Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Wants Immunity
rprins writes "In what is perhaps a reaction to recent Homeland Security demands, a strategic report by ICANN suggests that it should take on the model of a private international organization (PDF). That would make ICANN immune from US law and regulations. However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges. So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain."
Maybe they could bid for Sealand and create their own country. Or move to North Korean embassy. Seems to be a popular alternative now that U.S. is becoming very unfriendly to the Internet. But if they move, will they take the tubes with them, or will have to call contractors to install them again? Inquiring minds want to know.
However, it's unlikely that the Bush administration would grant ICANN these privileges.
So then it's more like ICANN'T, when you really think about it.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the bombs are planted.
Jack, this organization tried to KILL me!
Surely the model would have to be something like the WTO not the IRC?
For better or worse ICANN deals with a system carrying billions of 'all currencies' over the world.
But relocating to Switzerland would be soooooooooo cool!
Nico M, London, GB.
So the organization might opt to relocate to Switzerland where such privileges are easier to attain.
Yeah, I can see the US gov't just sitting by quietly while that happened.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
And I guess we're not to ask "why", right ? Whom will get custudy over ICANN after this operation ? Are we to believe that the ICANN board, we all know how reliable they are, will make the right choices for all of us ? Will it be the UN ? I trust them even less to make the right choice. I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?
Frankly, for one country to "control" ICANN, with what ICANN "controls" is foolish. Especially the States, with people who seem to think that the free exchange of ideas is their personal property, and that since we're the "good guys" we can screw with the free exchange of ideas, and it's okay.
Mind you, I wouldn't trust any other country more. Independence from national issues is pretty much the only solution.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
They should've played nicer with the internet. Now it's taking it's ball and going home. Hope being "right" was worth it!
ICANN: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
They dish out IPs and run DNS.
What exactly do they want immunity from?
All corporations want to be "above the law". Plenty move offshore to accomplish this.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Mr. President, ICANN is asking for immunity and a full presidential pardon, signed, in writing, before they tell us where the authcodes are with our Registerfly domain names.
You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?
It might be something like that.
I say they move it to China or Iran. After all, if they're good enough to sit on UN security councils and human right's councils, why not run the intarwebs, too?
Because the US law is changing.
c++;
The internet has done quite well under US law but it's far from perfect. Things like the .xxx dispute should not be a political football amongst under-educated US politicians. Same with the US having too much control over the root servers in general. Americans should wake up to the fact that the whole world uses the internet and respect needs to be given to every country.
For example, China is thinking about creating it's own internet, being greedy about who controls ICANN just encourages them to work on their own project which could potentially have devastating effects on current system, not to mention the added cost in supporting such a system (which our company for one would have to do).
Lets just get rid of, as in incinerate, the dept of homeland security and the problem, as such, will just go away. Then we can all get back to what needs to be done.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Utter crap! First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws, secondly ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control, therefore they are under no obligation to bow to pressure from any country which would be a better position than they are in now (being under pressure from Congress - who have a grrreat track record in legislating on Technology law - thing DMCA)
'If ICANN leaves the protection of the USA, ICANN will have to start recognizing all the repressive and bizaree anti-free expression laws of other countries'
The President is moving (via the Dept of Homeland Security) to eliminate those previous freedoms enjoyed by America. The Bush idea of free speech is far worse than the international one. Also you make it sound as if ICANN would be reduced to the restrictions of the worst countries when in reality ICANN wouldn't have to listen to any of them.
Switzerland is also the perfect place for this. They have long been an international haven with strong physical and legal security.
This is all about the recent request for access to the DNSSEC root keys. As a firm proponent of DNSSEC I agree, In ACSAC 2005 I published a paper proposing the IKS (Internet Key Service) a distributed domain-name based certificate authority grounded in DNSSEC and the sole authority of ICANN to assign domains. A functionally deployed DNSSEC would allow us to bootstrap strong end-to-end cryptography. Allowing the US government to spoof DNS entries would seriously impair DNSSEC and greatly damage my work.
Forget ICANN, use OpenNIC, the Democratic Name System.
http://www.opennic.unrated.net/
Please be advised to put that aluminum foil hat back on. You might want to double-layer it first, though.
There has been no reduction of freedom of expression under the Bush Administration. If you disagree, please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect.
They have no power beyond the power of the US government, because Verisign controls the actual servers and use to have ICANNs job before ICANN came along. So no they won't relocate to Switzerland and no they don't want immunity from US law, they want immunity from being sued by disgruntled domain name holders.
Like the recent Registerfly domain registrar where they did nothing even as their domain names were lost until they were prodded into action by bad press.
It's where it's going that scares me.
The United States want TOTAL control of where you go, what you can do, etc. They're going to use 9/11 to get anything and everything it wants in terms of our liberties. And the fact of the matter is that it simply doesn't have the right to do that. Not only does it not have the right to be that intrusive on it's own citizens, it sure as HELL doesn't have that right to be that intrusive on citizens of other countries! "Hey, Canada won't accept our demands to make their own version of the DMCA? Cool, we'll do it for them!"
The United States has justified everything they do lately with no more than two words: terrorism or paedophilia. Those are the heavy hitters that get people moving. Even if the subject at hand has nothing to do with either of those things, they shove their laws down the throats of their own citizens on those two principles, weather they like it or not, and if they can't have it become a law, then the US just does whatever it is anyway (see: domestic warrantless wiretapping, secret spying programme, the FBI abusing the Patriot Act, etc.). Now you want them to be able to do that with THE ENTIRE INTERNET?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Insightful? Hello, people, this is a troll!
Because, where it's going under US law is atrocious, appaling, broken, and unwelcome. The relgious right in the US can supress the creation of new TLDs for xxx because it's currently under US control.
The rest of the world isn't really prepared to have the US be capable of arbitrarily re-writing the infrastructure that is the internet on their whim, or to suit their needs, or to be able to spoof any IP on the planet. It has grown from being a research project in the US to a global infrastructure.
