Slashdot Mirror
Web Censorship Proposed For Norway
Aqwis writes "A Norwegian Web filtering system (link in Norwegian), comparable to the Great Firewall of China, has been proposed to the Norwegian legislature. It would, if enacted, block all Web sites and servers that contain hate material (racial hate, pro-Nazi sites, hate towards the government, etc.), most kinds of pornography (not only child pornography), foreign gambling sites, and sites that share copyrighted or other material that it is not legal to share (such as most BitTorrent sites and services such as LimeWire). Reactions have been mixed; however they are mostly negative."
If we block any obscene content, our people will become fine, upstanding citizens. And don't tell me to RTFA, because it's in Norwegian.
In the day of shared hosting and virtual hosts on the same IP address, this appears to have the potential for huge collateral damage.
On the other hand, it might be a good time to create an ad-paid-for http proxy in Norwegian.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
This will work as well as the chinese one...
So people won't be able to read my blog about how a moose bit my sister once?
Can't stop the Beta? Time to evacuate to ##altslashdot at webchat.freenode.net - Slashcott in effect.
Come on, Slashdotters, curb your impulses! This law must be enacted! Won't anyone think of the fjords?
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
Ah, Norway, that progressive place of freedom. Nope. Don't buy it. Who's in charge there? Liberals? Let's not say anything that would offend anyone. We have to be tolerant of the offended.
Crap, another country I thought was on the right track, until now.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
that the supply of idiots eager to babysit me and legislate morality isn't only confined to the US and China.
Can someone here please define 'Hate' as it is meant to be applied to determine which websites to ban?
but it's in NORWEGIAN!
Grammar Nazi
Norway censor porn? You're kidding, right?
Table-ized A.I.
Here starts the slipperly slope of freedom of speech to criticize the government.
If we block any obscene content, our people will become fine, upstanding citizens. And don't tell me to RTFA, because it's in Norwegian.
It's a well known fact that Norwegian blue content is easily blocked. As a matter of fact, the only reason it even shows up on the internet is because it's been nailed there.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
Another government passing an idiotic and unenforcable law! I can't wait for another pack of politicians ready to make utter and complete asses of themselves.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hmmm...If I could read the cited article I might be able to better respond. Here in the US we have lots of uptight folks who PROPOSE legislation. That doesn't mean it will get enacted. On the face of it, this seems to be a big nothing unless the government is signing on. I can't imagine that Norwegian big business would allow this to pass considering the ramifications. With big business controlling the government this would obviously never happen. Comparing Norway to China? How about apples and oranges?
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
In the U.S., you say somethings and you get yourself fired, thrown out of office, ridden out on a rail, decertified what have you:
This post will be censored in Norway, but so will anyone who tries to argue the opposite of any one of these points. Is that freedom?
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
It was only a matter of time before a Western nation tried this. It is interesting that the press are not censored but instead adhere to self-imposed commandments of caution ("Vær Varsom-plakaten"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway#Politics So now they wouldn't be blocking their own people from saying things but preventing any outside thoughts that were found disagreeable to find their way in. Or will this also go to cover the "hate towards the government" expressed by Norwegians themselves? And just how will such things like "hate towards the government" be determined? Will any discussion of a dislike of the governments actions be blocked, or will it be limited to blatant hate that threatens bombs and assignations? Lets just hope the US never tries that, or have they already?
web censorship is every government wet dream. i say we begin implementing something on a technical level that prevents it and mitigates legal attacks
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
First, there is another government that thinks they can regulate the Internet. We know that is stupid, but more importantly, they believe they can regulate the dissemination of hate speech. We might as well ban megaphones now. Worse than regulating the Internet, this is an attempt (seemingly) to regulate thought and speech. Can we all agree on how that will work out. Next thing you know Reporters Without Borders will be reporting on this story.
There is way too much in the world to worry about besides what people view on the Internet. Lets not forget that it is the parents responsibility to ensure their kids don't torture animals, bully other kids, and learn a set of spiritual values.
I am (mostly) a libertarian, but despite political leanings, I cannot fathom any political faction believing that it is their responsibility to remove all possible danger from the lives of citizens as to provide a blanket of security and safety for them. When ANY government feels this is their responsibility, it is high time to execute that government and move on to the next version.
This is not so much an example of stupid government as it is a call for the citizens of that country to impeach and behead the leaders of that government... in any order that seems appropriate at the time.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
...only outlaws will have porn.
I was planning to visit Norway again and maybe move to Norway one day, and maybe become a troll after my imperial days are over... But now... Darn... :(
Eh? It just looks like a laundry list of things often said by assholes.
This post will be censored in Norway
...doesn't. How's that PATRIOT act working out for y'all?
That's so clueless I'm going to go ahead and assume you're an American here. I'm also going to point out that Norway consistently ranks in the top five in various agencies' ratings of press and speech freedom. The United States
toresbe
Well,, the large Norwegian ISPs already have the infrastructure in place to do this: The norwegian child porn filter.
This is implemented at the largest ISPs in Norway. Allthough I must say that this proposal in particular is in no way going to happen, It's my belief that there is enough sensible people in this country, making an uproar if this ever comes to pass.
Doolittle :
Bomb no.20 : To explode of course.
First thing banned - all links to apple.com. Voila, the iTunes Store is now officially closed in Norway! That will take care of all the pesky people complaining about iTunes Store bought stuff...
To sum up: We're not the worst!
THE INTERNET- so funny they banned it in Norway.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Funny the article summary mentions the People's Republic of China offhand. A while back I was studying "communist" history, and if my memory serves correct, Norway was the first nation to recognize the sovereignty of the PRC (or maybe the first western nation to do so).
People I know who are native to China seem to have a very positive image of Norway; for example, I had one very good Chinese friend who aspired to live there one day--thought it was the most beautiful country in the world. Norway is beautiful, but out of all the countries in the world, why that one? Of course, this could have been a coincidence, but it further reinforces my perception that Chinese-Norway relations are strong. My girlfriend, whose family is from Pakistan (close neighbor to China, culturally and politically), also seemed to have a glorious image of Norway.
