] press.

A commercial media is not free media. Our media is more limited than you are aware; no big consipiracy, just the nature of the beast.

Interesting Quote

[superpulpsicle]

"Bloggers are often the only real journalists in countries where the mainstream media is censored or under pressure"

I am not sure U.S is that much better with our journalists. We should rename TV to the propaganda box.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

"We should rename TV to the propaganda box."

    If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences. And there are differences, although on some stations it's hard to tell with some Canadian broadcasts trying to use the American "non-news" model.

    We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time. People who lie that much do not belong on a regular cable channel on a show that claims to be fair and balanced. It'd be ok if he was on the Comedy Network, but so many people think he's seriously telling them the truth about whatever he's talking about. They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press.

Perhaps we just need to teach our children to think more critically, instead of asuming that every white guy in a suit on TV knows what they are talking about if they either praise Jesus, or Bush.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Distinguished Hero]

When was the last time you saw something pro-Bush or pro-Iraq on CNN? How much did the networks spend on Cindy? How much time did they spend trying to implicate Karl Rove in the CIA leak? How much time have they spent on New Orleans, and with what slant? When was the last time you heard the virtues of capitalism, individual freedoms, or individual responsibility extolled on TV?

Your political views are the way they are due to the input you receive from your media, etc. I doubt you just stumbled onto a book in the library one day and all of a sudden realized that America really is the great satan in-spite of everything you had seen or heard on TV. No, your view of the world was probably build up gradually.

The TV is a propaganda box; however, it does not carry the type of propaganda you think it does (which of course is the mark of truly great propagandists.)

Re:Interesting Quote

[marko123]

"teach our children to think more critically" of what they see in our media...

This is a great idea, being debated in Victorian education (Australia) at present, with divisive strawman arguments against it (e.g. "educating from the back of cereal packets instead of classics","moral relativism will result in social destruction" )

Re:Interesting Quote

[slashdotnickname]

We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.

But O'Reilly is not a journalist, he just hosts a commentary show with entertaiment-type goals. In the rodeo of news media, not all its players are cowboys. Some are clowns... some are bulls.... some are PETA people laying down in the middle to protest the use of bulls... some are paramedics rescuing the protestors with 1st degree hoof injuries... the object is to get your news from some sources, and just laugh and be entertained from others.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Shihar]

"We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."

I personally would much rather have MORE Bill O' Idiots on. Bill is in fact a shit head and more then a little dull. That said (at least when I used to watch his show) he asked people very pointed questions. Sure he was clearly slanted, but I would take slanted and willing to ask real questions and press people when they start spewing PR speak over 'objective' and lobbing softballs.

Personally, I think the biggest reason why the press sucks these days is not because they are trying to influence our opinions (err, minus FOX news, which cleary does have an agenda) or have a secret agenda. I personally think the problem with the press is that they are just fucking lazy. Covering a 'runaway bride' story takes a quick phone call to a local affiliate, sitting in on one police briefing, few minutes of editing, and one idiot who can blather on for hours about two small pieces of information.

Getting a guy with a camera inside of Iraq, North Korea, Uzbekistan, China, or Sudan and filming something that the local governments don't want us to see is a hell of a lot harder, more expensive, and risky. Spend 20 minutes on run away brides and other inane shit for pennies on the dollar or make a substantial investment in money and possibly live to cover real news outside of the nation. If the stupid masses will watch a run away bridge story and not turn off the fucking TV like they should, guess what the news is going to spew at us day in and out. No evil conspiracy, just a bunch of fucking lazy reporters providing the bare minimum news to lazy fucking Americans. Bah.

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

If I'd grown up with only American media I'd probably think you were kidding, but since I'm from Canada and have seen both Canadian local, national, and American local and national broadcasts, I can pick out the differences.

So you've noticed the CBC's sometimes oblique approach to the truth?

We need to start demanding more from our journalists

No. We need to fire all the journalists and get some reporters.

and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.

What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

I just realised that I wasn't nearly harsh enough in my previous reply.

We have here a post about a very important subject - freedom of the press - and we get this retarded Canadian communist monkey saying "We need to ... stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time."

Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you. It's not a difficult concept. Freedom means you don't get to say who gets airtime. Freedom means people get to vote for the other guy if they decide you suck.

And *WHAP* with a dead fish to whoever modded this tripe "Insightful".

Re:Interesting Quote

[nwbvt]

"We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.... They don't realize that he's a government mouthpiece, and is essentially the anti-free press."

Something about that doesn't quite add up, I just can't put my finger on it...

Its like there is some contradiction in there, some blatant example of hypocrisy...

Oh well, its late, maybe I'll get it in the morning.

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

Darn. That's much pithier than my rant. And taking the pith is always good.

Re:Interesting Quote

[PotatoHead]

The funny thing is that John Stewart, who is on Comedy Central, happens to be far more accurate than Bill O, ever was. --and he is hilarious at the same time.

I'm not sure Comedy Central would have him!

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia. They cover important stories for Canadians, and even if they don't end up interviewing people you might agree with, they still talk to people, and give normal people air time as fairly as possible. They also do in-depth coverage of usually the top story, AFTER the rest of the news has been read, so you don't have to sit through blab if you don't want to.

    As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.

    If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible. If they loved their country and were actually commited to being fair and balanced and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them. Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc. Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?

Re:Interesting Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time you heard the virtues of capitalism, individual freedoms, or individual responsibility extolled on TV?

And you think the current US administration represents these things...?

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

CBC [when not locked out] actually has the best national news broadcast because they give a broad news picture instead of focussing on something like a bride that runs away in Georgia.

Well, duh.

a) Nothing ever happens in Canada.
b) Canadians don't care about runaway brides in Georgia. Instead, you get wall-to-wall coverage about lovelorn mooses in Manitoba.

As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining.

It's the public's fault?

Yes.

So? Did you actually have a point?

It's supposed to be the public's fault. That's what freedom means. You just don't get it, do you?

As for "allowing" O'Idiot on the air, that's the public's fault for continuing to listen to him as if he's entertaining. As Jon Stewart said about Crossfire on CNN, Bill too is "Hurrrrting America". He may be entertainment, but he's providing lies and saying they are true and verified and because he's broadcast with the word "NEWS" in the corner, the more gullible of the American nation take him at face value.

I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days.

If Bill O' had a blog and no TV show I'm sure crackpots and those who enjoy real-life parody would continue to support him, but for a station to put him on the air is completely irresponsible.

Freedom. Press. Freedom of the press. Freedom. Free. Got it now?

Didn't think so.

If they loved their country

I'm pretty sure they do.

and were actually commited to being fair and balanced

As opposed to being committed to seeming fair and balanced, which is the case with the other networks.

The "Fair and Balanced" thing from Fox is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased, but they unlike the other networks they are completely up-front about it.

and informing the public, they'd be ashamed to have someone like him working for them.

Unless, y'know, he got good ratings.

Money talks, but look who has the money in China, Iran, etc.

The rich people? The banks? I dunno, you tell me.

Do you really want the people with the most money doing your talking?

No more than I want the people who do the most talking ending up with my money.

Freedom of the press. Freedom, press. Press, freedom.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Thanatopsis]

Karl Rove was involved. He confirmed Valerie Plame's identity. This came out after MONTHS of denials that he had nothing at all to do with it. Whether he committed a crime or not is up to the special prosecutor.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.

"Freedom of the press includes freedom for people who disagree with you."

I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies". Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies. It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies. But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.

    I have no problem with a dissenting opinion in the media on missle defence, troop strength in Iraq, or the effectiveness of FEMA, etc. I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again. It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.

Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.

That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

Your A) and B), while being poor jokes, is also pretty insensitive to your nation's closest ally. Take some responsibility for what you write and say - impressionable minds may be reading and take those things seriously. Although with Bill O'Idiot being one of your role models for a "free" press, I'd be surprised if you did.

"I didn't realise the Daily Show ran with the word "NEWS" in the corner these days."
The "NEWS" thing from FOX NEWS is a deliberate poke at the other networks. Fox is biased crap, but they, unlike the other networks, are completely up-front about their slogan which the average Fox News viewer takes at face value. The Daily Show is the closest thing the US main stream media has to a hard hitting news program these days, asking the tough questions and interviewing real people in all their un-glory.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of the press is not a license to print whatever they want. Its a license to print the truth without government censorship or reprisal. You are confusing freedom of speech with freedom of the press.

The press has an obligation to be fair, balanced, and as unbiased as possible while wearing the 'News' hat. If they want to be liars, hypocrits, extremists or nutjobs they can put on the 'Comedy' hat and hang out on comedy central with The Daily Show.

Nobody is saying Bill O' can't have his say. Just that its ethically bankrupt to represent it as having any 'legitimate journalistic integrety' by broadcasting it while wearing the 'News' hat.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus or Bush? There's a difference?

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

Excuse me for replying to trolling flamebait, but I'm not a communist, nor a monkey although maybe I do look like one, so I can understand your confusion.

Sure, you're excused.

I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".

Actually, it does. But anyway:

Bill O'Idiot provides what he calls facts to an unsuspecting and easily swayed audience, when in fact his facts are complete BS or outright lies.

Cite.

It's not hard to verify this, just do a search through google and you'll find video clips of documented Bill-lies.

Cite.

But perhaps you didn't notice because you didn't KNOW what the real facts were when he's presented his versions.

Cite.

And I'll match you, cite for cite, with lies from the New York Times and the BBC.

I might not agree and think someone else is wrong if they have another opinion they can't support how I'd like, but when they LIE to support their position, they've ruined their journalistic integrity ON AIR, and can't be trusted again.

Like the New York Times did in 1932? Oh, yeah, they WON A PULITZER for that lie.

It's not that Bill doesn't look up the facts, he just doesn't care to! He isn't getting the facts wrong, because he never knows the facts, and if he does, he won't say them if it hurts his twisted ultra-conservative agenda.

Cite.

Me: Truth good even if it hurts
Bill: Truth bad especially if it hurts.

The truth? You can't handle the truth!

That's the difference, and you're clearly part of the problem since you think:
Canadian = communist monkey who couldn't offer helpful advice on the state of American media from a more dispassionate outside view.

No. I have actual friends in Canada. It's just that you're a dingbat.

Look, I have no brief for Bill O'Reilly. I've never seen his show. From what I've heard, I suspect he really is an idiot.

But if you think that the CBC is a reliable news source, if you think that Jon Stewart isn't spinning stuff at least as hard as O'Reilly, then you are completely and utterly clueless.

And more to the point, you just don't get the fundamental concept. That's what makes you a dingbat. (Or alternately, being a dingbat to begin with, you are unable to get the concept.)

Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.

Got it now?

What the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech."

No ifs, no buts. No "except for Bill O'Reilly". No law. None.

If the people decide they don't like him and ratings drop, off he goes.

If he's actually exposed in fraud like Dan Rather, then the network will likely ditch him to cover their asses.

That's fine. He's still free to get another job with another network, or pay for his own airtime.

But you, my not-communist-but-clearly-desperately-naive-and-ha rbouring-dangerous-totalitarian-instincts friend, don't get to decide.

Re:Interesting Quote

[uncoveror]

Yes, only one has 666 on his head.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

"I'm sorry, but "disagree" does not mean "provide lies".

Actually, it does. But anyway:"

No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.

I could have said, "No, it doesn't because you're a dense mofo," which would have been lying to support my opposing position [or at least I assume it'd be lying?].