Do you think that the US would like it if, say, North Korea or Cuba could arbitrarily alter it? I bet the answer is no. Under the guise of national security, DHS will practically do anything they want to, and they have laws to make sure you don't tell people they did it.
I don't wish to be subject to the laws the asshats in Washington DC are writing. Neither does all of the rest of the world who aren't Americans. The US doesn't own the internet. I fail to see why the rest of the world would be eager to see the keys handed over quite so readily.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).
First up, the US is no different from Switzerland in freedom of expression laws ...except in the US you don't go to jail for denying the holocaust, but okay.
ICANN never said they wanted to be under UN control
Under whose control they want to be is irrelevant. They are US government contractors. They don't own what they operate.
Switzerland has anti-hate speech laws. The US does not. Therefore, the US has more freedom of speech than Switzerland.
Without protection of US law, ICANN will be vulnerable to suit in other countries like Switzerland. Secondly, the physical location of the root servers would probably be moved to countries that also had lower-than-US freedom of expression laws. Let's say a root server was placed in the UAE. Legal pressure in that country might force the root server in that country to remove domain names from that server that the UAE government did not like, even though other root servers list them. For example, Planned Parenthood, Little Green Footballs, the ACLU, and Feminism.org. Over a period of time, you would have some chaos and a lot of repression.
I respect your opinion, but I guess I just don't agree that this would not be a plausible scenario.
..at ICANN, and the idiots in the Bush administration, to protect the future of the Internet. That makes me feel much better.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Example: "I have been ordered to hand over the records I have on you, and forbidden to tell you"
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Thanks. Nice to know I have fans who span all my website outlets. Have you seen my syndication they picked up at _Bestiality Today_? I knew you had.
--
make install -not war
Switzerland has anti-hate speech laws. The US does not. Therefore, the US has more freedom of speech than Switzerland.
Well, unless ICANN wants to start a campaign to start a genocide, it is very hard to imagine how on earth you could be litigated for hate speech by managing domains. Hate speech is not very different from slander and libel in the US, in the sense that it is very hard to prosecute someone on it, but it is possible in theory. On the other hand, in the US, DMCA and patents are a very real problem. So, I don't know if you're right from a theoretical perspective, but at least in practice, in the US you have more problems with litigation.
The question is not one of "human rights." The question is what a government does.
The Soviet Union had wonderful free speech laws. It's just that if you spoke out against Communism, those laws were not worth anything.
Many governments have ratified the UDHR, and few have truly respected its guarantee on freedom of expression.
Outlawing hate speech in Europe contravenes free expression, regardless of history. The problem isn't that Nazis are stopped. The problem is the general chilling effect it has on free speech.
I take note that the EU recently announced the censoring of the following words: "jihad" and "terrorist." It is simply Orwellian to attempt to ban words. In the US, if you use a hateful word, you are not put in prison (unless you physically threatened someone, which is different). In other countries, there is no telling what the legal system might do if you simply exercise your human rights.
Censoring words and thought itself is only possible in Europe because of hate speech laws.
The best response to disgusting and vile speech, like racist speech, is not censorship. Instead, following the tradition of John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty," the best remedy is more speech. If you find someone's opinion repugnant, then say that out loud in a public forum. When lots of people do that, hatred is turned back.
I do not trust Switzerland or Europe or Canada or Japan or Australia or China or Iran or any other country to protect my free speech. Nor do I trust the undemocratic UN. The most freedom of expression coupled with the best protection of that freedom is in the US.
.xxx is doing bad.
..., fell from the stairs", or worse, the "we kill you if you're not a muslim" Saudi's will improve the situation how exactly ? Or the European "we support free speech, uhm, except racism, uhm no scratch that, except what we think is racism, uhm sorry missed again, we demand that anything any european deems racist is removed from the internet". You know the whole "we have solved Nazism and racism ! We just punish anyone who claims otherwise"-attitude.
Oh right and with the Chinese "no, really we didn't kill any students, they, um
That will really help. Sorry to break it to you but free speech, as it exists in the U.S., is pretty unique in the world. Therefore removing ICANN from the US government will worsen the situation considerably.
(and yes I've got experience in multiple international organisations, and I really shouldn't be saying this, but if you expect them to be in favor of free speech, or fair against the little man, you're in for an unpleasant surprise. I'm not saying the US is perfect, far from it, but right now, it's the best there is)
"please name one example of a law that has changed to this effect."
Laws do not need to change in order for freedom of expression to be reduced or even wiped out. The political mood in the last 5 years has turned downright repressive; people in power will not hesitate to use their resources against you in case you dare express opinions against the current US political agenda.
Man arrested for wearing an antiwar shirt
Man arrested after addressing Cheyney on the Iraq war
Man arrested for handling toilet paper with Bush Face on it
Man arrested for dressing up and waving a fake gun
Killed GI's mother arrested
My other OS is the MCP!
I'm familiar with the Patriot Act. In no way does it reduce freedom of expression. There are critics who say that it takes away other freedoms, but not freedom of expression. Other critics say that the Patriot Act applies the same laws used against drug dealers to terrorists. In light of the 9/11 attacks, it's remarkable how little has changed in America.
Every country which has ratified the UN declaration on human rights (and followed through on their obligations, for example the UK) has equal free-speech to the USA. We just have different bugbears to you (in Europe, this is mainly we-hate-Nazis instead of we-hate-Terrorists).
I know this is touching on a political nerve, so I'm hesitant to say much, but regardless of those who ratified the UN declaration, the USA has a better track record than others.
Let's start with looking at the declaration. I believe the relevant section is article 19:
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Sounds good. Now I'm going to use Canada as an example as I'm more familiar with them (being that they are in close proximity to the US so more of their news makes it to me). Wikipedia mentions the following:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.
This is something I can offer some anecdotal evidence on as well. There's a website called The Smoking Gun that publishes police reports/mug shots/random documents from celebrity arrests and other amusing news in the United States. One of their reports each year is a list of porn from the US that is prohibited in their country... a testament to more permissive US laws regardless of the prevailing public opinion of such matters in the US.