After some quick googling, I found further evidence to support my theory:
http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/zzjg/xos/gjlb/3346 /default.htm / 50%c3%a5r.htm
http://www.norway.cn/norway_and_china/anniversary
It's not surprising then, that their state policies might align. These guys really like each other.
is nothing but a synonymn for selfishness
if you understand what is wrong with selfishness, you understand what is wrong with libertarianism
the only people who take libertarianism seriously are earnest philosophy majors in college with no real world experience, and 40 and 50 year olds behind on their alimony payments
yes, liberals and conservatives are always trying to tell you what to do
because they care. smothering you is a side effect of caring. of course that can do damage, but not as much damage as libertarianism can do to society
because at least they care about something besides themselves
libertarianism is a political philosophy based upon an incomplete understanding of human nature. in many ways, it is the mirror image of communism, with equal flaws as to communism, in mirror reverse
communism ignores selfishness and embraces altruism, and is therefore critically flawed from the start
libertarianism ignores altruism and embraces selfishness, and is therefore critically flawed from the start
because human nature has both altruistic and selfish components at the same time, and any political philosophy that fails to take stock of this basic human nature is automatically doomed. a valid political philosophy must fit human nature like a glove, or it deemphasizes or overly emphasizes some aspect of human nature that becomes that political idea's downfall when attempted in reality
no one will ever take libertarianism seriously, it is permanent fringe
or maybe it will be taken seriously someday. but whatever society does that, will reap pain and poverty in the same way that societies that embraced communism reaped poverty and pain
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Uh, isn't this from the same country which ruled Apple's DRM scheme as illegal? What happened to "information wants to be free?"
Or is this just Norway sticking its middle finger up at a United States company, only to then stick it up again to the rest of the world?
Offense! Defense! Rah Rah Rah!
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Yeah .. because it's of course very sound reasoning to generalize from one story about a policy under discussion in a single European (non-EU) country to a "US vs. Europe" comparison.
is that if you watch a man fall, you will not stop to help him up. that if a man is dying of sepsis, you will not buy him 79 cents in antibiotics, that if a man is smart but can't afford an education, then you will deny him a future. etc
of course, it is absurd for me to suggest that altruism and selfishness cannot coexist at the same time, in the same person, in the same society. this is, in fact, what most modern western societies are like: capitalism with social safety nets, or socialism with a capitalist engine. but notice how the agenda of libertarians is to remove those social safety nets. that's interesting
what would happen without those social safety nets? you honestly can't imagine how they might be necessary, how they might, in fact, help you by removing the attractiveness of criminal acts that are sought after by the desperate? that is as actually cheaper to pay for the social safety nets then to pay for eventual negative effects of a growing poor underclass?
oh: you thought libertarianism would do anything except shrink the middle class?
sorry: selfishness compounds interest. what i mean by that is that, in a libertarian society, given a few generations, all power and money would be centralized in a handful of ultrarich. of course, libertarians say that their political philosophy is all about the little middle class man making it on his own, unburdened by the intrusions of a busy body government. what they don't understand is how their livelihood relies so much on those government hand outs, indirectly, they can't fathom seeing the worth for paying. this doesn't make a libertarian wiser, this makes him more shortsighted
the only people who gain from libertarianism is not the hardy backwoods souls. it is the ultrarich in the penthouses of the urban centers. it is amazing how libertarians cannot understand how selfishness concentrates wealth into societies of rich and poor, and destroys the middle class. the little middle class guy in the woods who supports libertarianism supports the impoverishment of his children and grandchildren so that the ultrarich can get even richer
which makes perfect sense, right? selfishness only cares about yourself... not the next generation
there is nothing wrong with what ayn rand said about the many and varied benefits of selfishness. but there is everything wrong with thinking that those positive aspects of selfishness, in a vacuum of altruistic efforts and benefits, does anything but consume that which it creates, and then some
life is balancing act on so many principles. when it comes to altruism and selfishness, especially
you must have equal parts both concepts in your political philosophy, or you have a political philosophy that only impoverishes and makes miserable
understand why both altruism and selfishness must be expressed in your political philosophy, or understand nothing at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well my sleeping parrot does anyway.
After that whole flap happened, the only people I've ever heard use the word "niggardly" have been people tickled pink by how it sounds when they say it over and over again, and the fact that they can say it without getting into trouble.
"Hate towards the government"?!?!
We all know we've been screwed by the government, but if it can make its mantle of victimhood stick, we'll be fisted. I was thinking of buying a liter of vaseline, but after reading this story, I think a liter of novocaine would be more appropriate.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Ok! I am Norwegian and I just want it t be known that a _minority_ within this commiitee, which is composed of old and wery conservative people, is proposing this bill and just to inform you, there is no chanse in hell that this will ever make it past the Storting (Congress).
It is a shame that when a a comittee is called upon to make a statement on something like the internet there are never any young people included. I am now 22 years old, internet has been a part of my life since I was 10 (and even more so for my 11 years old sister). I can tell these old guys and researchers so much about online culture, society, human interaction and etiqette that they will never ever get to know or learn because internet will always be something "new" and foreign in their life, not something that has been there from the beginning.
When in danger, whewn in doubt! Run in circles, scream and shout!
The blurb is totally inaccurate. It's not proposed as a law. It's a committee that was asked (by our former government) to dream up some suggestions on how to combat 'illegal' internet activities. One possibility, out of several, they came up with was to ban everything... But of course that's the one that creates the best headlines.
It will never happen. It's impossible under the current law and would take some serious changes to the free speech type laws.
... it tries to come up with a technical solution for a social problem
;)
No I'm not talking about the porn
And of course its also violates the human rights...
Yeah, push them further underground rather then trying to foil their next plot. Can't believe people this stupid get into politics (although it does seem to attract quite a select closed mind from what I've seen of my school fellows).
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret
I happen to be a Norwegian, and i find this proposal quite shocking. I am posting under the guise of an anonymous coward to prevent, well... *looks nervously over shoulder*
Lets have a look at the press freedom ranking of countries, as published by Reporters Without Borders: Norway is currently _sixth_ of the 168 countries in the ranking. We certainly like to think of ourselves as a relatively free, happy and prosperous country. Now, this proposal would make us take a plunge past the USA at 56, and position us in the neighborhood of other, well, insidious and suppressive dictatorships like say Iran, China, Cuba, Libya, and North-Korea. No fun and very very bad national PR.
