A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship

An anonymous reader suggests we visit the home of the watchdog group Global Integrity for a breakdown of online censorship: "Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a US court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: This is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well... The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."

Comments

Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[anthonys_junk]

WikiLeaks is available at it's IP address: http://88.80.13.160/ also a mirror site: http://wikileaks.be/ For the docs at the centre of the controversy, you can get them at http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-bjb.htm

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[fahrbot-bot]

I cannot believe how many articles there are, like on Boston.com that report the judge ordered the website shutdown:

Website ordered closed over documents dispute
A federal judge has set off a free speech tempest after shutting down a US website ... Dynadot agreed to shut down the site and bar Wikileaks from transferring the domain name to another host.

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[Raphael]

A federal judge has set off a free speech tempest after shutting down a US website ... Dynadot agreed to shut down the site and bar Wikileaks from transferring the domain name to another host.

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

They do understand how the Internet actually works. The issue is that Wikileaks has servers in several countries. Countries that have laws protecting freedom of speech and legal procedures that prevent or slow down attempts at censorship.

The bank knew that trying to shut down or block all these servers would be very difficult, so they went for the weakest point: the domain name, which is controlled by the US company. As this case shows, it seems to be easier to restrict free speech in the US than in other countries (e.g., European countries like Sweden, which hosts the server with the IP address 88.80.13.160).

Of course, blocking the domain name will not make the information disappear: several links using IP addresses of the servers are already circulating, as well as alternate domain names hosted outside the US (e.g., wikileaks.be). But this is certainly good enough as a first step: this instantly breaks all direct links to wikileaks.org until these links are updated, and it makes it much harder for the average Internet user to access the site. The average user does not know how to work around these issues by finding out the IP addresses of the servers, finding mirrors or using alternate DNS providers. While the domain name is blocked, the bank can try to get the servers and mirrors shut down, a process that takes much longer than simply blocking the domain name.

The outcome will depend very much on how the press and other media talks about this case. If the reports about this censorship are published in the mainstream press during the next days and generate a lot of public discussion that lasts for several weeks, then it will be a net loss for the bank (the Streisand effect). On the other hand, if there are a few articles about this but no real discussion after a few days, then it will be a win for the bank because nobody will really pay attention to what is happening and the domain name will remain blocked. I hope that their cost/benefit analysis for this case was wrong and that the media will talk a lot about this. We will see...

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[$random_var]

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

Hopefully no time soon... otherwise judges like this will make it even harder to circumvent their ridiculous orders.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[electrictroy]

You raise a good point. All this demonstrates is that Dynadot and other registrars hold too much power, and no restraint from exercising that power (i.e. they can pull the plug on a website's domain name whenever they feel like it).

Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended, not just to Federal and State governments, but also corporations to guarantee free speech of corporate employees and customers. If the Bill of Rights (or similar document) were extended to corporations, Dynadot would not be able to pull anybody's domain name, cause then it would be violating constitutional law (the publisher's right to free press/speech), and Dynadot could be punished for criminal acts.

Oh, and before you discuss "corporation rights".
Corporations are not people.
Corporations are not entitled to rights like "free speech".
Anymore than a rock or stone is entitled to human rights.

Only entities with souls (i.e. human beings) are "endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights". A corporation does not have a soul; it has no endowment of rights.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

The internet works as it will. The "world wide web" however relies de facto on DNS.

The main problem here is that ICANN and hences DNS and hence a major portion of web infrastructure is, for some unbeknownst reason, seemingly under the jurisdiction of every backwater district court judge in the US. I thought your federal institutions answered only to federal judges?

In the interests of competent governance, ICANN and the registry should at the very least be a Federal institution, answerable to federal, and not state, judges,

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[Jeremy Erwin]

ahem. Federal District Court is the "trial-level" court in the Federal System. There are 94 such districts in the United States.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[I_Voter]

electrictroy wrote:

Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended,...
----------

The weak link in that theoretical argument is that the U.S. Supreme court and our judicial system would have to enforce this piece of paper. Assuming civil liberties are defined as protections or privileges of the general population, as opposed to the political state or class, the fact that the U.S. Supreme court is about our most unrepresentative institution makes it totally unsuited for this enforcement.