More shocking to me (and I do apologize for this being anecdotal only) was a friend who visited Canada and had his computer's hard drive inspected by customs. He asked what they were looking for and was told "hate speech literature, etc". You may not believe it, but as a US resident I've never had to worry about the political contents of my computer. Further, I do have a number of Muslim friends. While some of them have voiced a concern to me that they fear government inspection in their lives (which is I believe what you were mentioning in your post) none of them actually fear imprisonment. They're more concerned with their loss of privacy and/or time wasted explaining to the government officials that they're not a problem. Now is that opinion prevailing in the US Muslim community? That I don't know and I've never seen a good poll on the subject.
Again, I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, and I'm certainly not trying to absolve the USA of its many wrongs and problems, but free speech is something that they actually have a very good track record on. I think a lot of the XXX political "discussion" has been more posturing and catering to voters than politicians actually trying to effect change. This may sound odd, but in the US, we have many many policy decisions brought up that politicians *know ahead of time* will never come to be, how
Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was ruled to be in violation of the First (AKA free speech) and Fourth (AKA searches and seizures) amendments of the US constitution on the 29th of September 2004, by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in the case ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004).
In addition, the phrase "expert advice or assistance" in section 805 of the same was ruled to be impermissibly vague on 23rd January 2004, by U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins.
Another good exmaple is when the ACLU sued the FBI over the USA PATRIOT Act's authority to demand that a business hand over records that may contain private financial or business information that is not pertinent to an ongoing investigation, only for the Department of Justice to prevent the ACLU from releasing the text of a countersuit. It took three weeks and judicial and congressional oversight before sections of the countersuit that "did not violate secrecy rules of the USA PATRIOT Act" were released.
*Tin Foil Hat On*
If, as you say, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction then I'd be inclined to predict another terrorist attack on US soil within the next year and a half is highly likely...
br Bob
Listen to my latest album here
I take your point about the DMCA and patents. I believe we will see a broadening of "fair use" by Congress in th US in the next few years, and there will be reform of US patent law somehow.
Nevertheless, any move to interfere with ICANN or root servers on the basis of copyright or patent law would not go anywhere in the US.
The US has a solid track record of letting Internet domains exist without interference. I don't see why ICANN would want to abandon a system that works.
Secondly, I stress that if ICANN were to move to Switzerland, some the root servers would be dispersed to different countries, which would result in legal unpredictability.
A well thought out and informative post. I wish I had mod points to give you.
Just for the record, I have no idea what goes on in Canada regarding free speech. The only news (other than elections) I have of the entire country is the livejournal of a friend who lives there. It's kind of odd, now I think about it...
Oh can we get an example? If not go craw under your rock please.
Also, since Europe is not a country but a union of countries, you have separate laws for each country (although, of course, things are regulated to an extent through the EU as well). If you say that "hate speech" is outlawed in Europe, you might want to say which country it is outlawed in. I could say "hate speech is outlawed in the western world" and still be just as correct. If it wasn't twelve in the evening I would search and reference free speech laws for you.
"Whom will get custody"? Come on. If you don't know what you're doing, take the socially acceptable out and use "who" everywhere -- but don't throw in "whom" where it doesn't even belong. Although -- you can tell whether you should write "he" or "him" in a given place, can't you? Why can't you tell whether to write "who" or "whom"? It's no different.
All root servers aren't in USA now either.
In some legal cases, national security is a critical issue. Should a lawyer's brief always be available to the public, even if it contains details about active counterterrorist investigations? That's an edge question that is being debated in the US. If the US really did not have freedom of expression, not only would the lawyer's document be banned, but our discussion about it being banned would be banned. Obviously, our discussion is protected in the US by the First Amendment.
Handing over records is not related to freedom of expression. That is a search and seizure question.
The US Congress often passes dumb laws. Quite often they don't even read the bills they are voting on. As a result, new laws sometimes have a few clauses that violate the US Constitution. Then the ACLU or some lawyer comes along and challenges it before a judge. Eventually the law is ruled unconstitutional, sometimes because the law is just too vague.
The US is not a perfect country. Overall all, though, if you are ever charged with hate speech, pr0n, or the like, your best bet for protecting your rights is in the USA.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
[quote]I like where the internet has gotten under US law. Why would a change, as big a this, be necessary ?[/quote]
Because the US and it's "laws" has been changing over the last decade.
It used be the "land of the free and money" and this allowed the internet to grow (for good and bad) under it's control, now it's the "land of special interests and the money of the latter group" and this is not only holding the internet back but endangering the whole thing to the point where it might break apart.
The UN would be a far from ideal group to control the internet but these days it would be a 100 times better than the US
The guy with the t-shirt was ordered to leave a shopping mall. There is no freedom of speech in shopping malls. I happen to think that's bad, but it is private property. If you don't like their rules, you don't have to be on their property.
The mother of the GI killed in action was arrested for trespassing on private property.
In one of your links, somebody was arrested for waving a fake gun at traffic. Obviously, that is not something we should tolerate in a peaceful society anyway.
These are all petty offenses. No one was arrested for having an opinion, only for violating one of these extremely minor laws. No one got sent to the gulag or anything. Just take a chill pill.
Is the US perfect? No, but I wonder what would happen to somebody who waved a fake gun in traffic in Switzerland. Probably not laughed off by the gendarmes.
I thought "War on ...." was a code phrase meaning "an unsolvable problem we will waste billions of dollars trying unsuccessfully to solve using the same failing methods over and over again." Didn't it start with the war on poverty?
If by "waste," you mean "transfer to our campaign donors," then yes, that's exactly what it means.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
You're obviously clueless on Patriot Act I-II (most likely on the whole subject) otherwise you wouldn't say such rubbish crap after you just praised our so-called "great free speech laws" - the Patriot Act I and II violate the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments as it's been pointed out several times since 2001. I suggest you to educate yourself on subject to avoid posting further idiocies like this - here's a good starting point: http://www.reason.com/news/show/36528.html BTW I'm pretty sure you're a troll but at least your rubbish comments made me to register finally after many years of lurking. :)
That's a 10 minute time out for you mister!