I'm guessing the Norwegian Storting (parliament) would shoot such a proposal down on sight, but i mean. They shouldn't have to. Because this is just silly.
First, the technical solutions would never work in the slightest, given proxying, onion networks and what have you. The same circumvention tools used to communicate past government sensorship in China could be used in Norway. The _real_ badguys will always find away around things. In this case, with great ease.
Second, they propose blocking entire servers found to contain questionable content. Uhh... What about the racist / hateful comments on YouTube, or in the comments section of every Web 2.0 enabled commercial website and newspaper?
Huh? www.YouTube.com not available, reason: Illegal content, copyright violations, hate speech. I mean, seriously, every website with user generated content is liable for censorship, simply because a significant internet population have the intelligence of shit when it comes to online discussions.
This would apply to YouTube, MySpace and every major Newspaper.
In the comments section of this article at Dagbladet (The Newspaper containing TFA), this proposal evokes responses aligning the Norwegian government with Facists, Communists, Nazis, and every other notable censor you would care to mention, as well as comments telling the Govt. to go straight to hell.
Say this article had been posted with this proposal in action: ---> WWW.DAGBLADET.NO - This Website is not available. Reason: Illegal content, Hateful conspiracy against the Government. Your IP-adress has been forwarded to the Norwegian Computer Crime Commission. Have a nice day!"
If a website is to be blocked, the whole server will be cencored affording to the article. Talk about splash-effect.. This is just. I mean. Geez. Silly politicians.
There's lots more to be said about this, but i think i'll stop ranting now. Silly, stupid, wont work. Heck, I'm moving to Sealand.
BTW: Slashdotters will be interested to know that this proposal is beeing put forward by the Norwegian Computer Crime Comitte (My translation, might be inaccurate) - Established to fight Computer Crime after the criminal case against Norwegian DRM cracker Jon Johansen.
-The One called ToHa
Like all media, this is just blown up.
It's a mere suggestion by a comitee, scientists and politicians are outraged by the whole idea, it's
very unlikely that this will ever be put into practice.
According to your post 98% of the Republicans would have been kicked out of office by now.
and lead to the fast adoption of IPv6.
there are two ways IPv6 would counteract this
* every web site would use it's own (so that they don't get blocked if some other schmuck is on a different virtual box)
* the blocked sites would change address every few days to avoid detection
now, blocking millions and millions of IPv6 addresses would be rather, erh... undoable
In fact I might even set up a website devoted to encouraging hatred of censorship.
Guess I better not go to Norway...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"Hate towards the government"
Can't have that, now can we?
Still, the moniker "hate" has indeed turned out to be the key for re-introducing classical censorship legislation to western nations.
...this proposal covered porn as well, so Norway has all bases covered ;)
Nettsider som tilbyr porno som virker støtende.
= "Web sites that provide pornography that can offend."
Hmm, is that kind of material even illegal in Norway otherwise? It would encompass most porn because you can be sure there's always someone offended about it, particularly often in governments it seems.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Where in the article did the poster find that? My norwegian isn't very good so I really would like to know. Or is it just flamebaiting?
Are you unaware of the number of countries in Europe?
Take off every 'sig' !!
I'm looking forward to all that Norwegian p0rn that's going to be published at Lego/Duplo blocky resolution! Oh wait, that's just Microsoft and their DRM!
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Here's something for your consideration: the European peoples have, for the last few centuries, experienced pretty much everything in the way of censorship. I would submit they are much better trained, on the whole, than the Americans, to resist and fight it, or at the very least recognize censorship when they see it. The very self-assumed liberties of the Americans are what weakens their reactions.
Granted, the old saying about 'those who don't learn history are condemned to repeat it' still applies. But perhaps it applies more to politicians and less and less to the ordinary folk these days.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Israel has a right to exist
Who the hell got thrown out of office for saying that? Saying that Israel doesn't have the right to exist is much more likely to get you in trouble--I know because I said something similar a few times and my coworkers got all uptight about it (well, I didn't say they didn't have the RIGHT to exist so much as it was a stupid stupid STUPID place to start a new country, and we shouldn't have been involved in protecting them from their own stupidity, ESPECIALLY if that meant pissing off a bunch of Muslim radical nutjobs. I compare to someone founding a nation in Antartica, and then complaining when their balls freeze off. Well yeah, that sucks, it's not fair, but just how is that MY problem?)
Global warming is caused by nature
Politicians say that all the time. They're called "Republicans"--or, more properly, "oil industry shills." I've had plenty of friends and coworkers who believe it, too, despite the fact that the vast majority of evidence points to a human cause. But even though it's bullshit, no one gets in trouble for saying this.
Clinton was a dope smoking, womanizing, draft dodging President
You see, this statement it and of itself doesn't annoy people so much in itself as the implications that:
1. Adolescent dope experimentation (which, for the uneducated among us, is a NON-ADDICTIVE DRUG ("psychological addition" DOESN'T count--by that definition, TV is FAR more addictive) WITH *ZERO* POSSIBILITY FOR LETHAL OVERDOSE--the same CANNOT be said of tobacco or alcohol) has ANYTHING to do with being president several decades later. Oh yeah, and the implication that this is somehow worse than George W. Bush's drunk driving and cocaine habit.
2. That sexual activies (moral or otherwise) have anything to do with running a nation.
3. That dodging the Vietnam war was somehow immoral (hint: it was a fucked up war, and I sure as hell wouldn't have gone) and that our current president somehow WASN'T just as big of a coward when it came to real service.
I don't have a problem with people calling Clinton those things--I just have a problem with people saying that they made him a bad president, *especially* in light of our current commander-in-chief. When Clinton lied, no one died.
That said, I've yet to see anyone get fired or "run out of office" for badmouthing him.
Agreed wholeheartedly on the niggardly fiasco--what a horribly vivid portrait that episode painted of just how far out of hand political correctness has gone--now even IGNORANCE is protected. Similar situation with the expression "tar baby"--it has absolutely no racial connotations, but (apparently because tar is black) some people THINK it does, so it has become taboo.