======

All your cite are belong to MediaMatters.org

Oh look:
"O'Reilly again falsely accused former guest of claiming that Bush "orchestrat[ed] 9-11"
On the September 21 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly revived his false allegation that Jeremy Glick, a former guest on the program whose father was killed in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "accused the president of the United States of orchestrating 9-11" during his O'Reilly Factor appearance."

"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch"
In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"

======
"Freedom of the press means freedom of the press. It means that you don't get to choose who goes on the air and who doesn't. Because the press is free.

Got it now?"

Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now. Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power, which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show. Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Fred_A]

All well and good, but seen from afar, it seems that you're not very representative of the average US person in your analysis of the media. Apparently to most of them, if it was in the "news" then it was "newsworthy" and therefore true. They wouldn't put clowns in charge of the news now would they ?

The WMD fiasco (from the media POV which blindly printed what they were told to) didn't seem to change that feeling much...

Re:Interesting Quote

[Fred_A]

Well, the only thing I ever see on CNN is ads for hotels, animations of the CNN logo, poorly done weather reports, more hotel ads, more CNN logos, a few more hotels, and by then I'm usually hunting for something more worthwile to watch or I've switched the TV off.

I still haven't figured where the "news" come in, I've certainly never seen any on CNN.
But I have to agree that none of the hotels seemed to be especially pro Iraq or Bush(or anti- for that matter, as hotels go, they didn't seem to have much of an opinion on the issue).

Re:Interesting Quote

[SQL Error]

No, it doesn't. See that? I just disagreed with you, and didn't lie to do it.

The point is, freedom of the press for those that agree with you includes freedom for everyone.

If they lie, you can prove the lie, and they will lose credibility. Example: Dan Rather.

But there is no law, and there should never be a law, that someone cannot speak because you claim that they are lying. Or even if they are lying. Of course, if they are defaming you, you can take civil action against them. That's a whole 'nother law.

All your cite are belong to MediaMatters.org

Oh gawd.

"O'Reilly wrong again: "Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch"
In fact, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents"

Tee hee.

That's a lie? You call that a lie?

The other is a case of who-said-what-when, and can possibly be decided as strictly true or false. (Or possibly not, depending on who said what when.)

But statement B, Republican appointees to the federal judiciary outnumber judges appointed by Democratic presidents does not serve to falsify statement A, Republicans don't have control of the judicial branch.

Canada and America go about this different ways, that's part of why we're butting heads right now.

That's complete nonsense. There's only one way to have a free press, and that's to have a free press.

Canada seems to realize that the point of a free press is to keep the people free to criticize people in power which explains shows like Air Farce, 22 Minutes, and the popularity of The Daily Show.

How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power.

The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it.

Americans go more by the letter of the law, even if the spirit is stompped all to hell by people like Bill O'Idiot.

The letter of the law is that the press is free. That's the point. If you don't like what someone says, you can argue the alternative. What you can't do is take away his right to speak.

Yet that is EXACTLY what you are proposing.

In, I will point out yet again, a post about the freedom of the press.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

I'm not taking away Bill's right to speak [on a blog or on the street {or *gasp* even TV}], I'm asking that he be taken off the air in a context where gullible people think he's *NEWS* and not ego stroking entertainment for doofi.

==
"How do any of those shows keep the people free to do that? What they in fact do is engage in criticising people in power.
The point of the free press is the dissemination of information. And that's it."

How do you think Bill O' operates? He's *engaged* in shilling the administration. He's the antithesis of people criticizing the government AND he's disseminating mis-information. Please explain how he's supporting society's dream of a free press, by abusing his free speach to lie and manipulate?

I'm headed to bed now though, I'll see your attempt in the morning.

Re:Interesting Quote

[TeXMaster]

What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time. They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.

An interesting aspect of "freedom of speech" in the Western world: the constitutionally-protected "freedom of speech" only gets concretized if you have enough money to get to the media. In other words, this "freedom of speech" only gets as far as somebody's money can take you ... in yet other words, it's not a right, it's a privilege.

True right protection does not limit itself to "not preventing you from" and "not punishing when you do". True right protection comes when the ability to do something is guaranteed, at least at a minimum level, by the res publica in the original meaning of the word. For example, good health and a decent education are a protected right when a nation has good quality, free or extremely low cost, health and educational services (hospitals, schools)

In a sense, blogs are a very good step in that direction (at least where electricty and Internet are widespread enough to be considered of common availability).

Re:Interesting Quote

[CaptainFork]

...stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time

Uhhh, I think you just advocated censorship.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Kafir]

In your view, then, "freedom of speech" means "right to force other people to distribute what you have to say"?

Right protection precisely means "not preventing you from". Possibly freedom of religion means you have a right to sacrifice chickens if you want to; it certainly doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy chickens for you to sacrifice.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Kadmos]

Perhaps we just need to teach our children to think more critically, instead of asuming that every white guy in a suit on TV knows what they are talking about if they either praise Jesus, or Bush.

That's funny, at the mention of either of those two people I automatically assume who follows will be either:
1. Somebody talking about stuff he doesn't appear to actually know anything about because he has no real life expereince or,
2. Somebody telling me I should think one think whilst all the available evidence points to the contrary.

Can't tell the difference? Neither can I!

Re:Interesting Quote

[nwbvt]

"I'm not taking away Bill's right to speak [on a blog or on the street {or *gasp* even TV}], I'm asking that he be taken off the air in a context where gullible people think he's *NEWS* and not ego stroking entertainment for doofi."

You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? Most people understand that he is airing opinions not news, even if you don't, much like a columnist writing for a newspaper. Or do you think the editorial pages should be moved because "people might get confused"?

BTW, that thing you are advocating, telling people when and where they can and cannot speak, it has a name. Its called "censorship", and most supporters of the free press don't care for it that much.

Re:Interesting Quote

[I_M_Noman]

Fox is biased, but they unlike the other networks they are completely up-front about it.

Bwahahahahahahaha! *snort* Ah, me, for a moment I thought you were serious.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Jagasian]

A little anti-(US)Americanism thrown in there in the beginning, huh? How did your post get modded up? I am pretty openminded about things and willing to roll with the punches. I also voted AGAINST Bush in the past two elections... but this has got to stop. anti-USA remarks must be called for what they are: unjust prejudice based on nationality.

Back to directly addressing your comments. Yes there is allot of crap on TV here in the USA, but we still have a choice. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS is a good alternative. They treat news as news and not entertainment. It is roughly 1 hour long, with 1 minute of commercials at the beginning and the end of the hour. It is, in my opinion, the most informative news show on TV. Nightline also does a good job of detailing specific issues int he world, though it is not a general news show like the Newshour.

So thanks for the anti-Americanism, as it is misleadingly called... Canadians are Americans too, as are Mexicans, etc. I've seen news in other places and it has its issues too. News in the UK is decidedly anti-American, which seems to be en vogue recently. It is not acceptable to be an anti-African news show, so why is it acceptable to be anti-American? Watching the coverage of Katrina in both the USA and the UK was sickening. News outlets in the UK seemed to find pleasure in the disaster and sensationalized all sorts of stuff. My point is that you need to check yourself and cut the anti-American crap.

Re:Interesting Quote

[jc42]

What's this "allow" nonsense? In America there's this thing called "the Constitution". Everyone is allowed to have air time.

Well, I was going to point out why this isn't at all true, but then you explained it yourself:

They have to convince someone to actually broadcast it, but we have this other thing called "money" that's good for that.

There is the old observation that the "Free Press" is available only to those who can afford to buy and operate a press. The same principle applies to TV, which is the only "news" source seen by most Americans.

There is a technical problem with television: We don't have an infinite supply of broadcast channels. If everyone were allowed to broadcast freely, whether via the airwaves or via cable, we'd have the situation you see repeatedly on many "discussion" shows, where you get N people all talking loudly and you can't understand what anyone is saying.

The Internet provides a practical solution to this. You can't broadcast, of course; the Internet really doesn't do broadcast. But you can put something online, where interested people can read your thoughts (or rants) and link to them if they like.

What we need is the obvious followup to Free Speech and Free Press: The list should include the inaliable right to have a web site where you can post your thoughts (or rants) for the world to see. Neither governments nor ISPs should be allowed to prevent us from running our own web servers. Neither governments nor ISPs should be allowed to block packets (except to limit total throughput, since bandwidth isn't unlimited).

This would give us a better situation that the cacophony of free speech or the spam from a free press: Everyone could put their ideas (or rants) out before the world, but nobody would be forced to listen.

It's probably not going to happen soon, though. Consider that here in the US, where we hear "free speech" as a rhetorical device all the time, most of us have only one available ISP, and that ISP has a "no servers" rule. If we can't even do it here in the US, what are the chances for the rest of the world?

Re:Interesting Quote

[ncc74656]

We need to start demanding more from our journalists, and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time.

You've just summarized the moonbat mindset (such as it is) in a nutshell: free speech for me, but not for thee. As others have already pointed out, we have this thing called the First Amendment (since you're a foreigner, you're probably not familiar with it) that says you get to say pretty much whatever you want. There are a handful of exceptions for things like incitement and slander, but Bill O'Reilly (who really isn't a conservative), Cindy Shitbird, and everyone else all get to speak their piece.

Free speech is a Good Thing. You might want to try it out in your country sometime. It's worked well for us.

Re:Interesting Quote

[Abcd1234]

And yet I see anti-North-Korean and anti-China news on US TV all the time (not to mention here on Slashdot).

Re:Interesting Quote

[TeXMaster]

In your view, then, "freedom of speech" means "right to force other people to distribute what you have to say"?

And exactly which logical steps do you take from my post to that conclusion?

Right protection precisely means "not preventing you from".

So if I don't actively prevent you from doing something, but there are piles of insurmuntable obstacles for you to express a particular right, I'm protecting that particular right of yours?

I think the key is in the term protection. "Not stealing" is not the same as "guarding".

Possibly freedom of religion means you have a right to sacrifice chickens if you want to; it certainly doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy chickens for you to sacrifice.

No, but it meast I shouldn't be obstructed from buying chickens or raise them on my own.

The case of freedom of speech is however different, in that freedom of speech is not about being able to speak your ideas aloud in the seclusion of a remote chamber in a dungeon; it's about the possibility to freely communicate those ideas to other people, to communicate with them.

If there are practical insurmuntable obstacles to doing this, is the right protected?

What you are doing is stretching my remarks on the need of all kinds of "Speaker's Corner"s to some "Everybody should be given a personal channel on cable TV"

Re:Interesting Quote

[elemental23]

Free speech is a Good Thing.

--
Always
Communist,
Left-wing, and
Un-American

I can't even tell if you're being ironic here.

Left wing I'll grant you, as the right sure isn't interested in civil liberties these days. Note however, that the ACLU even stands up for the free speech rights of the far right.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

Actually I'm pro-American, I want America to do well because when it does Canada will do well to [as long as you don't get bigger heads and try to take us over in a hostile way].

I'm just anti-American-administration. It's openly hostile to Canadian and other foreign interests. Just ask Iraq. Or BC loggers. Or cattle ranchers. Need I go on? There's a lot of issues for a Canadian to get a little bitter over, especially when your government officials break international trade laws you agreed to abide by, and then tells Canada to "stop being emotional", and get back to the bargaining table so you can bend us over.