Applying logic here... what are you thinking!?
They say "Let's invade Iraq!" and even though there's no proof to be found of WOMD they still do it against every law and moral.
Okay, that's an overused example (while still very reasonable).
Let's think about certain prison camps, presidential elections or maybe environmental protection. Yes, you are so right, the US government is great and can do far better than a stupid organization. And where in south Africa is Switzerland anyways? Or was that Sweden?
(/Sarcasm 0)
"You know how animals like deer and cattle innately understand when a natural disaster is coming and instinctively seek safer ground?
It might be something like that."
More like roaches scurrying when the light is turned on.
That light of day can be a pesky thing - it makes all sorts of things visible.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Who actually wants a .xxx? It's not like you can force someone to relocate there, and since you can't, the rest of the internet is never going to be totally child safe.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
The Bush administration has eliminated the writ of habeas corpus, the Great Writ, the foundation of our legal system since 1215, the fundamental power of the court... and you say it's "remarkable how little has changed in America?"
Yes, if by "little" you mean only everything. The Executive has the power to arrest you and hold you without charges, without access to counsel, and without the possibility of judicial review for as long as they feel like it. By this change, all other laws and rights become essentially meaningless. Freedom of expression? Gone. You may have the right to free speech, but the President has the right to lock you up if he doesn't like what you say.
As citizens of the United States, we now live under an authoritarian regime. We don't have individual freedom, we have freedom at the whim of the President. The experiment has failed. America is over.
That will really help. Sorry to break it to you but free speech, as it exists in the U.S., is pretty unique in the world.
Well, I'm not sure I would go quite that far, although I do agree with your ultimate analysis. The U.S. seems to be fairly unique among the other would-be superpowers in terms of having both free speech, economic freedom, and intense secularization. However, if you open the field to the entire G8, or to the rest of the First World, there are a bunch of other places that are competitive.
I don't think Canada and Japan have much in the way of overt censorship, although the Canadians do have that weird ISP-censoring thing going on that I'm not sure would be legal in the U.S., and they don't seem to take as hard a line on the absolute sacrosanctity of individual freedoms as we do here (mostly an issue when you're talking about gun control, although the differences in basic principles come up in other areas). But when it comes to the Internet, it's getting close to six of one, half a dozen of the other. The U.K. is pretty close, too; I don't think they've gone down the European path of criminalizing Nazism or Holocaust denial simply as a belief or ideology. Same with Australia.
The Northern European countries as a general rule are also pretty good. I've never quite figured out how one reconciles what's bordering on economic collectivism with free speech, but they seem to do okay at it. I guess Sweden technically has an Established church that has some historical ties to its government, but it's secular in all measurable respects as far as I can tell (and you can opt out of funding the church I think).
You're correct in thinking that there are a lot of places in the world where you can get in a lot of trouble for saying things that wouldn't even get you funny looks on a New York City street corner, but it's not as though the rest of the world are exactly hunting mammoths with pointy sticks. Where the U.S. is unique is only in the particular combination of secularism, freedom of speech, individual libertarianism, and moderate laissez-faire economic policies. You can find examples of virtually all of these in varying combinations elsewhere; none of the ingredients are particularly unique, its only the proportions.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The US ranks behind several other countries in terms of freedom of the press and corruption, but don't let that interrupt your nationalistic delusions of superiority.
China setting up their own internet? Oh my goodness - no more spam from China, no more security probes, whatever shall we do?
That would be a disaster of the highest order. NOT.
Yeah. Right. In Switzerland they hang, draw and quarter people who wave fake guns about.
Cause, you know, the US is the ONLY place in the world where there's any common sense.
Looney.
Where's that? I think maybe I need to relocate.
First, thank you for your well-stated reply. I must admit, however, that reading your post is giving me cognitive dissonance.
In your first paragraph, you say that the EU has drawn up "guidelines" for all of its spokesmen throughout the EU. In your second paragraph, you say that the EU is a decentralized union of countries. Well, is it united or decentralized? Can an Italian EU spokesman say the word "jihad" and keep his job if he says it in Ireland?
It is plain that the EU is intent on carrying out its hate speech policy contintent-wide. The next baby step is to ban criticism of the EU. This will be necessary to ram "EU II" down the throats of Europeans who increasingly resent the yoke of Brussels. I also note that I am not aware of any European country that does not have hate speech laws. Thus, it would be right to say that all Europe bans the vague concept of "hate speech," a legal censorship always threatening to snowball into unfettered tyranny.
I must take note that in Europe incest has more legal protection than freedom of expression. If this is the state of affairs that ICANN wishes to embrace with open arms even as it flees the USA, the capital of free speech, then may God help the Internet.
Finally, lest my condemnation of European law appear to be differently than my intent, I gladly have undertaken this post without any malicious thought toward yourself. I find you to be a decent and honorable fellow Slashdot poster, just one I happen to disagree with.
The US will be insignificant in 50 years (the EU is a bigger economy now and China will eclipse you). The rest of the world will be laughing their asses of at the hubris of self-righteous nationalists like you.
I still say it should become a function of the International Telecommunication Union. Yes, that's a UN agency, but during the Cold War their standards kept the West, the Soviets, and the Asians talking and telexing without too much politicking. (And they're located in Geneva.)
They say the mind is the first thing to
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Uh, are you unaware of where the root servers are currently?
Hint: They are all geographically dispersed. The root server assignments are dispersed, and each of them are mirrored and load balanced to a large number of actual machines all over the globe.
Right, anyone who doesn't view the claim that the United States is the most free land in the world and points out legitimate flaws in the logic of another is an obvious troll.
This is why I hate having these Internet discussions. Anyone with a contrary opinion (which is me) is a "troll" and is eventually banished. Not because of a law, but because of people's medieval, antediluvian attitudes.
Guess what. Call me a troll. Eventually I might be banned from Slashdot. But this is the Internet, and I can just start my own web site to give out my opinions, which I really do believe in by the way. At least as long as the Internet remains free. Which partially depends on ICANN not changing its policy even in the face of censorship demands from countries around the world like China, many citing hate speech laws that are rife in your beloved European Union.