I have no love for non-progressive Islamic culture, either, and I think it's bullshit that we give countries like Saudi Arabia (which is MUCH worse than Iraq and Iran ever were) a free ride. But hey, the longer uber-conservative asshats like yourself (btw, I'm a fiscal conversative myself... yes, it IS possible to believe in a smaller government--including less social spending--WITHOUT pushing anti-environmental/pro-Christianity/pro-war crap) continue to deny human-caused global warming, the more people are going to drag their feet on developing oil alternatives which means--you guessed it!--we're going to continue being Saudi bitches for many years (perhaps decades) to come.
But nevermind me--why don't you go back to your fantasy world where common conservative ideology is persecuted throughout America. Those of us here in the real world know that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Forget Norway!
Boobies and people fsucking = The source of life. Racism and violence = A source of death.
On the Monty Python front - the Norwegians (initially) banned the film "Life of Brian". So in Sweden it was advertised as "the movie that is so funny, it was banned in Norway".
(Sorry about my English, I am Norwegian)
Your English isn't bad because you're Norwegian, it's bad because you're an idiot.
You know, where the current administration are fighting private schools to avoid thoughts that are not socialistic enough.
No, it's to avoid religious nutcase schools like Liberty University and the like in the US. And it's a good thing, too. And the recent school reforms are as unsocialistic as they get.
Where the state takes most of what you earn by direct and hidden taxes.
The Norwegian populace doesn't exactly seem to be starving.
Where the state has their own media house to spew out their propaganda financed by anyone owning a TV,
Ehhh... NRK is not controlled by the state. It has complete editorial freedom, both in theory and practice, and is frequently critical of the government. NRK is BTW an excellent TV network, and is worth every penny.
and it for a while was illegal to watch TV that was not controlled by it.
Yes, it's called a TV license. It's a very common thing around Europe, and is more strictly enforced other places than here. It's a yearly fee you pay for owning a TV. I don't know what you mean by "controlled"... It's still illegal to own a TV without paying the license.
toresbe
It's working just fine, thank you. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with free speech. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. The objections to certain articles of the PATRIOT Act have to do with invasion of privacy and a perceived lack of judicial oversight for certain provisions.
When you say that Norway is at the top of the list, the United States is not far back. And this is a completely unscientific, opinion-based, qualitative ranking that you are citing. The survey is wildly erratic and, with the US at least, . The US fell over 20 places in Reporters Without Borders for, according to them, the decisions made in the Judith Miller case. That had absolutely nothing to do with her being censored or deprived of the right to speak or publish her opinion in any way, shape, or form. She was arrested for contempt of court. If she has facts that are related to a specific trial, she has a legal obligation to give up those facts. Whether you are a journalist or a private citizen, you simply can't ignore a grand jury summons. By refusing to testify when she had valuable information, she undermined the integrity of the court case. You do not, and should not, have the right to withhold information from a jury.
For an example, El Salvador was ranked ahead of the United States last year. Can you honestly tell me that you would feel safer criticizing the government in El Salvador? That El Salvador has more societal and governmental assurance of a free press?
I know US-bashing is in fashion and the OP was wrong, but please shut the fuck up. We've had asshole presidents, moronic legislatures, and stupid, pointless wars before and we'll have them again. That doesn't change the fact that we have a long and proud history of freedom of the press.
It's working just fine, thank you. The PATRIOT Act has nothing to do with free speech. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. The objections to certain articles of the PATRIOT Act have to do with invasion of privacy and a perceived lack of judicial oversight for certain provisions.
:)
I wasn't referring directly to freedom of speech, but to civil rights. You're right, the US has a very good history of freedom of press, and if what you say is true, then the RWB report is certainly of questionable value. I was basically just a bit peeved at the OP basically calling Norway a totalitarian state, which couldn't be further from the truth.
toresbe
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
...the interwebs censor you!
I don't know which Europe are you refering to, I've lived in Europe for all my life and have never seen any of those things you say. About racism, I can elighten you that is not behaviour that's encouraged around here, but even last summer some right extremists add a manifestation against african aliens (in other words black pepople, they stand for Europe as Mexicans for USA). Around most european countrys even those more extremists have the right to say what they think without any problem. About porn, you are right, in US you can sneak some porn, in Europe you don't need to sneak, it sells in newspaper stands anywhere! In some (I would say the majority) country's the vendors even sell it to teenagers (though the law says it can only be sold to people over 18 or 16 in some countrys).
It's not just people living in Norway who will be affected by this. Around 10 million people (more than twice the population of Norway itself) use the Opera Mini browser for mobile phones, which uses proxy servers based in Norway. Presumably Opera Mini users will be caught by the Great Fjordwall of Norway in the same way as Norwegian inhabitants.
I tried to have an automatic translation of the article. Well, I do wonder if that translation helps understand anything. Maybe someone will be able to come up with a better one.
So, we're bashnig China for the great firewall, eh ? France and the USA already block some content (if my memory serves well), Norway is considering it. To me, it seems that, even if China seems much more oppressive, the "job" of every government is to control it's population.
I'm belgian, and I know that in my country, right-wing political parties are kept away from the "democratic" ones, there is censorship here too.
Bah, politicians have to make sure they rightfully guide the uninformed mass, I guess (Noam Chomsky's "Understanding Power" is quite interesting on that matter).
Famous last words. Well actually, the real last words are "but I thought I had a choice?!"
Answer, "you did. You choose wrong."
A liberty once lost is not easily regained. Go ahead. Start a radiostation. Once it was easy, all you needed was the equipment. Now you need a license. Try and get one for a station just powerfull enough to cover your town.
Don't even bother with a tv station. Yet the first tv stations were privately run by individuals.
Now it has hard to find a station NOT owned by some global multi-national. And not to many of those either.
A good thing OR a loss of freedom.
Once you accept that the state can censor the net in even the most limited capacity you have opened the door for every tiny, sensible increase.
Think of it like this:
ME: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
You: Yes
ME: Would you sleep with me for 2 dollars (canadian)?
You: No, what kind of person do you think I am.