The U.S. founding fathers were not so stupid as to expect that to be the case. They avoided the term democracy, and the francise was very limited, but they ultimately relied on a very democratic institution. They relied on the standard political institution of the citizen jury.

However, as is not surprising, the U.S. Supreme court has reinterpreted that institution.

For more information about what one book on the subject calls "The Evolution of a Doctrine" -

The U.S. Constitution and the Function of the Citizen Jury

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[Ironsides]

Perhaps the Bill of Rights needs be extended, not just to Federal and State governments, but also corporations to guarantee free speech of corporate employees and customers. If the Bill of Rights (or similar document) were extended to corporations, Dynadot would not be able to pull anybody's domain name, cause then it would be violating constitutional law (the publisher's right to free press/speech), and Dynadot could be punished for criminal acts.

On the other hand, there is more here than keeps getting publicized. Some of the reasons behind the court order are that the documents are supposed to contain personal banking information of individuals, not just companies. This was part of the reason behind the judges order. Now, if I remember right, you may have freedom of speech, but I still have the right to privacy. Even if someone is committing a crime, their banking info is covered under privacy laws. This is where balancing the two comes into play.

The article writer portrays all this as The Government shutting down wikileaks for political reasons when it's not the case.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[electrictroy]

Oh brother.

Well the U.S. Supreme Court is, like all courts, required to enforce the laws as written. That means it's required to enforce the Constitution since that is the Supreme Law. It has not done a perfect job, but being *independent* from the control of the Congress/Executive, has allowed it to make some good strong decisions based purely on *law* and not random whims.

(Yes I know the justices are appointed by the president, but history has shown once a justice is in power, he/she often does the opposite of what the president wanted. Once the justice is in place, nobody can exert control over him. His master is the Law, and nothing but the Law, as it should be.)

Thomas Jefferson argued very eloquently, as you did, that the U.S.S.C. is not the final arbitrator. He even suggested State Nullification as an alternative (unconstitutional laws would not be enforced by the state governors).

It didn't work.

If a genius like Jefferson could not find a better solution than the U.S.S.C., then I don't feel qualified to propose anything better. Your idea of "jury nullification" only works if you are dealing with an educated people, and NONE of the founders considered "the people" to be intelligent enough to do that job. (As Winston Churchill said, "The strongest argument against democracy is a 5-minute talk with an average voter." Which is why we have Republics, and not Democracies.)

I certainly would not want my jury, mostly composed of high school grads that can barely read/write, to decide whether or not the police violated my right to privacy when they took my computer filled with naked photographs. I'd likely get a bunch of Christians and Muslims who would think I should be "sentenced to burn in hell" via an electric chair. (Never mind the constitutional protection of freedom of press/speech/home/et cetera.)

No.

Such weighty decisions should be left in the hands of an educated, above-average intelligent body. Namely the State Legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and the Superior/Supreme Courts (especially the latter). Not some joe blow dumbass who lacked enough intelligence to get off jury duty.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[electrictroy]

FLAW:

There wasn't a court order. The website is still there; it still is available. The only thing that happened was the a Corporate Entity decided to yank the domain name.

Because corporations can do that. They have the money & the power. Hence the need for some kind of "Bill of Rights" that limits that corporate power.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[I_Voter]

I am glad that you do not deny the original Constitutional intent of the framers. By the way, I have found that modern dictionaries accept democracy and republic as synonyms. The older meaning of the word is a form of government lacking a king. I used to hear that republic crap all the time in the south as a justification for blacks not having the vote.

-----
electrictroy wrote:

Such weighty decisions should be left in the hands of an educated, above-average intelligent body.
------

I wouldn't think to argue with a subjective argument like that. However: I would have wished that you had clarified what you meant by "above average". Is that the upper 50 percent? The upper 10 percent? The upper 1 percent? That would have helped me understand what social status you think of yourself as having.

-------
electrictroy also wrote:

I'd likely get a bunch of Christians and Muslims who would think I should be "sentenced to burn in hell" via an electric chair.

------

I think that your knowledge of the U.S. legal system is limited. A jury only has the power to acquit, or allow the prosecutor and judge to convict. You have the right to reject a jury trial. However; if those Christians and Muslims understood that you favored removing political power from a large percentage of the population, I expect that they would not defend you from the prosecutor and judge - even if the evidence was non-existent. Heck: I'm an Atheist and that's what my reaction would be.