I like how you call me a troll, which is an attempt to get me banned from this web site, because I support something you oppose, while you are simultaneously placing yourself in the position of defending free speech on the Internet. Do you sleep well at night?
As for the Patriot Act, if it really was anti-free speech, and the courts really weren't policing it, declaring certain clauses unconstitutional proving the system works, and Bushitler HallyMcChimpyburton has turned what was once an idyllic Utopia into "AmeriKKKa" according to the not-to-be-questioned Daily Kos, then guess what. Thanks to that scary Patriot Act, we haven't had any more 9/11s or radical jihadi bombings of public transportation, barbershops, lingerie stores, liberals, bars and newspapers, as they have in other countries. So either way, you win, and you look good doing it. Thanks for your suppot.
You are free to point to any DNS server you feel like.
I've never seen XXX anywhere eles than in the US. Now I'm not much of a porn buyer, but for me XXX means alcohol as much as it means porn.
The President has not suspended habeas corpus.
I think you are referring to the Al Qaeda fighters captured in Afghanistan. Under international rules, as fighters in a war, they must be wearing uniforms and have allegiance to a state. Those fighters did not follow those rules. Those rules are intended to protect civilians from becoming casualties. Because they broke the rules--the Geneva conventions--they were illegal combatants. The Supreme Court disagreed with the Bush Administration's interpretation of law concerning illegal combatants. Now the fighters--who were allied with the terrorists who committed the 9/11 mass murders--will be given hearings.
Secondly, there's the case of the "dirty bomber." That is one isolated case that is working its way through the courts. In the government's defense, if the man was really trying to pull off a dirty bomb, he had to be stopped, and that could also make him an illegal combatant since he swore loyalty to illegal Al Qaeda forces.
Let's say you are walking down the sidewalk in the US, as a US citizen. You are arrested for no reason. You file a writ of habeas corpus to be freed. If the President has suspended habeas, you stay in jail. In April of 2007, though, you would walk out of jail a free man because the writ of habeas corpus has not been suspended.
Abraham Lincoln did suspend the writ of habeas corpus. It's part of the history of the Civil War which was over 100 years ago.
BTW, habeas corpus is not related to freedom of expression which is supposed to be the topic of discussion here.
Yada-yada... It does not have the right to usurp our liberties. But it does have the right (and the physical ability) to control Internet — and that, rather than your paranoia-spreading, is the subject here.
If this people want to move to Switzerland or simply quit their jobs at ICANN — fine. US has developed the Internet, it hosted (and continues to host) the root servers, and so it will be, if whoever is in charge has any sense left in them...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
'If the investigations are legitimate'
Sounds reasonable. Until you realize that NONE of the investigations are legitimate and the gag orders are only to allow executive agencies to abuse power and gag anyone from speaking out about it. There isn't merely a POTENTIAL for abuse, the entire law exists to cover abuse.
'Thus, word quickly leaks to the media about abuses of power.'
Unless it doesn't. How convient that we only know about cases where word has leaked and will never know about the cases where it doesn't leak. It is also interesting how Bush leverages political power to enforce a gag on the media. If a media outlet speaks out against Bush they won't have access to presidential press conferences anymore. No major media outlet can afford that.
'Now the FBI is trying to mend its ways'
According to the FBI and under the watchful eye of... the FBI.
'Meanwhile, democratically elected officials and independent courts will oversee the process of remedying the abuses of power that took place.'
Except they can't actually audit anything due to national security concerns. Their reports come from the FBI.
'The rule of law is enforced in the US, and freedom of expression is protected, even in a time of national peril.'
What peril? Clearly we are perilous to the middle-east, especially considering the reign of terror we have unleashed there. Rather than killing 10's of thousands of people we could have admitted we were wrong and apologized to the middle-east for sticking our noses into their religious disputes with CIA meddling. Then proceeded to hunt down the individuals who were responsible for the bombings. But no, Bush has to use this as an excuse to seize inappropriate powers. He declares war on an indefinable enemy (Bush has unleashed more terror upon the American populace than anyone in the middle-east) and then proceeds to attack nations where he can profit personally from it while ignoring targets who actually had some relation to the 9/11 attacks.
The only peril to our nation is Bush himself.
"only for violating one of these extremely minor laws."
As you commented before, none of the laws have changed in the US, but that does not mean freedom of expression has not been seriously eroded in the US. Pre 9/11 none of these incidents would have happened. Nobody would have been asked to remove their clothes in the mall (mind you, the same clothes which were bought there!), or mandated to go to the "free speech" zone (WTF?!?!? There are such zones in the US?).
"These are all petty offenses. No one was arrested for having an opinion"
Come on man! How can you keep an honest face and say that? They were all arrested for having and voicing an opinion. The law enforcing agencies where used to repress that opinion. Did they charge them with having an opinion against the current US political agenda? No, but that does not mean the arrests were not originated due to them having an opposing opinion. Would the man in the mall had been arrested if he had a shirt applauding the US invasion? Would the mother of the KIA GI had been arrested if she had been cheering for Bush? Same goes for the guy who approached Cheney and the guy who handed out toilet paper.
"Just take a chill pill."
If you noticed the pattern, all of these incidents surround the Iraq invasion. This is no chill pill matter. Some of the people involved in these incidents got severely affected by the war. Words fail short when it comes to describe the insensitivity of the SS taking down the mother of the KIA GI.
"what would happen to somebody who waved a fake gun in traffic in Switzerland."
I'll give you that much. They would probable have seized the gun, but arrest him? No.
My other OS is the MCP!
I would think various scatterguns laws to hold anybody or everybody even remotely involved in moving any form of information some random person finds offensive might have them concerned.
I mean can a job at ICANN on monday and be on the sex offenders register by friday.
"Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
As for the mall arrest, liberals and left-wingers have been upset for years that they can't picket, protest, parade, pamphleteer, or stand on a bench and speak to public issues in shopping malls. This has been an issue that I remember being talked about in the 90s. Page through old Utne Readers and "In These Times" magazines. A shopping mall does not want political candidates handing out campaign literature or "message t-shirts" distracting people from buying the latest load of crap they are selling. I think that's dumb of the mall owners, but it's their right to control their property.