ME: We already established that, now we are just haggling over price.
Censorship is the same, it is an all or nothing deal. Accept the tiniest amount and you accept censorship as a whole.
Say you accept censorship as an optional plugin. But then how do people know about it? So people should have it installed with their new system but turned off by default. Okay, but some people still mis it. How about having it enabled by default? What about "THINK OF THE CHILDEREN" tm.
So make it mandatory in schools. How about at the office? Surely in the offices of anyone in a public position.
And what should be banned? Porn. Pictures or text? What about nudes. Only erotic nudes, but what is erotic? What is pornographic? Cover up statues?
Someone else pointed out that Norwegian childerens tv got naked boobies and you want to censor that.
I am not a liberal but censorship is dangerous.
As for that anti-phising thing. HOW do YOU know that every site ever put into that database will be there for the being a phising site and for nothing else?
Someone controls what you see. Do you control them, FOREVER!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Without porn.... Is there really much left? You're filtering out like 90% of the internet, there!
Stuff like the PATRIOT Act, Guantanamo and the like are horrible and should be gotten rid of, but speaking in relative terms they really aren't that bad.
I don't know enough about the PATRIOT act to speak for or against it, but I'm sorry, no: Guantanamo Bay is absolutely inexcusable. It really is that bad.
We're still an extraordinarily free society...
Actually, you're far below par for the course in Europe. You do seem to enjoy talking about it the loudest, though.
toresbe
is the agenda of most libertarian politics all about removing social safety nets?
yes, libertarians want freedom. for themselves from everyone else. they want freedom from society. they are selfish
the freedom that libertarians seek has nothing to do with freedom of expression or freedom of religion
for libertarians, freedom is about freedom from responsibility to your society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i wish to move the utopia of anarchism in this world: somalia
l ers)) or the levellers (http://www.levellers.org/lev.htm) for example.
Left libertarian, aka anarchist, organisations have often addressed issues of altruism and communitarianism - read up on the diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(True_Level
well, to me what you have outlined above is libertarianism in the same way that the modern chinese communist party of today embraces rabid social darwinistic capitalism. in other words, it isn't communism at all, except in name only. likewise for the "libertarians" you speak of above
if you call that libertarianism, then you are merely telling me that the word "libertarian" has so many different conflicting nebulous meanings overlapping such a wide range of philosophies to different people as to be a word devoid of any meaning until the context of a conversation is established. you're telling me that "libertarian" can be a synonymn for any political system you can imagine, from anarchosyndicalists to communism in the old hippie utopia sense
so to you, libertarianism is a meaningless buzzword, whose usage is completely plastic, and only useful for exciting people about vague notions of being different, without any actual concrete substance of political philosophy
either the word "libertarianism" refers to a specific political philosophy, or it refers to a wide range of overlapping and conflicting beliefs, and therefore has no real substantive meaning worth talking about until what it means to two particular people is established first
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm sure you have heard of black metal before, scary people singing about the devil and such. It is/was especially prevalent in Norway. About 98% of this music has some sort of hateful message included in it. I myself am a huge fan of black metal. (I don't agree with any of it, but that's a whole different story). If I were to live in such a Norway that bans this sort of hateful material over the Internet, I would be very much outraged. All the music sites that I visit would now have to be shut down.
And supposedly that would make me a better person because I'm not exposed to these hateful words? I think not.
Just a personal example of how I would be affected by censorship were I to live in Norway.
Do not mark in this space. For official office use only.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
apparently, libertarianism means so many different things to so many different people as to be a meaningless word. either libertarianism has a concrete specific political philosophy, or it is a nebulous buzzword with overlapping and conflicting interpretations from person to person. therefore, we can argue about what "libertarianism" the word means until the cows come home. but that's a useless conversation, what the definition of a word is. a useful conversation is about philosophical meaning, not a definition of terms. if two people can't approach each other with the same definition of their terms before they start discussing a subject matter, they can't have a substantitive discussion. and apparently, libertarianism means whatever you want it to mean. so talking about it is pointless
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
its not the politicians being naive, its the politicians doing something for the sake of doing something, to make the look like they are doing something, its all lip service. its common problem, instead of going after the criminals they punish easier tagets.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
At least, unlike the Chinese firewall, the Norwegian one would be acknowledged by the government, the blocking criteria would be publicly disclosed, and Norway's citizens would be free to criticize the censorship. For now.
I know this will be an unpopular comment, but maybe it will strike a cord with some of you. While I value and esteem the internet as one of the last bastions of total freedom, the so called "Wild West" of our day, the fact is that with freedom, comes responsibility. Estimates value the porn industry at 10 Billion in the United States alone. The number may vary somewhat depending on which source you use, but what this says to me is that this is a major problem, not only here in the United States, but world wide. Pornography is a scourge on any society. It cheapens the value of women (and men), destroys relationships, exploits children, and feeds our ever growing appetite for the more and more bizarre. In some areas of the world, and I know this may come as a shock to some of you, people are traded as commodities in the sex trade, all so satisfy the lusts of the the "needs" of our ever growing appetite.
Then we bitch and complain about the loss of our freedoms, and the government coming in to restrict our freedom of speech, when we haven't shown the ability to police ourselves. Who can blame them. Cute jokes aside, any person willing to look past the attractive face of pornography can see the devastating effect this has on a society.
Whether you agree or disagree, why would you be surprised at the actions of Norway? I look at the statistics above, and I see a problem. Expect to see more and more of this.
I know that if I was a hormone-crazed impressionable youth, and had no Jewish ancestry, and there was this "thing with cool costumes and a history of violence", and even better, THE GOVERNMENT BANS IT, I might be thinking "let's check this shit out!".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
is about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc.