It's rather disheartening though that nearly one in two of your voting citizens voted for Bush after the horrors of the first term. You might be excused for letting him slip in the first time by tweaking the Florida results, but the second time is just uncalled for. Thanks for your effort in keeping him out, but somewhere your system failed and let a cronyism master take the reigns yet again. Hang on, the ride isn't over yet. If Congress doesn't ban blogging of political events, then it will be interesting reading the next few years for those on the outside looking in.

Re:Interesting Quote

[saskboy]

As another pointed out, your mocking of the ACLU is precious irony.

"the First Amendment (since you're a foreigner, you're probably not familiar with it)"
Can I plead the Fifth and not answer that? ;-) Not I didn't have to look that one up. Good thing you've got your Second handy, you can just show me your bare arm and I'll run away now.

Just because you know nothing else of the world, or even your neighbouring country, doesn't mean foreigners don't know anything about your country. Canada has freedom of expression, and a free press too, we just go about it a different way. People can't say openly racist things on the air trying to incite hatred against an identifable group, or you'll get fined or worse. Look up Ahenakew's trial if you'd like to learn more about recent case law in Canada. And as best as I can tell, it's only our politicians who sometimes lie to us, not our journalists. Your news media might want to try it sometime - being honest that is.

But...

[Dankling]

I thought that the invention of the blog was made for the REpressed views and opinions of the average person not outgoing enough to make their voice heard in a public forum. The blog was invented to draw attention TO the publisher, not away - making him/her anonymous.

It would seem to me that this new perogative goes directly against the principals that the first blog was based on.

Or, maybe I am just way overthinking this subject - maybe we all are...

Re:But...

[masklinn]

I thought that the invention of the blog was made for the REpressed views and opinions of the average person not outgoing enough to make their voice heard in a public forum. The blog was invented to draw attention TO the publisher, not away - making him/her anonymous.

Nay, the blog is supposed to draw attention to the publisher's opinion (if he has any, that is, otherwise he's just one more attention whore in the intarweb), to allow him to express said opinion and have it noticed instead of just being a lost voice in the background noise.

Re:But...

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

It is still calling attention to the blogger, just not his real life identity.

Re:But...

[myowntrueself]

Indeed, this article is almost a dupe:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/22/162224 4&tid=95

Something about blogging as therapy? Theres a fine distinction here, political dissidency often (or is it just sometimes?) being a symptom of neurotic personalities in need of some therapy.

Meanwhile, in the US, bloggers cry out for freedom

[Sattwic]

How about freedom of press and free speech for bloggers right here in the US??

WASHINGTON--Political bloggers on Tuesday urged federal regulators to keep the Internet as free as possible from campaign finance laws.

At a public hearing convened by the Federal Election Commission, both liberal and conservative political commentators lauded the brand of freewheeling online politicking that has characterized recent elections. The FEC is under a court order to extend campaign finance rules to the Internet, and the Democratic commissioners voted not to appeal.

Online politicking should not be subject to onerous federal rules, Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said. "We're all agreed about that." But, Weintraub added, "What is the best way for us to regulate bloggers?"

Radio and TV stations generally are immune from campaign finance laws unless their "facilities" are controlled by a political party or candidate.

One option, suggested by Republican Commissioner Michael Toner, would be to extend the same logic to say the "facilities" of Web servers should immunize political speech online.

http://news.com.com/Bloggers+plead+for+freedom+fro m+election+laws/2100-1028_3-5767156.html/

Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

That the French government would fund this.. they're one of the many countries that will prosecute you for holocaust denial or supporting nazis.

Freedom of speech is for all.

Re:Ironic

[Sattwic]

That the French government would fund this.. they're one of the many countries that will prosecute you for holocaust denial or supporting nazis. Freedom of speech is for all.

Would that freedom include crying 'fire' in a crowded theater too?

Freedom of speech is a basic human right to express one's opinions, not a blanket license to incite terror, hatred and bigotry. That is NOT what the freedom is meant for.

Re:Ironic

[jessu]

Freedom should not be used to block the freedom of other persons.

Wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression / "The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited"

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

So, isn't blogging about bringing democracy to a fascist state much the same thing, only against a different group of people?

What if my opinions are that nazis are great and I disagree with the the popularlly accepted events of the holocaust?

There is a difference between actually killing people and merely saying its a good idea. There is a difference between having a blog and yelling your opinions in a crowded theater (a theater is not an open fourm, a website is).

When free speech becomes restricted by the whims of what is popular and what is not, it is no longer freedom.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll also note that these types of laws have been used to try to censor unpopular research. Phillippe Rushton, a Canadian scientist, believes there are genetic differences between the races that are responsible for IQ differences, crime rate differences, and general behavioral differences between different racial groups.

Rushton goes out of his way to condemn hate or bigotry, yet he is often the target of hate himself (death threats, vandalism, etc) and has been the constant target of Canadian authorities to try to prosecute him (which have all failed so far.. something that may have been successfully done in other more restrictive European countries) for merely suggesting that there are differences between racial groups.

Its irrelevant whether you believe he is right or wrong (I don't nessecarily agree with him 100%, coming from a social science perspective), but the fact of the matter is that there is a popular trend out there to censor and persecute people who dare to violate certian taboos about discussing certian issues when it comes to race, nazis, liking or disliking the policies of Israel & Jews, the holocaust, etc.

I hate neo-nazis (I guess its OK to hate unpopular groups?) and bigots, but what I fear even more is the chilling tendency of our society to squelch the "market place of ideas" becuase people are offended. It is basically saying "you have free speech as long as you agree with our opinions.

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

If the theatre was on fire I would think that would be a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Re:Ironic

[grimJester]

Freedom of speech is a basic human right to express one's opinions, not a blanket license to incite terror, hatred and bigotry.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the above sentence covers the difference between European and US freedom of speech completely. In the US, (at least in theory) all political speech is protected, even that which is considered dangerous incitement in Europe.

Re:Ironic

[The Ivan]

This is not unlike the "battle" between GPL and BSD licences (this is Slashdot after all).

The "freedom of speech for all" stance is like BSD. Everyone may do absolutely anything they like, but this will also include the freedom to oppress and to limit the freedom of others.

The "crying fire" stance on the other hand means that you are free to do whatever you like, as long as you don't restrict the freedom of others to do the same. Kind of like GPL isn't it?

Re:Ironic

[Liam Slider]

You left out the European "you can say anything you want unless it offends the State in some specific way" idea of what Free Speech is. Oh I get it....Microsoft EULA!

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech is meant to protect the speech you disagree with, not just the speech you like. Labelling someone a "Nazi" rather than debating his points is just juvenile. If, for example, the truth of the judeo-holocaust is so strong, why do they feel the need to make laws against questioning it? We don't need laws against questioning the moon landing, but we do need laws against the so-called holocaust?? Why is there only one topic that discussion is forbidden on amongst Western countries? Just think about it. How much is mythology, and how much is truth?

Re:Ironic

[Anonymous Coward]

If, for example, the truth of the judeo-holocaust is so strong, why do they feel the need to make laws against questioning it?

Precisely. That very question caused me to start reading the books and publications of the "historical revisonists"; something I'd never have done if the mighty weight of so many European governments hadn't seemed so hell-bent on preventing me from doing it.

You'd think more people would realize that trying to stop people from learning about something is the quickest way to make more people curious about it.

Re:Ironic

[Sigg3.net]

Creating general chaos in a crowded theater is disturbing the peace and not related to the freedom of speach.

I have no problem with people supporting nazi ideology, but I - as well as most other (theoretically) rational people - just ignores it.
THIS is the weapon of freedom. A guy can say "I really hate niggers."
See how many friends he get, or how supporters leave when they realize how difficult it is to implement their ideas into democracy.
But I still don't mind him saying it.

Acting it out, however, is another matter - again NOT related to freedom of speach.

Re:Ironic

[ourcraft]

You really have to get out more, there was a story reported widely yesterday, and this is just a single example, about a guy who grumbled, with profanity, about his loss of rights at a security check point. A judge found not that a guy "swearing" about his rights being lost, nor yelling was necessarily a crime but that:

by exclaiming that the screener should be in a different line of work, that he should live in a bubble, and that it was a free country in which he could say what he pleased.

was a crime. The poster on boingboing.net says this:

Is this really a justifiable difference? So its okay to ask the TSA "Why the fuck do I have to take my shoes off?" but not to tell them they live in a bubble or that this is a free country?

http://lawgeek.typepad.com/lawgeek/2005/09/no_firs t_amendm.html Will explain some of the court cases implications.

A second example might be the fact that, appearing at a rally about getting the troops home sooner than incompetence has planned for, gets you and your freinds infiltrated by Homeland Security. You may find that unintimidating, your speech may not be affected by these surreptitious visits, but many others have seen summary judgements and wrongful convictions and broken furniture, and find the prospect daunting.

A third example might be the boy who was detained for wearing a t-shirt critical of a heretofor always-praised public figure of some renown.

A forth might be the literal screaming of the word traitor whenever someone mentions the huge purposeful campaign of dishonesty that has lead to the deaths of some 25,000 to 40,000 central asian foreigners and wounded or killed about 16,000 American citizens.

I am going out right this moment and getting some freedom fries to celebrate the huge window of proper discourse that is allowed.

Just some links if you want them...

[l3prador]

I figured I'd just point these links out... I immediately went and looked for them, so I figured others might want be curious too...

Handbook (PDF): http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/handbook_bloggers_cyber dissidents-GB.pdf
Reporters without Borders (English): http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20

Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Shihar]

Right, because the Gestapo is going to kick down my door if I say something mean about Bush.

BUSH IS A CUM GUZZLING FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. HIS IS A FUCKING TERRORIST SHIT FUCKER. BUSH, AND BY BUSH I MEAN THAT BIG FUCKING RANK ASS VAGINA THAT WE CALL MR FUCK-HEAD-PRESIDENT, IS RUINING THE GOVERNMENT AND THIS ENTIRE GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCING NATION. JESUS FUCKING THE SWEET VIRGIN MERRY IN HER TIGHT LITTLE VIRGIN ASS DO I FUCKING HATE BUSH! FOR THE REVOLUTION! ...waits for his door to be broken down...

Oh wait, it didn't come. For fucks sake people, I hate Bush, I hate the PATRIOT Act, I don't really like our foreign policies or our domestic policies. That said, chill. The world is not over yet. I was down in DC during the height of the anti-war protests where people were wandering around with signs that make the above look down right pleasant. I was in Boston for the big protest in the commons. Free speech is alive and well. No one is going to throw you in jail for talking shit about Jesus. Hell, I fucking hate Jesus and no police have ever given me shit about it. I mean, I have a fucking bumper sticker that says "Jesus hates you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole" on my car, yet the only time I have been pulled over is when I was doing 20+ over the speed limit.

Get out of your narrow little American world view and realize that there are places in the world that make "Jesusland" look like a fucking utopia. Hell, the US has even more liberal free speech laws compared to even Europe, and Europe is pretty damn liberal. Try wearing a swastika in Germany or France and see how long it takes for the police to drag you off the streets.