A shopping mall in the US is private property. That's why protests are typically held in downtown areas where there are lots of sidewalks and public areas.
I don't know where you are getting your belief that free speech is eroded. If that were true, then why are sites like Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, and all the others allowed to continue? Why is Rosie O'Donnell on her American TV show spouting off on a 9/11 conspiracy theory? What about that crazy guy down in Austin? You'd think that if we were about to see a dictatorship in the US, that some of these people would end up in prison or jail. Yet they are all free to publish and speak whatever comes into their minds.
Yeah. I'd like to hear the names of these countries too. In fact why wouldn't you cough that up in the first place? Because you're making it up? Afraid that if you said a name a dozen people would point at examples of censorship? Point at politicians on the take? Or are you Prince Roy?
uh, now let me see:
France, Germany, UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Canada, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Spain, need I go on??
The US isn't unique, they just brainwash their population into thinking they're unique in the free speech world.
I imagine there would be quite an uproar by the current administration of ICANN tried to leave the country. My guess would be that they would be siezed in the interest of National Security.
Sad thought, ain't it?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Hmmm. Is this meant as sarcasm or troll?
~X~
~X~
"In all other free countries, anyone can and is muzzled for violating "hate speech" laws which are purposefully kept vague and ambiguous" And you call them "free countries" nevertheless? From my (very unamerican) point of view most "free countries" meet the same criteria regarding free speech (my country makes just one exception regarding Nazi symbols - but with our history I don't see a reason to complain). Most people using the internet are not US citizens and they are more worried about US copyright issues like the DMCA. Just think what would happen to anti-scientology sites if this terrific law system would be applied to all servers worldwide. Just don't tell me your system is superior just because there's an emphasis on free speech - it lacks plenty in other fields...
I don't read replies by ACs.
Meanwhile, in Germany you have to get permission from the government before you name your baby. In the US, the government doesn't own you.
excuses, excuses. Should we subject drug dealers under the Patriot Act or send them to Guantanamo for being "enemy combatants out of uniform" for using "chemical weapons" during our War on Drugs?
I think Bush should have locked John Kerry up during 2004, citing secret evidence (he did say he spoke to foreign leaders who offered their help to him). If anything, the outcry would have repaired our broken justice system or made other countries turn their backs on us faster.
F--- Yeah!
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
First, loose does not mean lose. They are not the same word. Did you seriously make it through high school, or grade school for that matter, without learning that? Learn it now. I can't even begin to tell you how annoying this mistake is to people who know the difference.
Second, calling your audience "complete fools" and "total idiots" generally causes them to regard you as such. It certainly did so to me, even if I do agree with your main points. Consider your audience. Respect gets respect. Notice how annoyed you got with me when I criticized your schooling? That's what anyone who read your post felt when you insulted them. Once insulted, they were no longer clearly thinking about the information presented to them, regardless of its quality, or lack thereof. I hope that you, not being such a "total idiot," will not fall into the same trap.
Third, you are allowed to use whitespace for formatting purposes. Long blocks of unformatted text present a challenge to the reader. Notice how my list is clearly delineated and easily readable while your's is not? That is because I've used blank lines to help the reader interpret what I'm trying to say in a logical fashion. Indentation would also be acceptable.
Follow these three bits of advice and you will find people listening a lot more intently to what you have to say. That is, if you do indeed have something to say.
US has developed the Internet? That's taken too far. Internet had its beginnings here. Now it's infrastructure is spread all over the world, owned by thousands of companies and organizations in hundreds of countries. Saying that the US has the right to control the Internet is flat out ridiculous. Internet is common a good of a billion people worldwide and the fact that some of its critical parts are based in the US is our privilege, not some kind of favor we are doing. I am sure more than a few countries would be very happy to take over this "burden".
By the way, the World Wide Web, nowadays the Internet's most important part, was invented in... duh, Switzerland (CERN)
Look at ICANN's insistence on requiring all registrars to collect True Names and True ICBM addresses for everybody who registers a domain name - they're not concerned about actual network administration working, which doesn't require that, but they want to make sure that you can deliver a trademark lawsuit or DMCA copyright shutdown notice on anybody who's got a domain name, regardless of the importance to human rights of being able to speak and publish anonymously. Do you want to have a domain name but not get your personal email and snail-mail spammed? ICANN doesn't think your privacy is as important as the RIAA and MPAA's business interests. I suspect that moving themselves to Switzerland will reduce this pressure, as well as getting away from the current Bush Administration who doesn't know quite what they want ICANN to do but whose knees keep jerking any time anything occurs to them.
This doesn't mean that losts of the quasi-anonymous domain registration isn't abusive - most of it is various forms of spammers, crackers, and other low-lifes. But even in a rigidly enforced mandatory-true-name environment, anybody who's involved in profit-making abuse can buy themselves a $100 shell corporation that legally exists in a file drawer in Delaware, and even if Alberto Gonzales hauls their corporate papers off to Gitmo to waterboard them, the worst that happens to the miscreants is that they need to send another $100 money order to set up another shell corporation. (The first half of that isn't just a hypothetical - I've traced spammers down to that particular black hole.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I understand that it has become popular to take cheap shots at the United States, but how on Earth did you get modded insightful for such a meaningless comment? The U.S. never was a "mediator of the Web" nor did we ever try to be: we never had the slightest control over the network buildouts of any other nation but our own. We came up with some cool technology and cut loose with it, and it turned out that a host of other countries found it useful as well. Pretty much all of them, in fact. And yet, we receive constant criticism for that act of generosity ... sometimes I don't know why we bothered.
Bloody ingrates, the lot of you.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
But free speech is the backbone of the Internet, nothing is more important. I also don't agree that a nation banning pro-Nazi expression is as free as the US. In America, free speech is built on the idea that people must be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Unpopular speech, like Nazi speech, must always be protected if the nation is to truly have free expression. I understand banning Nazi expression in Germany after WWII, but that's long over and in any case the point still remains.