I_Voter

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[electrictroy]

>>>I have found that modern dictionaries accept democracy and republic as synonyms>>"Such weighty decisions should be left in the hands of an educated, above-average intelligent body."

>>>"I wouldn't think to argue with a subjective argument like that. However: I would have wished that you had clarified what you meant by "above average". Is that the upper 50 percent? The upper 10 percent? The upper 1 percent? That would have helped me understand what social status you think of yourself as having."

I wasn't speaking of myself. I was speaking of the Supreme Court. And "above average" means above average. If the average person is a high school grad, I would expect our leaders to be above that. And virtually all of them do hold advanced degrees/knowledge. (As far as I know, the supremes all have Ph.Ds (or the legal equivalent thereof), and many many years of legal experience.) I certainly wouldn't want Joe Billy Bob with his GED to be assigned to the U.S.S.C.

A high school grad doesn't have the intelligence or experience required to do the job.
(I'll qualify that; even if he were intelligent, he's still lacking the experience;)
(like how to read legalese, historical precedent, original intent, et cetera...)

A high school grad could no more be a Supreme Court Judge than he could pick-up a pen and start designing a skyscraper. It just does not work that way. You have to have the knowledge to perform the job, and the high school grad (your "average" person) does not have that knowledge.

>>>"I'd likely get a bunch of Christians and Muslims who would think I should be "sentenced to burn in hell" via an electric chair.

>>>"I think that your knowledge of the U.S. legal system is limited. A jury only has the power to acquit, or allow the prosecutor and judge to convict."

Uh huh.

Yes I exaggerated a bit. However I could still be found "guilty" by that Christian/Muslim jury (of having naked photographs on my computer), even though the U.S. Constitution explicity protects my right to have such content in the privacy of my own home.

No. A jury should not be the one to enforce Constitutionality.
In most cases they'd find people "guilty" purely on morality,
and ignore the Constitutional protections completely.
No thanks.
Bad idea.

I trust the Law. I don't trust the people around me. I trust the Constitution to protect my individual freedom. I don't trust a jury filled with dummies. (Just read history to see how juries failed to protect blacks; they'd find blacks guilty because they *ignored the constitution* and went with their own racist attitudes.) Pass; bad idea; a jury should not be the final arbiter of the U.S. Constitution.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[electrictroy]

P.S.

Any dictionary that defines Republic == Democracy is wrong. There are many, many Republics in the world that don't have any democracy of any kind. For example, the former Soviet Socialist Republics, and modern-day Republic of China.

Democracy == majority rules
Republic == the law rules.

Under a Democracy, the majority can squash the minority underfoot with a simple 50%+1 vote. Under the U.S. Republic, the majority can not do that because the LAW reigns supreme, and our law includes a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from being squashed by the majority.

We are a Republic (rule of law; protection of individual rights).
We are not a Democracy (majority rule; no protection of the individual).
Don't confuse the two.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[Ironsides]

Flaw: The JUDGE was the one who originally ordered the domain name yanked. Not the company. And I find it ironic that you would call something that would limit what corporations can do a "Bill of Rights". If you want to limit what they can do, make sure it's in the contract. Now, back to the court order.

http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-tro.pdf

DEFENDANTS WIKILEAKS and WIKILEAKS.ORG and DOES 1-10 (collectively the "Wikileaks Defendants"), and...DNS hosts...and all others who receive notice of this order, are, pending hearing on this Court's below-issued Order to Show Cause, hereby ordered, enjoined and restrained as follows

RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from displaying, posting, publishing, distributing, linking to and/or otherwise providing any information for the access or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property (as defined herein below)

ORDERED to immediately block and otherwise prevent any current and any further use, display, posting, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any other new or additional yet unpublished documents and data that constitute or could reasonably be known to be or considered to constitute JB Property, pending further order of this Court;

ORDERED to immediately give notice of this Order to all of the Wikileaks Defendants' DNS host service providers, ISP's, domain registrars, website site developers, website operators, website host service providers, and administrative and technical domain contacts, and anyone else responsible or with access to modify the website, and that they are to cease and desist from any current and any further use, display, posting, publication, distribution, linking to and/or other dissemination of copies of and/or images of the JB Property and any information contained therein pending further order of this Court;

I don't know about you, but several of those seem to cover DNS entries.