Nothing is more irritating then stupid Americans whose world view doesn't go any farther then 48 states. There is a lot to complain about when it comes to the US. I could make a laundry list of domestic and foreign policy issues I have with out incompetent leaders. Free speech oppression doesn't fall on that list. You think you live in Gestapo land? Try traveling a little bit and see what REAL poverty and oppression looks like. You have never seen poverty and you sure as shit have never seen oppression.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ChipMonk]

From a one-time Jesusland resident:

Thank you. Thank you. You have nailed the rank hypocrisy right on its pointy head.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ThaFooz]

I agree that slashdot is a little heavy on the hyperbole, but you're missing the point. The issue is that the once-progressive American government is moving backwards in terms of civil liberties, whereas it seems like everybody else is moving forwards. And I don't think its just a knee-jerk reaction to the Bush administration either; American politics have been steadily moving to the right since JFK, RFK, & MLK were assassinated. We shouldn't have to compare ourselves to the rest of the world to feel better about it, we know what our potential is.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Give Jesusland a few years to work on sharpening its blades of repression... With people like you around who always say, "yeah but it could be worse," pretty soon it will be worse. Free speech is not a given in America, especially when elected politicians continually try to reign it back (see flag burning). Although I'm not sure why you referred to poverty in a rant about free speech, nothing is more irritating than stupid Americans whose world view doesn't go any further than their own middle-class surburban neighborhood. You don't think there is REAL poverty in America? Try touring some inner-cities. But then again, I guess it could be worse, right? So everything must be fine.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Sattwic]

Hmm..Just CURIOUS, but why is it then the majority of US editorials, writers and commentators take tooo much care to be 'politically correct'?
Freedom must mean freedom from every kind of oppression right?

Maybe there is no political repression on free speech per se, but SOCIAL pressure is much higher..

One sentence like say, "ISLAM is NOT a religion of Peace, rather it is a Hatemongering, terrorist breeding religion bent upon bringing the whole world under its tyranny" won't perhaps bring the gestapo to the doors, but will sure bring more severe consequences from the politically correct crowd before you can even wait for the doors to be broken down..

now, am waiting for MY doors to be broken down...

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

The issue is that the once-progressive American government is moving backwards in terms of civil liberties

Cite.*

* Short-hand for "give us a specific documented example, or shut up and sit down".

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[RLiegh]

One sentence like say, "ISLAM is NOT a religion of Peace, rather it is a Hatemongering, terrorist breeding religion bent upon bringing the whole world under its tyranny" won't perhaps bring the gestapo to the doors, but will sure bring more severe consequences from the politically correct crowd before you can even wait for the doors to be broken down..

Try saying the following in any city this isn't one of the major metropolitan areas (I'd suggest Dallas or Salt Lake City for maximum effect):
"Christianity is NOT a religion of Peace, rather it is a Hatemongering, terrorist breeding religion bent upon bringing the whole world under its tyranny" and see how long you manage to hold a job and/or an apartment there (and quite possibly end up with several broken bones to boot).

If you said your original sentence, even in some place "politically correct" such as New York the worst that would happen would be that you would be sternly reprimanded.

I invite the reader to compare and contrast.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

Give Jesusland a few years to work on sharpening its blades of repression.

'Cause the 229 so far haven't been enough! A few more years and wham! Repression! Mark my word, a few more years... Few more... Years... Words... Mark them, will ya, I'm out of chalk.

Free speech is not a given in America

YES IT BLOODY WELL IS!!!!!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

How complicated is that?

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[poopdeville]

Two big ones: Gay marriage amendment limiting state's rights to define marriage. The DMCA.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SpaceLifeForm]

Well said.

Things are a mess, but perhaps some are waking up. For instance, the destruction of 2.5 terabytes of 'Able Danger' data that indicated the U.S. Government was aware of the terrorist threat one year beforehand, and that 4 of them were identified. At least some in congress are waking up.

Link

"I think the Department of Defense owes the American people an explanation of what went on here," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Oh, and it looks like Rita may be turning towards New Orleans in the last hour. What a mess.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ThaFooz]

Sure.

How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment with the USA Patriot Act?
Or perhaps the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay?
Or the government intervention in something as personal as marriage?
Or the War on Privacy, err War on drugs?
Maybe the widening gap between the rich and poor? Perhaps the government endorsing religion?

Is that a good enough start?

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I was in Boston for the big protest in the commons.
Free speech is alive and well.

Yeah, in the free speech zones it is!
Hoo-fucking-ray for America, home of the caged, land of pussies.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Narchie Troll]

And a paragraph on an old piece of paper has what power, exactly?

It's not a given. You have to keep vigilant and fight if necessary to keep the rights described on that old piece of paper.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[QCompson]

It's very complicated, actually. Of course, there's the famous Justice Holmes' example of yelling fire in a crowded theater, but there are numerous other mitigating factors as well such as the sedition acts and obscene material.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[wyldeone]

I would disagree with you. In America, the government just better at it, more subtle. Sure nobody's going to put you in jail for dissenting because they know that you don't matter. At all. What does matter, however, is television news, which is controlled much tighter. This is an effective stragegy, as your post illustrates. Because they don't do it in the public's eye, it's very easy to say that, as you did, everything is free, merely because they don't break down people's doors. However, the result is the same.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[EiZei]

Get out of your narrow little American world view and realize that there are places in the world that make "Jesusland" look like a fucking utopia. Hell, the US has even more liberal free speech laws compared to even Europe, and Europe is pretty damn liberal. Try wearing a swastika in Germany or France and see how long it takes for the police to drag you off the streets.

At least our major parties don't cage any dissidents off plain sight. I personally value their freedoms more than some assholes whose idols managed to kill millions of people and devastate this continent. Quite ironic how they managed to wipe out so much physical history while trying to "preserve" it.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

How about the erosion of the 4th Amendment with the USA Patriot Act?

Cite.

Or perhaps the human rights violations in Guantanamo bay?

Cite. (And since Amnesty International are clearly insane on this subject, I won't take their word for anything anymore.)

Or the government intervention in something as personal as marriage?

Damn straight. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

How this is an example of "going backwards" in terms of civil liberties, though, I'm not sure.

Or the War on Privacy, err War on drugs?

Cite.

Maybe the widening gap between the rich and poor?

Completely irrelevant to the subject.

Perhaps the government endorsing religion?

Check your Constitution, dude.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[strook]

Oh, just admit it - you don't care about political freedoms at all, you've just been trying for ages to get a comment modded +5 Insightful that had the phrase "BUSH IS A CUM GUZZLING FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT" in it....

;-)

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

Gay marriage amendment limiting state's rights to define marriage.

What Gay Marriage Amendment?

You do realise this doesn't exist, right?

The DMCA.

Okay. Yes. Point for you on that one. The DMCA isn't the demon that some Slashdotters make it out to be, but it is a lousy law and it is a step backwards for civil liberties.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[bm_luethke]

"Hmm..Just CURIOUS, but why is it then the majority of US editorials, writers and commentators take tooo much care to be 'politically correct'?"

Thier choice.

"Freedom must mean freedom from every kind of oppression right?"

No, where did you ever come up with that idea?

"One sentence like say, "ISLAM is NOT a religion of Peace, rather it is a Hatemongering, terrorist breeding religion bent upon bringing the whole world under its tyranny""

Move down here to Jesusland, I assure you that the above will not only *not* be looked at and shunned but wonder why you are stating the "obvious". That is the consequences of "free speech".

There has always been, and always will be, social pressure. Humans are social creatures. That is VERY different from official govt regulations. It isn't illegal to run down the street yelling "All women are cunts who deserve to be beaten everyday of thier lives and thier faces mutilated" - you will not go to jail at all. That will pretty much always have a very severe social stigma attached to it (and if you find someplace that says "Yea - so? Got something we don't know" please tell me so we can go blow it off the face of this planet).

It is as much my "free speech" to not purchase, or to not listen, to your stuff because you think is a load of rubbish as it is free speech for you to say that. Free speech means that if we begin to legally regulate it then it's wrong. It has never, and will never, mean that you can say/do anything and have no consequences for your actions. In fact, that idea intrudes on *my* freedom to think said person is an ass and not listen to them.

You can have "freedom of speech" but you will never have "freedom from speech" - everything you say and do is used by your peers (society) to make judgements on you. No law, no movement, no nothing is ever going to change that. I'm sure that there are things that other people can say that your opinion of them drops quite a few notches. Not only that but you would have to force people to not think or act in certain ways in order to be free (and is thus, not possible).

The great thing is that in places that have freedoms you can move around and find someplace that pretty much believes as you do. Like guns, Jesus, killing animals, chewing tobacco, and think the president is great? There are many places in the US like that. Like state run healthcare, community oneness, nature/science worship, socially relativist, and think the president ought to be at the bottom of the ocean - you can live there also. Great thing about legal freedom - as long as you don't try and impose much on everyone else we can all find places that we fit in socially, though it may not be in the geographical region you want. Try that in North Korea.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Other countries might be worse off, but why should that make us complacent? Does that make bush less of a piece of crap? Should we not fight to rid the system of injustices and so forth?

"There is some alien planet out there where 99.99% of the population is imprisoned within pain amplifiers, and have their precious vital fluids harvested for use in a delicacy for the oppressing 0.001%! You should be ashamed, thinking YOU have things bad!"

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[deaddrunk]

Why are Amnesty insane on this? The US violating international law in the same way as the Iranian Bajiri is an absolute disgrace.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

You have to keep vigilant and fight if necessary to keep the rights described on that old piece of paper.

Second paragraph.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[weighn]

Try traveling a little bit and see what REAL poverty and oppression looks like.

While you were busy travelling with your Jesus hating cohorts, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development produced this report :

Today nearly 36 million Americans live in a state of poverty - http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[SQL Error]

Why are Amnesty insane on this?

I don't know why, but they are.

They claimed that Guantanamo is the American Gulag. Millions of people died of starvation, cold, and overwork in the Russian Gulags. Zero people have died at Guantanamo. Zero.

The US violating international law in the same way as the Iranian Bajiri is an absolute disgrace.

Well, it might be a disgrace if such a thing had in fact happened.

That's the point, you see. Nothing of the sort has happened at Guantanamo.

There may have been violations at other locations, such as Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, where two prisoners died in custody. But you never hear about that, just Gitmo! Gitmo! Gitmo!

Which is why I say Amnesty is insane; it is seeking publicity at the expense of bringing (possibly) real crimes to light.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[deaddrunk]

At the very least, holding people without trial is illegal even if you can deny that any torture or cruel or degrading treatment is going on.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ThaFooz]

You don't believe Amnesty International? Fine. What about Abu Ghraib?

You didn't like my citation for the patriot act? I linked you to the Library of Congress. Fine, perhaps you wanted me to be more specific. I refer you to really all of Title II (Enhanced Surveillance Procedures), specificaly Sect. 201 (Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism) and Sec. 213 (Authority for delaying notice of the execution of a warrant)

You didn't like the Wikipedia article on the Drug War? I tried wikipedia to give a general overview of how wasteful and invasive it is, but tak a good look at the US Department of Labor Drug Regulations to see just how much your employer is allowed to drug test you.

Check my constitution? Well I don't know about yours, the first Amedment of mine starts out with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". So my commander-in-chief endorsing religion using government resources sure feels like its breaking the spirit of the law right in half.

If you want to call my reference to the widening economic gap a stretch, fine. But I do suggest a history lesson on the age of the American Robber Barons.

I don't know what else to say if you don't like these sources. Its easy for you to repeat "cite" or just ignore sources who don't share your viewpoint, but it's unhelpful. If you're not satisfied, perhaps you could disprove my original point that Americans are moving backwards in regards to civil liberties?

In other words, if you disagree, how can you prove to me that America has aggressivley maintained or improved liberties since the civil rights movement?