;-)
libertarianism is about freedom from responsibility to your society
that's where i am coming form
you seem to assert that libertarianism has a fixed meaning and i need to learn it. no, you're just asserting that your particular definition is superior to mine. you're not wise, you're just arrogant. you assume your definition is superior to mine. how self-centered of you... which, considering the subject matter at hand, is rather ironic
just google. apparently, the first definition is mine. the second is yours. so maybe you should stop asserting that your definition of terms is THE definition of terms, no?
a useful conversation is about philosophical meaning, not a definition of terms. if two people can't approach each other with the same definition of their terms before they start discussing a subject matter, they can't have a substantitive discussion. and apparently, libertarianism means whatever you want it to mean. so talking about it is pointless
but by all means, continue with your arrogant pissing contest asserting your definition as superior than mine. perhaps you need the ego crutch
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I, for one, welcome our web censoring norwegian overlords
liberty is about freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc.
libertarianism is about freedom from responsibility to your society
that's where i am coming from, that's my definition of terms
a useful conversation is about philosophical meaning, not a definition of terms. if two people can't approach each other with the same definition of their terms before they start discussing a subject matter, they can't have a substantitive discussion. and apparently, libertarianism's meaning is too plastic to have a meaningful discussion of the word
just google. apparently, the first definition is mine. the second is yours. so we have an impasse. the word itself fails us in having a meaningful conversation here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Look, you make some very good points, and I commend you for them, but god is your post hard to read. Maybe it is just me, but I find it downright painful; everything just runs together forcing me to read it more slowly than normal. A few extra seconds using the shift key and punctuation would save many minutes of total time of readers who are slowed down trying to read it. Actually, your post is a great example of the selfishness you talk about: to save a little inconvenience on your end, you disregard the inconvenience to possibly hundreds of readers, with a negative net gain overall.
Suggestion: if you really can't be bothered to use the shift key, use the CAPS LOCK instead. That way the letters in your post will be bigger and easier to read, and you will get your point across more emphatically. Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but that is exactly how your post looks to me, except s/uppercase/lowercase/.
I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of "statement" with your "style," but IMHO it really detracts from the content of your post. Sorry.
is a complete political philosophy, not an abstract concept or a subset of another political philosophy. what you mean to say when you say "libertarianism" above is "self-sufficiency" or "personal responsibility"
if, in your words above, you had used the word "communism" instead of "social safety nets" that would be absurd, because communism is a political philosophy that denies aspects of self-sufficiency. so your use of the word communism would have been incorrect above
likewise, your use of the word libertarianism above is incorrect, as libertarianism denies aspects of social safety nets. you mean to use another word, a synonym of libertarianism that implies abstract concept rather than complete political philosophy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The retard that moded you offtopic should be hit several times with a 500 pound kringle.
Several years ago, the Swedish minister of trade, Björn Rosengren, was quoted referring to Norway as "the last Soviet state". He was later forced to an public appology but I think he hit the nail on the head.
you get all hot and bothered, because in your mind, you hear me arguing against the concept of liberty. when i love the concept of liberty. but you're going to sit there with your particular definition stuck in your head, and even though you realize i have a different definition, you're going to completely ignore that
;-)
hey you go on with your bad self, but you're just arrogant and self-centered in how you approach others. which, considering the subject matter, is a rather appropriate commentary (snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
you understand Southern-brand Christianity. Congratulations!
Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to conviction
Ah... yet another "progressive" /. poster. If a person wants to go to a private "religious nutcase school like Liberty University," what exactly is your problem with that. The only thing that I can imagine is that you are upset by institutions which you probably don't have any connection to. It seems you would take away the choice of attending such a place because it is against your beliefs.
"The Norwegian populace doesn't exactly seem to be starving." And anyone who is not starving should give as much money as possible to the government, right? Everyone reading this should be aware that if you are not starving, you need to write a check to your government immediately. Just empty your bank account 'cause we all know that bureaucracy is synonymous with efficiency.
Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
Don't forget that Europe is complicit in many of the crimes of the current American regime. According to intelligence reports commission by the European Parliament, European countries cooperated fully in the American practice of extraordinary rendition and the maintenance of CIA secret prisons. And even if Europe wasn't in lockstep with the United States, European individuals have no grounds to look up their noses at individual Americans, any more than one is justified in attempting to discount the arguments of an Iranian individual based on his nationality!
that's nice, you redefine my altruism as selfishness. nice demagoguery, you should get into politics: you have a penchant for twisting other peoples words
what i want is for people to understand they don't have freedom of responsibility from their obligations to society. that's not me arguing against freedom of expression or freedom of religion. understand?
it's funny how quickly the libertarian's loud rallying cry for freedom from a meddlesome nanny state quickly morphs into a unspoken agenda to remove social safety nets
it's funny how that works, isn't it?
so yes: libertarianism has may different meanings, as you say
1. the public golden heroic face libertarianism presents to the world on freedoms on many issues
2. the unspoken reality of the libertarian agenda which amounts to nothing more than disavowing your obligations to society and its safety nets
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Guantanamo has plenty of REAL war criminals, REAL murderers, and you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere more strict and by the book after the bad press, they kicked the private corporation that was doing the torture. (that's right, it was the private corporation but none of THEM got in trouble, only the few American soldiers that saw them and did the same)So Guantanamo is really old hat at this point dudes.
These debates can and will go on forever, because everyone has a problem with these outrages, and you're all such fscking altruists that you'll never stop until everyone that has nothing to do with it is bitched out. Humanitarians, the whole lot of you, you deserve award banquets.
But, what Norway is doing with this filtering and with the 'guilty-until-innocent' clause they've introduced, is trying to modify behavior of their citizens with fear and oppression. In a place like Norway, I could see it working and probably not even really being a bad thing. Sure, it's a little hard to swallow at first, but I am sure in no time they'll have a smug sense of superiority in their new laws, and embrace the restrictions placed upon them as only natural and right. It will be interesting, no doubt, and I am sure many other nations will soon adopt these policies. We've been witnessing the death of the freedom idea for a while now, but after an acceleration of inevitable transformation to a new oppression process in on the horizon, soon freedom will be the new terrorism. After all, you can't just LET people think racist thoughts, you have to punish them for their ideas; because you've decided their ideas are wrong. Though, you don't know them, who they are, where they've been, you just know racism is bad and if you are affiliated then you're going to jail asshole! I think Mike Tyson said it best when he said it's not our place to judge other's ideas, simply because we lack the ability to understand them and by our definition of 'right'...find them inherently wrong.
