Slashdot Mirror
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."
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...
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?
"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 ...
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.
... has a maximum online life of about half an hour," Pain writes of censorship in China."
""A call for free elections
We don't know how lucky we are to be in areas that still have an essentially free [although lackluster] press.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
"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.
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...
Slash-for-Thought
From TFA:
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.
How about freedom of press and free speech for bloggers right here in the US??
o m+election+laws/2100-1028_3-5767156.html/
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+fr
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.)
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
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...
r dissidents-GB.pdf
Handbook (PDF): http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/handbook_bloggers_cybe
Reporters without Borders (English): http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
Right, because the Gestapo is going to kick down my door if I say something mean about Bush.
...waits for his door to be broken down...
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!
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.
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.
from the apparently-not-so-sick-of-blogging-stories dept.
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
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.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
"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.
Wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression / "The right to freedom of expression is not considered unlimited"
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.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
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
Sun and Fun
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
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
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.)
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
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.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
guidelines to help bloggers working under threat of suppressive governments
#1 Do not use a yahoo email account
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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?
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.
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?
How ya like dat?
It is late, so I'll give you the night to sleep on it.6 27274
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163127&cid=13
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!"
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
their respective government just puts a halt to stores selling the book?
Blog on Freenet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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?
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.
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.
Then you don't have to worry about anyone actually reading your blog.
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.
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."
the government blogs about YOU.
See, even in America, suppressed political parties can be heard... The 'Official' President Al Gore Blog
Use Tor. You're helping people like the ones talked about in the article when you do.
HJ
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.
No, it doesn't talk about TC.
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...
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.
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
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).
sudo ergo sum
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.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
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.
sudo ergo sum
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?
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.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
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 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.
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
Jeff
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).
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Then why were many of the authors of the constitution directly involved in the slave trade? You have no "sacred rights" as a slave.
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.
Don't forget income taxes, social security, medicare and medicaid.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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."
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.
Perhaps you should look at some prison numbers. We're the most incarcerated nation in the world at this point.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Well, if there IS a fire in the theater, I should be allowed to warn everyone.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Here's an up and coming oppressive regime this would be perfect for:
/ 23/1226250&tid=153&tid=95&tid=219
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
Primarily non-violent drug offenders.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
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.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
"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?
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
To be fair, income taxes is in the constitution now. The rest of course, are not.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
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...
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 :)
"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
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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?
"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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
"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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Hitler killed himself, dumbass. Looks like watching Jon Stewart hasn't resulted in you keeping up with current or historical events.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
" 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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
sudo ergo sum
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.
sudo ergo sum