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[poopdeville]

What Gay Marriage Amendment? You do realise this doesn't exist, right?

As a matter of fact, I didn't realize it didn't make it through the House or the Senate. I haven't followed the news in a few months.

The recent changes to 18 USC 2257 are another example of the government narrowing our civil rights. Check out http://www.ratemyboobies.com/ if you're not familiar with the new policy. Basically, all pornography is considered child pornography unless proof of age is displayed. Even if the people screwing are obviously of age.

Nevermind the Patriot Act and its sequels.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Shihar]

36 million Americans live in poverty by the American definition of poverty. That certainly is a problem. I am not arguing that poverty is fixed by any stretch of the imagination in the United States. My point was that the American definition of poverty is so horribly askew as to what poverty is in other nations that figures like the one you just cited are meaningless when talking about the relative well being of a population. If you have ever been to a third world country you would find poverty that can't even be compared to American poverty. I went on a trip to South Africa years back. The first thing I noticed was that impoverished people in the third world are THIN in ways you probably have never seen. Further, it wasn't just one or two thin people, it was everyone. I lived in New York and Detroit long enough to see plenty of America's underbelly, and even at its worst, Americans are not hard pressed for food. Americans are not thin people, and impoverished Americans are no exception. Americans don't die of starvation unless they are severely mentally handicapped, anorexic, or it happens through child neglect. Poor Americans are thousands of times more likely to die of obesity then starvation.

My point isn't that everything is great and wonderful. Poor Americans have mediocre nutrition at best, shitty health care, high unemployment, high crime rates, and all manner of social ills. My point is that the problems facing an impoverished American are entirely different from those facing an impoverished South African that deals with a type of poverty that isn't even comparable. As an American or western European your view of the world is slanted by first world standards.

I am not saying people shouldn't bitch about the problems we have. I am saying that if someone posts an article about an attempt to over come oppression or poverty, that isn't a cue for all the American centric Americans to jump in screaming that they need their poverty and oppression solved too. It is like a rich and spoiled kid complaining about how he needs financial help because he has to suffer riding around in an ugly used car his parents bought him and how his allowance is too small, all the while others are discussing ways of giving healthcare to poor 18 year old single mothers on their own working two jobs without even a HS diploma.

When someone talks about brutal political beatings and imprisonment in other countries because they posted on their blog about how they would like a democratic government, that is NOT your cue to jump and say "We Americans are repressed too! Fox news came with my 150 channel cable package! OPPRESSION!"

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ultranova]

Get out of your narrow little American world view and realize that there are places in the world that make "Jesusland" look like a fucking utopia. Hell, the US has even more liberal free speech laws compared to even Europe, and Europe is pretty damn liberal. Try wearing a swastika in Germany or France and see how long it takes for the police to drag you off the streets.

Out of curiosity's sake, lets do a little experiment:

Go to Manhattan wearing a t-shirt with the text "I hereby declare my allegiance and devotion to Osama bin Laden and his cause and dedicate myself to the completion of said cause". Let's see if the famous American free speech protects you when you declare your allegiance to a madman who wants to destroy or enslave your country (I honestly can't say which Osama would prefer) and your intention of helping to make that cause a reality.

If it does, then you can make claims about your laws being more liberal. Otherwise, it just shows that you have a different boogeyman than European countries.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[shario]

Killing people is more humane than torturing them.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

> In other words, if you disagree, how can you prove to me that America has aggressivley maintained or improved liberties since the civil rights movement?

Sound of crickets chirping...

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[MarkKnopfler]

Firstly I would like to say that I totally agree with you. I am a citizen of a country which does have the freedom of speech and expression as a part of our constitution. However putting it into a constitution does not always ensure that happening. The nation has to be fiercely possesive about it. I think it is good to be illogical about a few things. The freedom of speech and expression is one of those things. Nobody should take a relative view of it. It is absolute. Once you start doing that you start to slip and suddenly you are in a place you never wanted to be in.
As they say -- The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[devonbowen]

I don't think the issue is whether you or I can say something childishly vulgar about the president on slashdot. Sorry, but we're rather small potatoes. What the people in power need to react to is those that can actually make a difference with their words. Like a Martin Luther King Jr. Such people will have (and have had, in fact) their doors kicked down and much worse. Who is the next MLKJ? I have no idea. But I want to make sure that our society is set up so that person can lead the movement that improves our society. And in my opinion, that is less certain in America these days. So, yes, free speech that doesn't matter much is alive and well. But it's the other free speech that I think we should be concerned with.

Devon

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[gowen]

Try traveling a little bit and see what REAL poverty and oppression looks like

Yeah, I tried travelling to Cuba to see the oppression there. Now the "Land Of The Free" (tm, Terms And Conditions Apply) won't let me back in :(

Love,
William Worthy

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Liam Slider]

Get out of your narrow little American world view and realize that there are places in the world that make "Jesusland" look like a fucking utopia. Hell, the US has even more liberal free speech laws compared to even Europe, and Europe is pretty damn liberal. Try wearing a swastika in Germany or France and see how long it takes for the police to drag you off the streets.

Hell, we have more liberal Freedom of the Press here too. Many countries seem to think "Freedom of the Press" means that the governmment can't interfere with reporters. It means however, the freedom to print whatever...no matter how controversial. How many of the "enlightened" and "better than the USA" (what they think anyway) countries ban books? We don't ban books....Freedom of the Press. England (along with many of it's former colonies, and a number of European "enlightened" nations too) has a history of banning books that they (or I should say, some governmental body) find "offensive." To this American's eyes....that's downright tyrannical and oppressive, a violation of basic civil liberties. How dare the government choose what people can read. But I guess it's all a price to pay for living in a socialist nanny state. I for one, wouldn't want to.

We also have a more liberal (in the true sense of the word) society when it comes to the right to arm yourself for self defense. It's a right to bear arms. Your average person can go out and purchase an AK-47 or M-16 if they want (providing their State isn't illegally violating their right to do so), or perhaps something lighter. In many other countries....you can't even buy a pistol, because personal ownership of firearms is outlawed or severely restricted. To my American eyes....this too is oppression, tyranny, a violation of basic civil liberties. It shows that those governments are so paranoid it must strip the people of the means to defend themselves.

Of course we can do better with regards to respecting people's rights....but we're doing better than everyone else it seems to me.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Eunuchswear]

Oh come on. You haven't realised that "Able Danger" == "Total Information Awareness". This is a just a scam to get you sat in your little panopticon cell without noticing.

Yup, Poindexter knew what those nasty Al-Queda boys were up to but the horrid liberals wouldn't let him save America.

2.5 terabyes of data. Not information. Your Walmart sales slip.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Fnkmaster]

Somebody who declares their intention to destroy the very fabric of our society doesn't have much of a claim to the protections provided by that society, do they? If only it were that easy to find terrorists, I wouldn't have much of a problem with locking them up in Guantanamo without a trial. Of course in real life it's generally not so clear.

But honestly, why do you think your right to free speech means a right to no consequences? It's illegal to incite violence, it's illegal to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and you're going to be arrested if you seriously state your intentions to commit terrorist acts. If you are just an ass and wear a pro-bin Laden t-shirt to piss people off, you might be arrested for your own protection to prevent a mob of angry New Yorkers from beating you to death.

There are legitimate complaints about the disintegration of our right to privacy under the PATRIOT Act and so forth, but I don't think your example is a great one of erosion of free speech rights.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[dual_boot_brain]

It is a business decision. The purpose of news (whether print, audio, or video) is to fill in the empty space between advertisements. The goal of the media is to slant their stories in order to align them as closely as possible to the slant of the majority of the public in order to ensure the maximum potential customer base. If they are successful in maximizing the number of eys on their information product they can in turn raise their advertising rates which then raises their profit level.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[ultranova]

Somebody who declares their intention to destroy the very fabric of our society doesn't have much of a claim to the protections provided by that society, do they? If only it were that easy to find terrorists, I wouldn't have much of a problem with locking them up in Guantanamo without a trial. Of course in real life it's generally not so clear.

None of that has anything to do with my post. I answered to the grandparents claim that Americans have more freedom of speech than Europeans because you can't wear swastikas in Germany or France. I pointed out that you can't say everything in the US either.

But honestly, why do you think your right to free speech means a right to no consequences?

In bad old Soviet Russia during Stalins reign, you could go to the Red Square and sart yelling at the top of your lungs: "Communism sucks ! Marx was a moron ! Down with Lenin ! Down with Stalin !" You would be sent to Siberia or executed for it, but you could say it. So, if freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, our foolishly brave russian had perfect freedom of speech; he just didn't have freedom of consequences. In fact, if freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, not a single country has ever limited its citizens or subjects freedom of speech, since none of them can possibly stop those subjects from talking; they can just punish them afterwards.

So, for the concept of freedom of speech to have any meaning whatsoever, it must mean freedom from consequences.

There are legitimate complaints about the disintegration of our right to privacy under the PATRIOT Act and so forth, but I don't think your example is a great one of erosion of free speech rights.

Not surprising, since it wasn't meant to be such example. It was simply meant to comment on the grandparent's mention of swastikas. France and Germany were ruined by Hitler, millions of their citizens killed by nazism; of course they are not going to let someone who declares his allegiance to him go free, just like Americans wouldn't let someone who declares his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party are to Europeans the same as Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaida are for Americans, only approximately ten thousand times as bad (going with body count and using the estimation that 50 000 000 people died in the Second World War in Europe, and about 5000 in World Trade Center). Europe and US are the same in this respect, they simply have different enemies - altought I doubt someone who declared himself a supporter of Al-Qaida would long walk free in Europe either.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[dancpsu]

In other words, if you disagree, how can you prove to me that America has aggressivley maintained or improved liberties since the civil rights movement?

Well for one it struck down state laws against sodomy in 2003.

City governments granted islamic mosques to sound calls to prayer in 2004.

Re:Jesusland Needs Fewer Narrow Minded Americans

[Narchie Troll]

Mm-hmm. So the legal right to bear arms will somehow magically prevent an illegitimate government from subverting the Constitution?

Hasn't worked so far. Again: the Constitution does not inherently grant or protect rights. It's just a piece of paper.

Departments?

[Mr.Progressive]

from the apparently-not-so-sick-of-blogging-stories dept.

In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the repressive part of Russian history, they had techniques and safehouses for keeping printing equipment and underground reporting away from authorities. Kind of the same really, just a different technology.

And you thought this was going to be one of those funny posts....

Thought

[aitikin]

So now with this available to us all, what's to stop someone from anonymously posting something that's believable yet fake? Isn't it posible that someone could make something up that's so horrible it would make the "news" and then the "news" would carry the story and people would demand an investigation into it? Almost a Wag the Dog type thing? The only things someone would need is a hatred, an imagination (which is getting harder to come by, granted), and these methods. Am I way off with this? P.S. I think it's a great thing, I'm just paranoid about another stupid "Pre-emptive" strike just to find that those weapons of mass destruction we were looking for were actually oil refineries.

Re:Thought

[Antique Geekmeister]

You're absolutely correct to be concerned. Some bloggers do lie, just as some lobbyists and journalists lie, and it's up to us as readers and up to editors of blog-recommendation sites as editors to be careful.

But the public revelations of US torture in Abu Ghraib are the result of websites and bloggers. What has been the core of US federal response to them? Forbidding digital cameras amoung prison guards....