With Norway being traditionally Lutheran, perhaps they'll only ban certain Bible passages...
the problem is that people not only rightfully proclaim their freedom of expression, religion, etc., they also unrightfully proclaim their freedom from responsibility and accountability. or rather, they simply don't talk about their responsibilities to society, and, unless forced, they don't contribute. of course a few enlightened souls will contribute voluntary, but the vast majority simply won't
this is unfortunate, but it is also true. it's just human nature. here, you need a primer, after reading this example, you need to reexamine your political philosophy, because what you bleieve in now is unworkable: it isn't compatible with human nature:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10sect
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
that modern libertarian movements are not only proponents of freedom of speech, religion, etc. (noble) but also proponents of freedom from responsibility? (not noble, selfish)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
who really hopes to be one of the ultra rich, you insensitive clod.
You can't handle the truth.
HEADING: Wants web censorship in Norway
IMAGE CAPTION: HAIR-RAISING: Technologist Svein Willassen thinks that government blocking of Internet is plain censorship, and at odds with the principles of freedom and freedom of speech on Internet. Photo: TORBJØRN GRØNNING
GREY BOX ON RIGHT SIDE: Facts
The computer crime committee
January 11th 2002, the government, by royal decree, appointed a committee to investigate law amendments against computer crime (The computer crime committee).
Today, the computer crime committee consists of district stipendiary magistrate (sorenskriver) Knut Rønning (head of committee), deputy director Christina Christensen from the Ministry of Transport and Communication (Samferdselsdepartementet ), consultant Hanne Gulbrandsen from The Data Inspectorate (Datatilsynet), lawyer Birthe Taraldset from Bergen Banking AS, public prosecutor (statsadvokat) Jenny Sellæg and PhD student (doktorgradsstipendiat) Svein Willassen from Department of Telematics at NUST (NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology).
The computer crime committee has worked strenuously with a general study of the penal code (straffeloven) and the penal code process (straffeprosessloven) to discover needs for further law amendments.
The law proposal
The minority proposal is being pushed by the head of committee, district stipendiary magistrate Knut Rønning and the Ministry of Transport and Communication by Christina Christensen.
They think an provision for Internet filtering should be amended to the penal code. The minority want it to be possible to filter web pages that are in violation of Norwegian law.
It is the Internet service providers that shall be required to shut down the pages. The suggested law amendment says:
"The service provider can be required to block access to certain places on Internet for their users if the contents might lead to stronger punishment than fines in Norway."
The primary proposal wants the prosecution to request blocking of web pages in the judiciary.
An ordinary court of law (tingretten) shall determine whether there is just cause for filtering. If it is, the Internet service provider is required to block the web site for Norwegian users.
An alternative proposal is that the Norwegian Media Authority (Medietilsynet) decides which web sites to block. If anyone appeal the decision, it can be brought to court.
INTRODUCTION:
Law proposal to stop file sharing, porn and gambling.
ARTICLE: by Jostein Ihlebæk
Monday 2007-02-12, 09:45 AM
updated 10:05 AM
Today, the Computer crime committee will submit a proposal that will require Internet service providers to block web sites with illegal contents.
Plain censorship and an assault on freedom of speech, says critics.
In violation of Norwegian law
One of the most inflammatory issues in the study is the provision for the government to intervene and block some web pages for Norwegian users.
The Ministry of Transport and Communication by Christina Christensen and district stipendiary magistrate Knut Rønning, believe Internet services providers should be required to block web sites that contain material in violation of Norwegian law, and will push a minority suggestion for this to be amended in the penal code.
This could leave Norway with one of the most stern Internet laws in the western world.
- Plain censorship
- This is a hair-raising proposal, says PhD student Svein Willassen at NUST. He is a member of The computer crime committee on behalf of technologists.
- The proposal can be compared with the Chinese net censorship, says Willa
Ah... yet another "progressive" /. poster. If a person wants to go to a private "religious nutcase school like Liberty University," what exactly is your problem with that.
My problem with that is that the poor children would get religion - and more than likely, a substandard education - shoved down their throats by their parents. In Liberty University, there is an exhibit of some dinosaur fossils, claiming they have been dated 3000 years old. That isn't education, that's indoctrination.
And anyone who is not starving should give as much money as possible to the government, right?
No, false. The OP seemed to be making the point that we were losing all our money to government taxes, which simply isn't true. Taxes in Norway are quite reasonable, considering the services offered by the government which I'd otherwise have to pay for anyway, and the general effect of improvement I feel that it offers society - in terms of culture, education, parks, museums, roads, public transport, et cetera et cetera.
Just empty your bank account 'cause we all know that bureaucracy is synonymous with efficiency.
Not at all. The Norwegian government isn't particularily bureaucratic. Certainly it's nothing compared to the US government!! (I've seen both, and was appalled by the runaway inefficiency of most US gov't-run services.)
toresbe
In Norway, if you're charged with a 'hate-crime' you're automatically considered guilty until proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you're innocent.
...The rest of your post is just incoherent braindead jabbering. You, Sir, are an idiot.
That is a quite extraordinary claim. If you care to back that up with anything, I'm prepared to listen.
Guantanamo has plenty of REAL war criminals, REAL murderers (...)
That's an incredibly bankrupt path of logic. It's inexcusably dumb.
But, what Norway is doing with this filtering and with the 'guilty-until-innocent' clause they've introduced
You mean, that a 2-against-4 minority of bureaucrats with no political positions, have suggested as a possible alternative for combatting cyber-crime? It's not even a formal direct suggestion to pass as a law, more as a general guidance as part of a council.
toresbe
You can't legislate morality.
The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before. - Thorstein
What I was alluding to was merely the current state of affairs where most Americans are more than happy to go on smug tirades on how much more free their country is, even thought there are currently dire problems with civil liberties in the United States.
I'm just trying to point out the fact that we're not torturing innocents, secretly throwing habeas corpus out the window, or keeping tabs on peoples' library check-out records. We are both countries which share deeply held values, and we both face challenges to those values at times - but there is certainly no reason - or, indeed, opportunity, to assume the higher moral ground in this situation.
toresbe
Just for the record, in my opinion, mods are on crack for modding this post and your replies "troll".
toresbe
You're just helping us torture innocents, violate privacy rights, etc. I can see the distinction, but I'm not impressed.