What the fuck dude?
Whats to say that doing something like Canada, and banning hate speech, is a bad thing? I mean, what exactly is blind hate going to achieve? You can say the same things albeit a bit more subtly, and you are much more likely to get your messages across, let alone not arrested. That just seems like common sense to me.
Also - do you think banning slander/libel is really that much different to banning hate speech? You've still limited free speech. Even disallowing death threats is eroding the freedom that you seem to believe you are entitled to.
No country is perfect. Not even the USA.
So, OP said that there was only ONE country on earth that had the protections of freedom of speech that the US does.
GP said named SIXTEEN.
You jump in and correct that number to EIGHT, but only attack the latter, when both were equally wrong, and indeed the GP you attacked had his arguments verified BY you - i.e. that the US is NOT the only country.
Whilst you could technically do it, I'm sure there are many things you could shout in Times Square that would get you arrested. Wear an Arab headress, with several of your buddies. Start chanting "JIHAD, JIHAD", and similar. No direct threats. Watch how long it is before you're arrested. Sure, you may well be able to try to file suit for attacks on your first amendment rights, but that's reactive. Your rights will be quashed, quickly and summarily, and your only redress will be after the fact.
ICANN operate a registry of IP addresses, and the root DNS zone. Neither of these things are operational in nature, but administrative. (They also take care of the RFC process and handle assigned ports, etc, but these tasks, again, are not operational tasks.)
w ork ), who currently mirror the ICANN root, but have stated that this will change if, in their opinion, the ICANN root becomes a political tool.
The only reason that ICANN is able to make an impact right now on the day to day operation of the Network is because there is a general consensus to propagate routing information in conjunction with what ICANN says, and a consensus amongst DNS operators to use 13 particular IP addresses in their hints file.
There have been attempts to replace the ICANN root with an alternate root; the walls faced are not political, legal, or technical, but simply one of consensus. If I use alternate-root A, and you use alternate-root B, there's a chance that we may not be able to query each others DNS zones. The most credible alternate-root hierachy currently proposed is ORSN ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Root_Server_Net
There is nothing, really, stopping ICANN from moving to Switzerland and saying 'OK, we recommend that you change your root.hints file to THIS. There may be weirdness if you don't.' Vixie would release an updated bind which includes the new root.hints file, and other DNS admins would make the changes to their own hints files. The only pitfall, again, is consensus. If you or I suggested this, we'd be roundly ignored and laughed at. If ICANN do it, there's a chance that the accumulated momentum could cause a change.
It's worth noting at this stage, of course, that the only reason there'd be a need for a new hints file is because many, if not most, of the root-servers themselves are controlled by the US government, and if the US government decided they didn't like what ICANN was doing, then they'd obviously not have access to same. Of course, other root-servers (such as F) probably wouldn't have this issue, and would side with ICANN.
It would be interesting times ahead, but there's certainly nothing obligating any single operator to use the root that the US government tells them to (nor, of course, to obey the US government's guidance on interdomain routing). The massive inertia in convincing people to use an alternate root would, in my opinion, largely go away if it was ICANN trying to change the common consensus. Especially if Vixie sided with them.
At the end of the day, it's not governments that can (or should) set Internet policy. It's network operators. This is by design.
You're doing it wrong.
OH god. Common good, not only is this old socialist diatribe it is outdated and incorrect.
Ok, First, the Internet stopped being a "common good" a long time ago, it is now entertainment and marketing. That is why it is so important to so many people. The Internet went so far off the path of common good, the Internet 2 was created and we normal folks don't get access to it so we don't junk it all up again.
Next, the Internet never was intended to be for the common good of anyone. This is a little fable told to people to make them feel better about some intended goal they are pushing. It really is no different then santa clause keeping a list and checking it twice or the government is here to serve the people. The original intent of the Internet was for defense, then education and then to link businesses together. We were allowed in and made it what you see today. But don't fool yourself. Thinking the Internet is for the common good is like me saying you cannot trim the tree that is in danger of falling into your house because the shade lower my heating bills. I don't think you would be happy with the risk of your home being damaged to lower my heating bills but thats the common good.
Take it in stride but take it for what it is at the same time. I've been on the Internet since 92 or so when our BBS was linked to a university branch line that eventually went to feed one of the fist ISPs in our town. I remember when goggle and yahoo was just starting and when the idea of web commerce was listing a phone number and address at the bottom of your homepage. It has taken on many roles but passed the common good one up a long time ago.
I wouldn't be too comfortable right now. Bush has a few aces up their sleeves. They have to because they aren't worried.
If Bush was worried, he could have the vice president recall congress into session and when 1/3 showed up, have them put a funding bill together without many of the democrats or Pelosi and sneak one through all legal and constitutional like. Or he could call the session and make them sit in Washington through the holidays to pressure them.
The fact that he isn't says there is something else brewing. He has a plan of some sorts and this doesn't effect it. Maybe he is going to show pictures of dead soldier during the election and say it was because congress loligaged around. I don't know, but I doubt he would let this upset him when he could make their lives somewhat miserable all constitutional like and all. Your guess is as good as mine to how this will pan out.
And if ICANN moved to some other countries, it wouldn't take them out of the reach of the US. The US would likely stop the Root servers from moving and force the same separation that we I just describes. ICANN would be replaced with something else in the US and we all live happily ever after. Well, that or they would still follow US laws and do the bidding but somehow everyone would feel better since they are in some other country.
This concept has been discussed before. China is working on it's own Internet and would work under the same principle except that there would be a gateway out of their country and some router would do translations or something. This would be ideal for their filtering and all but not necessary for the rest of the world.
I suspect the problem with doing something like this isn't the funding that would need to be spent. It is that the other countries want to use the Internet to do business inside the US but don't want the US to say anything about it.
...just like the US has long lost its role as the leader of the UN Security Council...
Yes, Mr. Speaker. Let's completely ignore the reality of the situation or the shortcomings of the Constitution that lead to where we are today and make snarky remarks and sarcastic proposals. That sure will solve our terrorism problem, our drug problem, and our creeping federal usurpation problem.