Re:Thought

[Pichu0102]

They say there's truth in numbers...
If someone is lying, most likely it won't have a large amount of other blogs saying it's true, and if it's REALLY false, other blogs might point to it and point out how wrong it is.

Re:Meanwhile, in the US, bloggers cry out for free

[Shihar]

"How about freedom of press and free speech for bloggers right here in the US??"

The best part about freedom of speech in the US is that politicians and regulatory bodies are only one layer of protection. It isn't exclusively the job of the president or the congress to protect your speech. That isn't to say that they shouldn't be watching out for your freedom of speech, but simply that they are not the only line of defense. There are other layers of protection of freedom of speech that exist.

This law is a PERFECT example of how free speech is protected in the US. I would bet my life that the first time someone tries to enforce this law the other mechanisms that defend freedom of speech will kick in with a vengence. Namely, the judiciary will without a doubt get involved. Civil organizations like the ACLU and the EFF will certainly get involved, along with a pig pile of other free speech and free press advocacy groups. There is a mountain being held up by a thread over this law. The second someone tries to use it, it is going to come crashing down on it very hard.

What is happening is an example of the system working in the United States, not of a failure. The fact that the system has to kick on from time to time is a sign of stupidity in our politicians perhaps, but not a sign of a faulty system in general. Multilayered systems are the only way to go when it comes to protecting fundamental rights, and when it comes to freedom of the speech, the US has more layers of protection then vast majority of other nations in this world.

Kudos to Reporters Without Borders

[Sundroid]

These guys at Reporters Without Borders got guts -- on their website, they put the names and photos of the heads of states where there is no press freedom and call them "Predators of Press Freedom". Check it out at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1087

The end of anonymity

[UnapprovedThought]

I haven't had time to read the RSF brochure, but does it explain what to do if you have a TC setup (a computer that can attest to a unique identity like CPUID but more unique than that) so that all messages can be traced back to the computer that sent it?

It sounds like their suggestions would only be useful for a short while, until all computing equipment is replaced with TCG-compliant stuff, (or even before, by using an older case to contain a new computer). If anonymous bloggers are not careful, someday they will be nabbed.

I wonder if this will usher in a new era of strict dictatorships and unparalled oppression? We may never know, since no one may be able to report about it :)

Re:The end of anonymity

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the brochure. In summary, yes, it explains how to be really anonymous. One of the articles in the brochure tells you how to use Tor, Privoxy, MixMailer and other solutions providing a high degree of anonymity.

Re:The end of anonymity

[hcdejong]

No, it doesn't talk about TC.

Re:The end of anonymity

[UnapprovedThought]

First, it looks like the moderators who said I was offtopic in the GP haven't taken the trouble to investigate Trusted Computing thoroughly enough. It is as relevant as anything else on here.

Now I will have to explain myself in more detail. Those who don't believe that your computer will gain the ability to betray you should perhaps begin by reading this, where it said that...

Transmeta's security technology was not designed to specifically target DRM technologies. DRM applications can certainly utilize our secure, hidden storage facilities to protect the digital certificates that they use, but we also see broader application into embedded markets, especially as we work towards extending our secure storage mechanisms beyond mere data to provide protection of entire algorithms and other intellectual property that our customers may wish to hide from the user-visible x86 space," the spokesman said.

My emphasis. In short, applications will be able to hide data from users. Since then, there seems to have been a tendency to try to occlude the natural meaning of "user" so that this capability is not obvious, but in 2003 nobody understood TC well enough to worry about the controversy, so they had it in the correct context. Amazing, huh? Now, back to what I was going to post...

If TC hasn't been taken into account by the brochure, I worry they may ignore some of the finer implications. To begin with, applications on your own computer (not necessarily the connecting computer) will be able to store information about what you are doing and when and to "protect" it, without giving you the ability to look at that information yourself or to even know where it is stored. If the reporter is ever caught, the reporter may not know that there is incriminating information hidden on her own computer. So, it is no longer enough to just destructively delete a browser cache or something and be reasonably certain nobody can prove you authored a message. And, have you checked what data spyware may be sending out of your computer -- now with your unique, attestable identity attached to it?

So, if the brochure doesn't address that, it's only good for a short time.

The AC seems to be saying that the source of a comment can be hidden by bouncing it around to different places, so that the destination site cannot tell where it came from, and so that the service at the source cannot tell it is a disparaging comment until it is already posted. Well, that assumes that all of the intervening sites aren't cooperating, and they may have to cooperate in order to remain in business in a given country. Since the identities of the people sending traffic to cooperating sites will be known up to the point where the traffic reaches a non-cooperating site, anyone constantly sending traffic to a non-cooperating site will be investigated more closely. If the result of the investigation narrows it down to a few people, then all of their computers can be searched to reveal the reporter.

So, it may not be impossible to remain anonymous but it becomes risky and harder, and with technologies that are meandering this way, becomes near impossible.

Eventually the only solution may be to spread a rumor to a bunch of people you dislike and hope they type it for you :)

Re:The end of anonymity

[hcdejong]

Talking about TC would be a largely theoretical exercise at the moment. Computers with a TC chip are rare, and are there any applications at all that use TC to generate such a unique ID?

Re:The end of anonymity

[UnapprovedThought]

Talking about TC would be a largely theoretical exercise at the moment.

Google TPCA, TCG, TPM. Quite real and already here, unfortunately. The operating systems to use TC features are almost here. Anonymous bloggers in repressive regimes would need to begin worrying about it already, so they can make the right purchases and avoid the wrong ones. Once the full system is in place, it will be too late and it will seem strange to be seen buying old hardware.

Computers with a TC chip are rare,

It's theTPM chip that implements the TC spec. Almost all x86 motherboards for sale today have taken the TPM functionality and integrated it into the chipset or CPU so it is no longer a separate chip. Read about your favorite new motherboard chipset and (if the PR people haven't hidden it by now) then compare older chipsets with the newer ones -- you will see the newer ones all claim to have a "security" feature of some kind. Try to find any details of the feature. Hint: they are no longer bragging about it like they used to.

and are there any applications at all that use TC to generate such a unique ID?

The unique ID is in the TPM itself. It is never released to you, the supposed user, despite the fact that you supposedly own the computer. If you want to read about this in detail, you will need to read a lot and keep an open mind because there is a lot of PR in the way of the facts.

Re:Meanwhile, in the US, bloggers cry out for free

[shawb]

Okay, the rules the FEC are working on here are not on whether or not you can have a political blog, they are more involved with how you finance that blog. Trying to cover loopholes which allow unethical donations (read: bribes.)

Coral Link

[Anonymous Coward]

to the actual handbook (english version)

Item #1

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments

#1 Do not use a yahoo email account

Re:Item #1

[weighn]

#1 Do not use a yahoo email account

#2 Don't use google

#3 ditto Microsoft

"What's actually profane is a company that built its future on the freedom provided by the American system helping a repressive regime censor such ideas." - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1486268/p osts

What If It Backfires?

[dorpus]

What if most people like the policies of a repressive government because they voted for it? What if blogs give them an outlet to express their bigotry and hatred, which isn't allowed under a repressive system?

Re:What If It Backfires?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if blogs give them an outlet to express their bigotry and hatred, which isn't allowed under a repressive system?

Well they should be allowed to of course.

"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death your right to say it"

Re:What If It Backfires?

[illium]

well.. even if they can trace back to the computer, that doesn't mean they can trace back to the human. that's rule number #37 of the hacker's handbook of covering your ass. make sure that the you're covered beyond just the computer. hacking from a system that's in your bedroom is stupid when you can easily go to an internet cafe, library, university computer lab, etc.. also if you're gonna do it from home (because the publicly available ones are too obvious or restricted) then you'd better damned well just buy a junk system that you can dispose of as needed. if you're doing something where your life, or personal freedom are on the line, it's worth the money. _illium

"What will you chage it to next?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, my suggestion would be YHBT YHL HAND.

Free Press? Really?

[saskboy]

It is late, so I'll give you the night to sleep on it.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163127&cid=136 27274

Consider this:
Bill O'Idiot works for the government but the public either isn't aware of that, or they don't care because they don't know that their government would mislead them. Would it still be a free press if this government shill has so much air time disseminating government propoganda [lies]? Perhaps. But if anyone tries to contradict him on air he simply has to tell them to "SHUT UP" and then he wins and his viewers love him for it.

Don't forget the purpose of a free press. The free press is supposed to stop a government take over of factual information distribution, so they can disseminate whatever spin, lies, and brainwashing they can put out in order to stay in power. Do you really think Bill O'Idiot is contributing to that goal? He's on the wrong side; he's on the side that wants people like Jon Stewart to "SHUT UP!"

Slashdot has a simple method...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Reporters Without Borders' 'Handbook for Blogger and Cyber-Dissidents" is partly financed by the French government and includes technical advice on how to remain anonymous online.'

...and it involves clicking a box that says "Post Anonymously" and isn't really all that technical :) I suppose they should just blog on /. or something to save all the additional studying to get information out the door...Bear the WebSense block (hopefully not...)

so what if

[Errtu76]

their respective government just puts a halt to stores selling the book?

Re:so what if

[hcdejong]

You can download it as a PDF, or have sympathizers smuggle the book into the country.

Re:so what if

[Errtu76]

"You can download it as a PDF"

Uhm, downloading a book that goes directly against the policy of the government, from a government controlled internet access, is less than wise methinks :)

But yes, you could have somebody bring you the book. But that means it won't be available to the masses so easily as in other countries.

Simple Answer

[Nom du Keyboard]

Simple answer.

Blog on Freenet.

Re:Simple Answer

[UnapprovedThought]

Only valid where doing so is not a crime (even if the only thing they charge you with was that you were viewing porn).

social pressure and free speech

[commodoresloat]

One sentence like say, "ISLAM is NOT a religion of Peace, rather it is a Hatemongering, terrorist breeding religion bent upon bringing the whole world under its tyranny" won't perhaps bring the gestapo to the doors, but will sure bring more severe consequences from the politically correct crowd

If by "severe consequences" you mean someone with a clue will tell you that your statement is false, ignorant, and idiotic, then you're right. And that's exactly the point of freedom of speech - it is not just about the freedom for any old idiot to say whatever the fuck they want but also the freedom but about stimulating vibrant political deliberation. The theory is that rather than repressing speech that is false or hateful or obscene, the proper response is *more speech* -- e.g., someone with a clue telling you you're full of shit. So when you say stupid things, and somebody tells you that you're being an idiot, don't whine that they are violating your free speech. They are simply exercising theirs.

Re:social pressure and free speech

[Anonymous Coward]

So when you say stupid things, and somebody tells you that you're being an idiot
Instead of telling or calling others idiots, perhaps one should offer alternative opinion? Just calling somebody 'idiot' just isn't what you called 'stimulating vibrant political deliberation' isnt it? Oh well, I think the opinion about Islam offended you into going on a name calling stunt and proving the very point of that poster.

So when you say stupid things, and somebody tells you that you're being an idiot, don't whine that they are violating your free speech. They are simply exercising theirs
In any case, you missed the whole point by a wide angle and the joke is that you did not even realise it!

Re:social pressure and free speech

[commodoresloat]

I'm not calling him an idiot; I am defending free speech. My point was if you say idioting things in a free country someone else has the freedom to call you on it. The fact that what he said was idiotic is obvious to me and anyone else with a clue but it is simply not my point here. My point is that free speech gives you the right to say stupid things but it also gives others the right to point out their stupidity.