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[I_Voter]

electrictroy wrote:

Any dictionary that defines Republic == Democracy is wrong. There are many, many Republics in the world that don't have any democracy of any kind. For example, the former Soviet Socialist Republics, and modern-day Republic of China.
---------
We both agree that they are not democracies. However, they still fit the older definition of a republic as lack of rule by a King - or Emperor in the case of China and the Soviet Union. In general, these forms of government would also fill your ambition of rule by law as administered by a judge who was not restricted by a citizen jury. Maybe you should praise these republics?

They probably proclaim civil liberties and individual rights also. However since power, including the power to make laws, is not held by the people, I would guess their actual benefits to the people are limited. Of course the people have some rights based on the desire of the state to keep the people willing to protect and defend the homeland security. I would bet that the more secure the state feels the less reward the state provides.

------
electrictroy also wrote:

Under a Democracy, the majority can squash the minority underfoot with a simple 50%+1 vote. Under the U.S. Republic, the majority can not do that because the LAW reigns supreme, and our law includes a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from being squashed by the majority.
---------

Words are defined by common usage, and are quite "democratic." I think some of your definitions are out of date. You are talking about what is more often called "pure" democracy. Since jury nullification is a negative or defensive form of political power, I could hardly have called it a form of representative democracy. However, it is not "pure" democracy either.

Why are you equating a citizens power that can only be applied to people who voluntarily submit to it - with a tyranny of the majority? It's the individuals choice! It empowers the individual!

All the world democracies that I am familiar with are representative democracies. You are the only person I have ever met who tries to call them republics. Skipping any arguments about constitutional monarchies, what you say is probably true but meaningless.

Note: Your comment about southern blacks leaves out the fact that they lacked the power to vote or sit on juries. In fact, unless the southern states passed laws requiring jury trials, the black defendants must have decided that all white juries provided a better bet than the judge. At any rate, I would equate that situation with the rule of thumb that powerless people suffer! Not an argument for removing power from the people.

I am not promoting jury nullification over things like proportional representation, runoff voting in general elections. or even the re-legalization of political parties. It is just an example of a lost political power that needs to be remembered. The U.S. citizens have lost other political powers that were originally legal. I like pointing that out. Again and again.

Can You Define What a Political Party is?

I_Voter

Although the pile of democratic nations has been growing, when the ability of U.S. voters to influence their government is considered, the U.S. voter is close to the bottom of that pile!

Silly

[Shihar]

This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does make law. If there was actual precedence set by having this work up the chain of courts, you might have an argument. Until that time, this is just one crappy judge who can have everything he says promptly overturned by the many layers of judges higher than him.

If you want to look at real censorship in the west, turn your eyes outside of the US. The US has no censorship laws around hate speech and almost no libel laws. Almost anything short of conspiracy to commit a crime is a-okay in the US. You can safely write or speak that you think the Holocaust is a hoax, that all the should die, and that is a whore who fucks pigs and goats. None of the above will get you in trouble with US law. All of the above would get you in trouble in more than one European nation. I am not saying that extremely weak libel laws and a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing, just that it decidedly tips the US over on the "free speech" spectrum farther than the vast majority of other nations out there.

There are a lot of complaints you can level against the US like starting wars, kidnapping and torturing people, extra judicial prisons, warrantless wiretaping, etc. That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do.

Re:Silly

[whoever57]

This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth.

Huh? Whois on wikileaks.org still shows the domain as "inactive", so, even if he backed off, the effects of his judgment are still in place.

Re:Silly

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do. Just don't say the name of one of the acts of the vagina monologues on television.

Re:Silly

[repapetilto]

To be fair, just because other "Western Countries" have laws like that already doesn't make it any better when the US government does it. If other western countries all jump off a cliff does that mean the US government should jump off the white house roof?

Re:Silly

[kaos07]

We can only hope.

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

You can safely write or speak that you think the Holocaust is a hoax, that all the should die...

OMG!1!!! THE ZIONISTS ARE CENSORING SLASHDOT!!11!!