Please supply any information saying Norway has participated in this? I believe the government has actually condemned it.
toresbe
Man, I don't know why you flipped on me dude, I didn't even side with anyone, you can't deny that a prison has criminals though...I even admitted the wrongdoings of the corporation....could it be you can't get over yourself? I mean what you've said just now is, how you say, "dumb"... Anyway, If I am dumb, you're just a total prick bro. I've obviously struck a nerve with you, sad to see your defense mechanisms out like this, I am quite embarrassed for you, sir. ...I jsut don't understand, I didn't say ANYthing but that guilty until proven innocent stuff is bogus, and that Guantanamo isn't the hyped up sensation you believe it to be, I know you want instant "humanitarian points" for speaking out against these outrages, but I really am grateful that I am impervious to that bonehead path of smug self-satisfaction. Good day.
In this Der Spiegel article, Norway is mentioned as a regular stopover point for rendition flights. http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,388805, 00.html
I am also fully aware of that, so you are very much correct.
I was simply pointing out that OP's comment was probably referring to the number of countries (and prominent ones like Germany and Austria at that) which do have official censorship of opinion. Perhaps I could have been a little more clear on my intent.
Also, why was my comment modded Offtopic and the parent Insightful? They're both on the same subject. People with mod points should keep in mind that there is no "-1 I don't like what you said" and "-1 Offtopic" or "-1 Flaimbait" are not acceptable substitutes.
That's new to me, I must admit. But that certainly does not mean that Norwegian officials were aware of the nature of these flights - much less participated in them.
toresbe
But it does mean that Norway was at least willing to let foreign intelligence organizations regularly use its facilities without any sort of explanation; criminal negligence at the least.
Not really. The United States is a very strong diplomatic ally, and has been since WWII. We tend to put up with that kind of shit. :)
toresbe
Most of your comment is essentially correct regarding libertarianism as an ideal, although the political party in the US is something else.
What's more, they care about freedom so much that they respect it and respect other peoples right to enjoy their freedoms and live their lives however they choose, so long as they aren't hurting someone else.
This is incorrect, or perhaps, imprecise. Libertarians are against legislating morality. This is different from being in favor of freedom. With a little reflection anyone can see how one person's freedom can limit the freedom of someone else. Stealing does not "hurt anyone" but the freedom to take what you want conflicts with the freedom of others not to have their things taken. The idea of libertarianism is that the number and influence of laws should be minimized and that the only laws that are necessary are laws that resolve a conflict or rights between two people. Laws against stealing resolve the conflict between one person's right to own property and another person's right to take anything they want. Laws that forbid fornication between consenting adults are "legislating morality" because there is no conflict of rights. It is simply the law trying to let one group tell another group of people how to live. Libertarianism opposes this type of law. The right to speak out against a religion or race, is a conflict of rights, in that the right of one person to speak in any way they want may conflict with another person's right not to be slandered or intimidated. I think the right to speak freely should trump those other rights, but it is not an issue where a libertarian would necessarily choose one or the other based upon that philosophy.
Freenet.
(which it's not)
but say for the sake of argument that your partisan one dimensional stereotypes of conservatives and liberals was actually 100% true
it's still superior to the libertarian notion of caring about nothing but yourself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i'm not admitting you are, but say this mismanaged, self-defeating, shortsighted effort at social responsibility that you depict is reality
it's still orders of magnitude superior to a libertarian take on social responsibility
a libertarian take on social responsibility is voluntary
ha!
man you fools make me laugh
do you need a primer in basic human nature?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
i thought linux was an operating system
;-P
i did not know it was a welfare system!
i mean i could counter your words by pointing out something like the marshall plan, but naahh... the marshall plan actually is commentary on altruistic behavior. but according to your mode of argument, we can cite projects that have nothing to do with altruistic behavior towards other human beings at all, and think it somehow to be on topic
pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if you consider self = solitary human being, as a fixed definition
now if someone dotes on their grandchildren, this can be viewed as selfish. and there are people who have strong nationalist feelings who are, in effect, fighting for themselves
there lots of different layers of identity, of things you call "yourself", for sure. but if you are going to make the definition of self become fluid, you don't shed new light on altruism versus selfishness, you simply obliterate the entire argument
meanwhile, there still exist selfish people out there who only look out for their immediate selves and do not see the benefit of paying taxes, for example, of contributing to society, to anything larger than themselves
across this divide, a meaningful conversation can be had. but obliterating all notions of self doesn't fix that discussion
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What agencies?
I don't know about Norway but in many European countries all sorts of political speech in banned as "hate" speech. Frankly a lot of it I would also classify as ugly and hateful. The thing is I shouldn't have the absolute power to decide what people can and can not say. As far as the Patriot act goes. It really has had no effect on political speech in this country. People are still complaining about the government in public. We still have Neo-Nazis spouting their filth. Just about all speech goes on in the US for better or worse.
I will say that this is NONE of my business. Norway is a democratic country like the US and the people of the country have the right to decide how they want to live.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ah. Thinking of the children.
What I was alluding to was merely the current state of affairs where most Americans are more than happy to go on smug tirades on how much more free their country is, even thought there are currently dire problems with civil liberties in the United States.
And that is new how? I mean we've had civil liberties problems with communism, socialism, blacks, jews, any non-whites, drugs, the mentally ill/undesirable (we had eugenics till the 70s), the poor, terrorists, the japanese, immigrants and probably a few other groups.
I see it as downright stupid to say this is some sort of amazing new problem that is decimating civil liberties while implying that the US was a blessed land of civil liberties in comparison beforehand. Stupid as in the person saying it is an idiot as by their own logic the US is only marginally worse than it was in the past.
Not really. The United States is a very strong diplomatic ally, and has been since WWII. We tend to put up with that kind of shit. :)
And terrorism is a dire problem so we put up with the dire shit of shipping people off to CIA prisons for the good of everybody. It doesn't make it any better, just lets people sleep with a fuzzy feeling of their wrong actions being justified.
Evil people don't say they're evil, they almost always have a reason to justify their actions or even to claim they were in the right.