As far as the content of the statement, do some research yourself if you don't think the point is ignorant. I'm not here to educate you and I'm not "offended" by the fact that someone else says idiotic things.

And afterwards too

[Sycraft-fu]

The nature of the Internet makes it extremely hard to destroy information once it's gotten in sufficient circulation. If they handed out a newsletter, well the government could literally round up and destroy every copy. Just like 1984, now it never existed in the offical view, and there's nothing to prove otherwise. However if it gets online, and on foreign servers, there's shit they can do. Arresting and killing the author doesn't stop their words from being circulated for people to read.

great idea!

[commodoresloat]

Then you don't have to worry about anyone actually reading your blog.

Censorship? Whats that?!

[rale, the]

Reuters article quote:
"PARIS (Reuters) - A Paris-based media watchdog released a handbook on Thursday to help cyber-dissidents and bloggers avoid political censorship in countries as far apart as China, Iran, Vietnam and Cuba."

Xinhua article quote:
"BEIJING, Sept. 23 (Xinhuanet) -- A Paris-based media watchdog released a free guide Thursday to help bloggers and cyber-dissidents avoid political censorship in countries as far apart as Iran, Vietnam and Cuba."

In Soviet Russia...

[s0rbix]

the government blogs about YOU.

President Al Gore's Blog

[Alf Gored]

See, even in America, suppressed political parties can be heard... The 'Official' President Al Gore Blog

Use Tor

[Hack Jandy]

Use Tor. You're helping people like the ones talked about in the article when you do.

HJ

Re:Use Tor

[Splab]

For those who doesn't know TOR is "The second generation onionring protocol" tor.eff.org

I'm currently working on a project makeing it run properly on a linksys 54gs. Mind you, current implementations do have limitations - you can be tracked by DNS lookup, and there are several whitepapers on other types of attacks (links to papers can be found on eff site).

Copyright on the book, and access to the PDF

[hcdejong]

I wonder if it's okay to post the book on a website or P2P network, so people can get at it from countries that have www.rsf.org blocked.
The English version states a 'standard' copyright message (C 2005 RSF), nothing more. Since copyright usually implies 'no reproduction', I assume I'm not allowed to. It would have made sense to include a statement that explicitly allows copying and printing the PDF.

The PDF files themselves can use some improvement as well. The UK version has registration marks, is 'printed' 2-up, and doesn't include PDF niceties like bookmarks. The Arab version is split into two files.

Re:Censorship? Whats that?!

[timotten]

Setting aside the hypocrisy and the almost-plagiarism[*], I'd like to point out that the original was a bit incongruous -- China and Vietnam aren't very far apart. The edited version is less grating.

[*] The Xinhua article does include the word "(Agencies)" at the bottom... maybe that's an attribution...

It's not just paranoia

[Moraelin]

Having a free press is good and fine, but it's only worth anything if you have some reason to believe you're getting signal and not noise. Or at least that you're getting a reasonable signal to noise ratio.

If you can just say anything anonymously, don't have to put your reputation on the line, and don't have to check and document your sources either... well, let's put it like this: we've already been there. It doesn't take paranoia or conspiracy theories to imagine a potential outcome, since we have plenty of _real_ cases where it's already happened. The whole 19'th century for example is full of parties and individuals anonymously slandering each other in venomous pamphlets and faked secret protocols used as proof of the most absurd plans.

And if you look further back in time, when counts and dukes went to war against each other, they always had a bunch of heinous accusations about the other side, covering the whole ground between witchcraft, bestiality, vampirism, pacts with Satan to bring forth the Apocalypse (I guess that was the medieval version of "but they have WMDs!!!11";), treason, etc. You'd think that between all those vices, perversions, and running a full time coven of dark mages, some monarchs wouldn't even have any time left to sleep.

The press at least pretending to be impartial and about _reporting_ instead of fabricating news (hey, I did say "at least pretending") is a very recent invention. It's not its natural state. Remove all safeguards and let anyone start any rumour, and they will do that all over again.

freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't this what freenet (http://freenet.sourceforge.net/) was supposed to be for? I'm surprised it's not mentioned in TFA.

Re:Meanwhile, in the US, bloggers cry out for free

[Sattwic]

The point is that if Political Bloggers are subjected to any kind (even the slightest) of approval/licensing/legal procedures, that would dampen the spirits of free individuals to express their political views online.

If they make it mandatory to reveal or submit an affidavit about how one finances their personal but political view blogs, people will just shy away instead of proactively taking those steps.

here is the handbook

[marsperson]

Here is the handbook if you want to download it and read it yourself.

Kudos to RSF.org, a french NGO for their work. In addition to sticking up for journalists in harsh places (like Iran, China, but also occasionaly the US and Europe), they are doing a lot to introduce the notion of "cyber dissidence". This will probably help have the concept included in future human rights treaties. You can balk all you want at how slow the process is, and how difficult it is to enforce such treaties, but the reason many nasty regimes resist their signature is precisely because however imperfect they aren't entirely toothless and can be used to point out in a clear and unambiguous way that regimes are in breach of their international obligations.

Re:Free Press? Really?

[nwbvt]

Even if your little conspiracy theory is true, it doesn't matter. Under a free press, you don't get to choose who gets on the air and who doesn't. Thats really the definition of a free press. You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship.

BTW, it truly is sad that when its time for you to come up with the name of a journalist, the best you can do is Jon Stewart. He hosts a parody news show on Comedy Central, not a real one.

Saudi oppression

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not forget the Religious Policeman blog, critical of the Saudi regime and its religious police. The anonymous blogger responsible for this site had to lay low for the last year when it was getting too risky for him, but ultimately moved to the U.K. where he can post more freely, and started up again recently. It's a very interesting read (with a lot of humor too), especially the older archived posts. It's dedicated to the Saudi schoolgirls who were killed in a fire when they weren't allowed to flee their dormitory without being appropriately attired.

Bloggers Bill of Rights?...

[PraiseTheLord]

This is interesting: We the Bloggers... by: Mark Fletcher and the Bloglines team - Blogs have given individuals of any and every background the ability to freely speak their minds and share information with anyone who chooses to read it, at any time they wish to do so. Bloglines was created for people as a window to access this world of dynamic content and a way to participate in its creation. We believe blogs have helped enable an open exchange of information that has never before been possible. As some of you may have heard, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is reviewing its regulations concerning political speech on the Internet, including blog activity. Bloglines is committed to the continuation of open exchanges of information and opinions throughout the blogosphere and the Internet in general. Today, the Committee on House Administration is having a hearing on this issue. In the spirit of these beliefs, I have provided the Committee with the following statement. We encourage you to express your opinion on this matter in any forum you choose.

heh

[BitterAndDrunk]

Really, things here could be much worse; wake me up when we've got our own Falun Gong problem here.

Perhaps you should look at some prison numbers. We're the most incarcerated nation in the world at this point.

Re:heh

[RLiegh]

going out on a limb here, but I'm gonna guess that's related to our having the most violent crimes? (the most serial rapists, most serial killers, most shootings per capita, etc)

So much for freedom

[tkrotchko]

"and stop allowing people like Bill O'Idiot of Fox News to have air time. People who lie that much do not belong on a regular cable channel on a show that claims to be fair and balanced"

I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan, but real freedom means that you put up with stuff you don't like. There are hundreds of channels on cable & satellite TV; its okay to have a few on that I don't like or that I disagree strongly with.

Re:So much for freedom

[saskboy]

"its okay to have a few on that I don't like or that I disagree strongly with."

My point is though that it's NOT OK. It's not that I just don't like it and disagree with it, it's that Bill O' and his ilk, lie. They lie to protray their friends in government in a favourable way. It's the very thing that the free press is supposed to be working against, and he's got so many people fooled that even people like you who are in favour of a free press don't seem to care that he's subverting the purpose of the free press. A free press is supposed to stop the government from spreading lies and misinformation; if it doesn't do that, what good is it?

Re:Free Press? Really?

[saskboy]

"You can't ban him from the airwaves just because you disagree with him on something. Thats called censorship."

Why not? Someone LET him on the air, someone can TAKE him back off. Murdoch or whoever allows someone to tell lies for the government on an "independent" news channel is ruining your freedom of the press. The press is not free to tell lies, it's free to tell the TRUTH, whether it's FOR or AGAINST the government at the time. Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press.

You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time? There's much better, and true content that is entertaining and informative that can be put on the air for the same cost. You may be advocating for the letter of the law in regards to free press, but your support of Fox News reveals your true motive. As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth.

Fire in a crowded theater

[Cro Magnon]

Well, if there IS a fire in the theater, I should be allowed to warn everyone.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[saskboy]

"You mean like how you think the Daily Show is news? "

Oh come on, do you honestly think I don't understand he's a satirist? The thing about satirists though, if they know their stuff, they are much funnier because you KNOW they know the facts but they put a spin on them that's supposed to be absurd. It's a job that is hard to look good at these days, with North American governments going out of their way to do absurd things in the guise of normalcy - much how a satirist works.

Even though Jon Stewart isn't a "real" news anchor, he's been responsible for brining important interviews and viewpoints to the American mainstream. He is maybe not an actual anchor, but he IS an actual type of journalists, and one I'd argue that does a better job at informing the public than many "real" journalists.

Because at the end of the day it's not the hat you wear, it's the good you do. And right now Jon is good for the American free press, and Bill O' is very bad.

Re:Free Press? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press."

Demonstrably false, as anyone who actually reads the website knows (I doubt you do). While they are generally more conservative, the opinion pieces asking the Republicans to change their minds and behavior are some of the more common themes nowadays. Pres. Bush's spending and larger-government initiatives is one of the bigger targets. Your statement is a piece of uninformed parroting of what everybody knows but nobody actually checks. Just assuming its a bad source for news does not make it so.

"You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time?"

Yep. It's still called censorship, no matter how justified you think you are in doing it. The only legal, ethical way to try to get around such things is to try to broadcast the correct information more loudly and with stronger appeal.

"There's much better, and true content that is entertaining and informative that can be put on the air for the same cost."

So go publish it. Send it to CNN or the New York Times. Whatever. Just don't make freedom of the press into "Freedom of My Press" or "Freedom of the Correct Press". Corrections in this case have to be cultural.

"As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth."

Given the number of scandals and allegations Bush has been the target of, and the scorn all my friends view him with here (Maryland), I seriously doubt anything of the sort will happen. If you live in a primarily Republican state, I suppose it's possible to claim that his record has been white-washed, but I know for a fact that here just about everything he's done (and many things he hasn't) have been second-guessed, criticized, attacked, etc. Foxnews is just one outlet among many, and by and large the others have been very much against him.

Good timing

[searchr]

Here's an up and coming oppressive regime this would be perfect for:

Politics: FEC Deciding Future of Political Blogs
Posted by Zonk on Friday September 23, @10:43AM
from the won't-someone-think-of-the-livejournals dept.
Censorship
* * Beatles-Beatles wrote to mention a bill entitled "The Online Freedom of Speech Act". The act, if passed, would make the Internet into a form of media subject to campaign finance laws. From the article: "Amid the explosion of political activity on the Internet, a federal court has instructed the six-member Federal Election Commission to draw up regulations that would extend the nation's campaign finance and spending limits to the Web. The FEC, in its initial rules, had exempted the Internet. Bloggers told the Committee on House Administration that regulations encompassing the Internet, even ones just on advertising, would have a chilling effect on free speech. The FEC vice chairman also questioned the necessity of any rules." Update: 09/23 15:33 GMT by Z : Edited to correct Congress != FEC.

http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/ 23/1226250&tid=153&tid=95&tid=219

nope, drugs

[BitterAndDrunk]

Primarily non-violent drug offenders.