Re:Silly

[Shihar]

The judge later amended the court order to state that the bank documents need to be removed and took out calling for the domain to be taken. The domain is still down, but the site is still exist with its IP and is mirrored just about everywhere. The larger point is that one silly little low level court judge made a really dumb order that is going to stand for about 30 seconds before he gets smacked around by a bigger judge with a bigger beating stick. Further, this type of action is pocket change compared to hate sites and libel cases that are common in Europe. The US has problems, weak free speech laws are not one of them.

Re:Silly

[MillionthMonkey]

If other western countries all jump off a cliff does that mean the US government should jump off the white house roof?

If all the other Western nations are jumping off a cliff, you'd think that would be a clue, hmmm, maybe there's a reason why they're jumping off that cliff.
But noooo, we have to be different and jump off the White House.

Re:Silly

[jo42]

The US has no censorship laws Just try to say something against the brain fuckery known as The Church Of Scientology - see how long before their lawyers bend you over a couch...

Re:Silly

[mcrbids]

The US has no censorship laws Just try to say something against the brain fuckery known as The Church Of Scientology - see how long before their lawyers bend you over a couch... Brain fuckery may be an excellent term for it - but in this case, although the Co$ may harass you for being truthful if it's inconvenient, it's not illegal to say that, in your opinion, they are all a bunch of rodent wankers.

Just because the police don't come and get you for calling your daddy a loser, doesn't mean that your momma won't.

Oh, and the Co$ is one SCARY bunch. Anonymous marches on March 15...

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA, my friend - the author agrees with you:

It is extremely unlikely that this decision will stand up in an appeals court, but the larger point is that there is no reason this case should even be fought. Wikileaks should not need a legal team to explain to the courts that the First Amendment requires freedom of speech.

Re:Silly

[damburger]

Rubbish. The US has less freedom of speech than most European countries. Don't just take my word for it though:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

The fact you think you are freer just makes it even more disturbing.

Re:Silly

[cerberusss]

and that is a whore who fucks pigs and goats

Look, nothing has been proven about this and I will keep on fighting all allegations aiming to paint me black!!
*pauses*
Oh, right, you were just giving an example.
*sulks off*

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

You just did? ;-p

Re:Silly

[Ardaen]

Many sources such as the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index seem to be showing a trend of decreasing freedom in the USA over the last few years. I'm guessing that trend started somewhere in 2000-2001.

People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.

The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.

Re:Silly

[VON-MAN]

If you want to look at real censorship in the west, turn your eyes outside of the US.

And if that doesn't help, you can always look outside the west. Makes you feel even better.

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it is one of them, but as long as you're going to stick your head in the sand and claim that you're the biggest, best, freest, most badass or whatever else you might come up with, you're not going to solve that particular problem - or any problem you're facing really.

Re:Silly

[red star hardkore]

Instead of just implying that you have more freedom of speech in the US than in Europe, can you actually prove that? I live within the EU, and I can say whatever I want to who ever I want. Not only can I deny the holocaust happened (which by the way I am not, I have been to Dachau) but I can say what I want, when I want, without fear of the law. In the US, if you are a communist or a muslim, you are immediately treated with suspicion. In America, are Muslim preachers allowed to preach in public? Are communist organisations allowed?

Re:Silly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Really ? Then why don't you try attracting attention to the statistical correlation between rape cases and muslim population in European cities. The correlation is real (and perfectly calculateable, and as you know this implies that either rapes make someone muslim, or that muslims rape (a lot) more than othres).

Let's see, why don't we, whether or not slashdot (where the "champions of freedom" rule) not burying this post, shall we ?

Mob mentality, which is being pushed like hell in all european countries, is the opposite of freedom. And it's gaining. "Human rights" are killing freedom of expression, and freedom of religion in all european countries. We just like to lie about it.

Same with other figures, like unemployment for example, it's at least triple or quadruple that of the US, depending on the country. But if you just look at the numbers, you'd say they're about equal. This is because we lie (most of the active population that doesn't work is, for various reasons, not counted).

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, are Muslim preachers allowed to preach in public? Are communist organisations allowed?

Yes and yes. Go back under your bridge little troll.

Re:Silly

[TuringTest]

On a related note, I'd like to attract your attention to the statistical inverse correlation between global warming and the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. You know this implies that either global warming kills pirates, or that pirates cause a descent in global temperature - and the lack of them leads to this raising.

Re:Silly

[MrHanky]

Lack of popular support for your racist agenda does not imply government censorship, neither in Europe nor on Slashdot. Why is stirring hatred against a religious and ethnic minority the most important freedom for you? It would severely limit theirs.