If you think the "War on Drugs" was intended to be a literal, conventional war, the perhaps we should also berate our leaders in Washington for failing to "set a new tone." I mean, I haven't noticed any change in the resonant frequency of the capitol building, or any other buildings in the swamp. Or maybe we should arrest hundreds of HS sports teams for planning to "Fight! Fight! Fight" and maybe even "Kill" their rivals.
Your comment has more in common with Peggy Parish than Orson Scott Card. Whose writings concerning the current predicament you would do well to read.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
So your stance is that we should ignore treason, the burning of the constitution, and torture of POW's because he helped an old man into his chair?
I think they should of moved out of the states years and years ago, I strongly think they should become a global organisation operating free from governments in multiable countries
"message t-shirts" distracting people from buying the latest load of crap they are selling.
Re-read the article. The "message t-shirt" was bought in the same mall. If they are really that preoccupied about consumers being distracted, how come they are selling them? A bit of an oxymoron, wouldn't you say? Would they have asked the protester to remove his t-shirt if it was a "support out troops" or pro-Bush one?
"That's why protests are typically held in downtown areas where there are lots of sidewalks and public areas."
No, accordingly to the Estes Park Police they are organized in "Free Speech Zones" or "Protest Zones".
"You'd think that if we were about to see a dictatorship in the US, that some of these people would end up in prison or jail."
Some of them have, or at least they have been hounded by the Homeland Security Department. And as of yet I'd never said the US was a dictatorship. I pointed out the fact that there is currently an erosion of the civil liberties, that there was no real need for laws to be passed in order for this to have happened.
My other OS is the MCP!
If the War on Drugs is unconventional, why are we using conventional, non-Patriot Act laws to fight it? ( /. reported that it was used on drug dealers, which is where I got the reference which you didn't catch) Why are we applying those laws in an uneven manner? ie, Why should drug traffickers accused of belonging to cartels given habeus corpus, while Guantanamo detainees aren't?
The system is broken, counterproductive, and only worsening the problem. Repeal the Patriot Act and restore habeus corpus, and close Guantanamo Bay.
These restrictions are all based on the idea that your rights end where everyone else's begin.
Other countries consider dignity a fundamental right which is why insulting someone is violating their rights. Your rights still end where others' rights begin, those others just have more rights.
if I lived in a country that doesn't have a true constitution
Um, what? When's a constitution not a constitution?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
If the Chinese build their custom Internet and connect it to the "regular" Internet, then it will just be part of the Internet. Since the Internet is by definition a bunch of heterogeneous networks connected together.
The only thing would be that it would make it simpler for them to filter stuff at the routing points between both networks. Either way it would make little difference to the rest of the world when communicating with the Chinese networks.
And hopefully the barriers will come down as China gradually opens up.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Sounds just like the thoughtless way the sheep chanted "Four legs good, two legs bad!" in Animal Farm by George Orwell. This irony is obviously lost on this student.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
My Christian faith is tradition/conservative, not a liberal one. However, my political views are libertarian. There is a world of difference between a Christian conservative and a conservative Christian. It's all about what Hayek said about adjectives and nouns...
On a side note, my parents told me what it was like to live in the USSR. Not that bad, in fact, as far as they were concerned - after all, they knew back then that they were living in "the most free country in the world", especially when compared to "oppresive bourgeois imperialistic Western regimes".
All thanks to America's benevolence, business sense, and good design. These people's usage of the Internet in no way diminishes America's right to do, what it pleases with it, though...
Ha-ha!.. So, if one builds a playground for his kids, and allows other kids to come and play too (for their and his own kids' benefit), he loses the right to control that playground — while keeping "the privilege" of the upkeep?
I understand, how envy and similar emotions may make it difficult for foreigners to squeeze some gratitude towards America out of themselves. But for an American to do the same is incomprehensible. So good at seeing the other side, they lose sight of their own...
A common myth maintained by anti-American zealots uncomfortable with America's claiming credit for anything, however rightfully...
The idea itself was rather obvious to anyone "skilled in the field" and known (especially in America — ha-ha!) since before computers. As we know it today, it wouldn't have taken off without the Internet (duh) — although various BBS-es were early prototypes. What Tim Berners-Lee wrote at CERN would never have become "the Internet's most important part" without a product usable by a non-scientist.
Nor was it a browser in today's sence of the word, but rather more like a Wiki — tied to a single database (more like CERN's own BBS). He did not "invent it", he put forward one of the first (and very limited) implementations. For earlier ones see Xanadu and NLS — both, incidentally, by Americans (the latter, even, by the dreaded American Military!).
I'm still glad CERN exists, of course, but there is no denying, that its contribution to WWW is dwarfed by those of NCSA and other American organizations.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Can we ( as the US ) simply negate their authority?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Seriously, though, what is it with Americans and blind, irrational hatred of multilateralism? Is it chauvinism or just ignorance? Or a little from column A, a little from column B?
... Oceania has always been at war with terrorism.
Their constitution is unwritten - I'm not sure why they call it a constitution. It's a combination of written statutes and common-law practices.
Fair fair. Point taken. I'm just tired of people acting like the U.S. is such a shit hole, especially when they turn around and brag about Europe. I like Europe, I vacation there whenever I can, but I wouldn't move there.
So yes, BAD OP! You're wrong (though he didn't say the ONLY one, he said "pretty unique" which I interpret to mean not unique but still rare). And don't be such a fricking elitist! But the U.S. is still better than the majority (9 out of 16 after the norweigan chimed in) of countries that GP tried to put forward as examples.
And yah, I do think a dipshit that says his country is the only one who does something is less offensive (pride is excusable) than the one who says no, here are 16 countries that also do it and is wrong on more than half. At least the first dipshit was right about the basic fact (his country has freedom of speech).
Ryan Stultz
It's true, I would have been annoyed by my own post. However, the OP used loose twice, not once. Suggesting that he really does not know the difference. BTW, this wasn't clever.