Re:nope, drugs

[RLiegh]

depends on which argument you want to persue. If you want to persue the america-is-a-repressive-totalitarianship one, then it is -as you say- a matter of locking up vegan hippie hemp users.

But if the thing being argued is that we, as a nation, should abandon our second amendment rights, then it turns around to the fact that we have the highest amount of violent crimes (as I pointed out).

Skipping past all the bullshit, I'm inclined to believe that our large incareration rate is connected to our high rate of violent offenders. (if it makes any difference, I'm pro hemp legalisation as well as pro gun ownership).

Freedom of Speech Dying in Europe and Canaduh

[Anonymous Coward]

France you can be fined or imprisoned for racial incitement, denying genocide, etc. Even respected historian Bernard Lewis has run afoul of these laws.

Sweden, which this year tried to put a Pentecostal pastor in jail for anti-gay (i.e. traditional Christain) views.

Canada, of course, where the most extreme form of political correctness is now law (is that country run by Vietnam-era draft dodgers and their descendants)?:

Advertisers in Canada also must adhere to a strict set of guidelines adopted voluntarily by the industry, but no less effective than the government regulations. Under their dicta, a national restaurant chain was recently forced to pull a television spot showing a helpless dad trying to prepare dinner for the kids (he eventually gives up and takes them out for burgers and fries). A hearing officer ruled that the commercial "reinforced negative stereotypes" about men that "cannot be excused by an attempt to engage in humor."

Washington Post, Steven Perlstein, December 12, 1999

Same country, BTW, which passed Andrea Dworkin's and Catherine MacKinnon's anti-porn laws (for the best of feminist reasons, of course) and resulted in the impounding of gay, lebsian, S&M books imported from the U.S. by Canadian customs. Same country which tried this year to allow sharia law in Ontario (guess when you stand for nothing...)

Sadly even Britain is now about to pass a religious villification law. Even Slashdot referred to it though of course almost no-one here got the larger gist of the story.

Please remember my post when Slashdot again runs the yearly report from "Project Censored" about "under-reported" storied or the latest yearly index from Reporters San Frontiers which puts the US at 22 because reporters can be subpoenaed by courts (jailing anyone for "hate speech" doesn't matter when it comes to freedom of speech in neo-feudal Europe, I guess).

Freedom Already Dead in Candaduh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick and tired of all the repressed Canadian nationalists who, no matter what the story, pop up with "I'm Candadian and though that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, here's why Canada's liberal, multi-cultural, progressive, environmentally sustainable approach to the issue is SO superior to the U.S's"... And of course since Slashdot is now dominated by Eurotrash socialists, progressive-chauvinist Canadian bed-wetters, self-styled Third World revolutionaries, and the only "Americans" in sight are the ones who think Michael Moore actually makes documentaries, of course it's mod'd to +5.

Well here's news for you- political correctness (America's recompense to Europe for the "gift" of Marxism) has run amok everywhere except the U.S., but especially in Canada. Canada, the country which after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Indianapolis anti-porn ordinance hatched in an unholy alliance between Christian conservatives and radical feminists Andrea Dworkin & Catherine MacKinnon, adopted it wholesale (for the best of feminist reasons, of course), and then proceeded to use it to ban gay, lesbian, and S&M books imported from the U.S. Candada, where being nice and orderly and quiet is more important than being free:

Although the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms put free speech and a free press into the bedrock of Canadian law, neither the public nor Canada's courts views these rights as absolutely as Americans have come to view the First Amendment. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled in a series of cases that the government may limit free speech in the name of other worthwhile goals, such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony or promoting equality of the sexes.

"In Canada," said Ron Cohen, chairman of the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, "we respect free speech but we don't worship it.

Washington Post, Steven Perlstein, December 12, 1999

Canada, which because it stands for nothing (being anti-American is not something) now falls for everything, including Islamic law:

Ontario is considering a report which recommends that it allow sharia religious arbitration for issues such as divorce and child custody... Approval would make Ontario the only Western jurisdiction to adopt a form of sharia arbitration.
BBC

eh

[BitterAndDrunk]

I think you're wrong, but don't want to go into a huge link-laden fest to show how. I'll do it sort of shorthand/cribbed but you can find all the info on the 'net.

Drug-related incarcerations are increasing dramatically, and the percentage (and raw numbers) of drug offenders is enormous and has been steadily increasing for the last 2 decades.

Violent crime, on the other hand (and violent criminals) has remained at a relatively constant rate over the same period of time.

So we've had an enormous increase in prison population, and the corresponding numbers indicate it has been drug offenders, not violent offenders.

NO Kudos to Reporters Without Borders

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear! WTF! Reporters Without Borders is a shame! Check it out

Maybe they must answer a lot of questions before making this demagoguery

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[nwbvt]

" Because at the end of the day it's not the hat you wear, it's the good you do. And right now Jon is good for the American free press, and Bill O' is very bad."

Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life), I'm sure Jon Stewart would be offended by that.

Re:Free Press? Really?

[nwbvt]

"Murdoch or whoever allows someone to tell lies for the government on an "independent" news channel is ruining your freedom of the press."

Are you Rupert Murdoch? No? Well then you can't tell him who he hires to be on his cable news channel.

"Fox News would never broadcast something that speaks against Bush and if you don't realize that's what makes the difference in this case, then you've lost sight of the goal of a free press."

Yeah, because people like Alan Colmes and Neal Gabler would never speak against Bush.

"You'd actually advocate giving racists, liars, and government shills who've been caught lying multiple times, air time?"

No. But if someone were willing to give them air time I'd defend their right to use it against people like you demanding their banishment. Thats called freedom of speech. Ever hear the saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it"? Obviously not.

"As soon as Bush is out of power and media organizations don't feel as threatened, they'll start reporting the truths they've been holding back from the public and you'll be crying out to suppress the truth."

Well I'm sure your tin foil hat will give you good protection until that day.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[saskboy]

"Considering what you seem to think "free press" means (only people you agree with can get on TV, and anyone who speaks against that is banned for life)..."

You're so wrong. I haven't said that, what I'm saying is that government shills should not be allowed on public airwaves. Of course the challenge is to enforce that without encroaching upon free speech of the individual who wants to lie to support his friends in government, but for the good of society we have to find a way to better counter destructive people like Bill O'Idiot. Our free society depends on it, because without a real free press that provides facts about the government to the public, we're doomed to have only administrations like Paul Martin and George Bush that can get away with tax money stealing or murder.

The free press is supposed to prevent the government from flooding the media with misinformation that portrays the administration positively in negative situations. It's apparently not able to do that with a popular a-hole like Bill O' front and center, so we have to fix it. Your countrymen can't survive another three years of, "You're doing a great job Brownie."-spin

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[nwbvt]

"You're so wrong. I haven't said that, what I'm saying is that government shills should not be allowed on public airwaves."

Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.

And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. You are still advocating censorship. Sorry, but you are twice the enemy of the free press than O'Reilly ever was.

BTW, do you know where I first heard the name "Bill O'Reilly"? On your hero's show, The Daily Show, he interviewed him a few times.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[saskboy]

"Neither O'Reilly nor Stewart are on the public airwaves, genius. They are both on cable.

And using the phrase "government shrills" to describe those you disagree with doesn't change a thing. "

SHILL. It's a word that means to bid up your own [auction] while pretending to be unbiased; although Bill is pretty shrill too, I can see how you misunderstood.

These days, cable might as well be the airwaves it's so ubiquitous. And The Daily Show is on CTV here, not cable, just for your information. The CRTC has decided to let Canadians watch Fox News legally, which obviously I have mixed feelings about, because although they might be as good a live news station as CNN, like CNN they have crappy analysis of events. I'm not nearly as confident in my countrymen's ability to pick out the lies on Fox News as I'd have to be to be pefectly ok with it being widely available.

Where there isn't sufficient education to ward off government brainwashing, censorship is the public's only defence against a hostile government's [mis]information campaign. Look at China, and their Great Firewall, and ban on subversive forgeign blogs [to keep out INFORMATION in that case]. Look up WWII history, I'm sure you'll find warring nations had laws prohibitting radio broadcasts from being publicly transmitted to ward off propaganda infiltration. Canada and the USA might not be at war, but there is a trade war for instance, and not enough Canadians know the facts about it to be confident that Bill O'Idiot is blowing smoke when he starts telling his lies.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[nwbvt]

I guess you didn't get my point so I'll repeat it one last time. It doesn't matter if you call them shills, shrills, or whatever. Namecalling like an 13 year old doesn't change the fact that what you are advocating is blatant censorship. Its funny that you bring up the "Great Firewall of China", because they use the exact same reasoning (that their people are not educated enough to see past the "lies" spread by the evil democracies) to justify the exact same steps you advocate taking.

You know, the reason most people bring up public airways is because of a general feeling that since they are essentially controlled by the FCC, they should be entirely unbiased. But you apparently consider the public airways special because of their popularity, and now that cable is also popular you feel people with whom you disagree should be banned from it as well. So if someone's blog becomes too popular do you think they should be banned from the Internet? What, did you read 1984 and thought it was an educational piece?

I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[saskboy]

"I can only pray the rest of your countrymen have a better respect for the rights of the press than you."

In Capitalist Jesusland, O'Idiot preys YOU!

But seriously, when you'd go to bat for the "rights" of someone to lie to the public on behalf of the government, to preserve a "free press", then something's gone horribly wrong between your reasoning and outcome. Your boat is sinking, and you're more concerned with keeping the motor running than bailing.

Sure censorship can be done wrong, but it can be done right too. Was the world wrong to censor Hitler by killing him? The sad truth is some people just need killin', and some just need censoring, when the normal checks and balances just aren't working. Unless you want Bill O' choosing your next boy king, then I'd recommend you find a way to get him and those like him out of the top rankings of your TV. Either let corporate greed run your life, or take it back and deal with the consequences of lingering censorship later.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[nwbvt]

Hitler killed himself, dumbass. Looks like watching Jon Stewart hasn't resulted in you keeping up with current or historical events.

Re:Jon Stewart is a journalist - like it or not

[saskboy]

" Hitler killed himself, dumbass. "

I'm sure he would have too, had his city not been invaded and he were still in possession of most of Europe? Don't be a dense person, it doesn't help you win your argument.

LOL

[nwbvt]

Dense? Your argument hinged on the US taking action to stop Hitler from speaking his mind. That requires you to prove:

1. That his enemies put the bullet in his head (which as I noted is false).
2. That those enemies who took this particular action were the US government, even though all historical records put the Russians in Germany at the time.
3. That the actions were to prevent him from making speeches or selling books, not to defend European nations or to stop the Holocaust.
4. And that Bill O'Reilly disagreeing with you on a few policial issues is comparable to Hitler's Nazi philosophy.

In reality all four of those are false. What, do Canadian schools not require their students to take history classes? Down here we studied all this in middle school and again in high school.

Re:LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it, Nick, that you only choose to argue with idiots? Perhaps it's only against idiots that you can win?

This deserves further thought.
--
Sick of pompous windbags? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.