Re:Silly

[Klaus_1250]

Mob mentality, which is being pushed like hell in all european countries, is the opposite of freedom. And it's gaining.

Have to agree about that, though it may be gaining, it is not picking up momentum yet (that when you really should get worried). And you do see more and more people reacting to the "mob mentality".

Same with other figures, like unemployment for example, it's at least triple or quadruple that of the US, depending on the country.

Depends on your country (Belgium I guess???), but several countries do seem to have their own interpretation of numbers and statistics. Just look how to they calculate inflation. For computers and such, the use the inverse of Moore's Law for the relative weight. They've seemed to have missed out on increased system requirement of modern software.

Re:Silly

[aproposofwhat]

The correlation is real (and perfectly calculateable, and as you know this implies that either rapes make someone muslim, or that muslims rape (a lot) more than othres).

Leaving aside your appalling spelling, your 'either or' logic is impeccably wrong.

European cities with high Muslim populations also have high unemployment, especially amongst Muslim youths. Unemployed, feckless youths tend to gravitate towards gang behaviour, whether they are Muslim or any other type of flying spaghetti monster worshipper.

It's the gang behaviour that leads to the increase in rapes, not the religion.

Now I do have issues with the way that some cultures treat women - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia..., but that is a cultural matter and has nothing to do with the religion - it's more a case of ignorant goat herders not knowing how to behave in a modern civilised setting.

Bet you'd get upset if I posted a similar comment about Jews - I'm sure statistics exist from the 19th century that highlight the increase in crimes in the East End of London and the prevalence of Jewish loan sharks, murdurers, baby eaters, etc.

Re:Silly

[aproposofwhat]

What a twat I am - murdurers indeed!

And I had the gall to criticise someone elses spelling?

My bad...

Re:Silly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You really don't understand this. Obviously an ideology must be free, for it's members to be free (anywhere). You cannot be a free dictator, for example (except if you really are the one dictator amongst millions of non-free people). You cannot be a free communist. You cannot be a free muslim (since allah -literally- states that all muslims are slaves (e.g. quran 9:111, or just look up what a muslim's purpose of life is)).

This is not my agenda, nor hatred, it is a simple fact.

If it is not according to you, please explain why a country like Saudi Arabia, where this "minority" has as complete a freedom as they could possibly have anywhere, is a completely non-free country. Also in the west, the more muslims live in an area, the less free it is considered by both the muslims themselves and the (sometimes former) original inhabitants. This is not a coincidence.

Asking "why aren't muslims free", is like asking "why isn't red blue". In short the problem is in the definition. Someone who believes he is a slave is necessarily unfree. A free person is necessarily a non-muslim (doesn't believe in allah's statement that he is a slave), and a muslim is necessarily not free. There isn't any policy, there is nothing that can be done, to change this (except of course, changing islam itself).

In case you wish to argue the stupid point "sure he says that, but he also says ...", please keep in mind that this is just the very beginning of allah's demands on muslims. And obviously people who ignore allah's demands are not muslims, by definition.

The difference between moderate muslims and "extremist" muslims is not that they think all infidels should be killed, but the manner in which this is to happen (a cruel, continuous global war versus creating denial and replacing original people followed by civil war). Kosovo, including the 1992 war is "mooderate" islam. Iran, 1972 and the 20-or-so years before is extremist islam.

Re:Silly

[MrHanky]

There's not much logic to your ramblings, but just consider that the "freedom" you hold in such a high regard demands submission to it in the exact same manner as a Muslim's Allah. In other words, it's not actually freedom.

Re:Silly

[Lemmy Caution]

More details on the reason for the poor US standing is here.

Re:Silly

[bratwiz]

That's because its painfully obvious that the only speech that matters is that of whomever is the "authority". For example, the Bushit administration and the Repugnicant party go out of their way to coral and herd political dissent off-camera and out-of-the-way. They do this under the banner of "protecting the president" or some other bullshit. Of course any moron with even a single neuron can quickly grasp that the fastest way to actually not protect the president would be to carry an "I love Bushit" banner. Then you get to be front and center and can more easily accomplish whatever your objective is. When he's heckled at speeches, rallies and whatnot, he just stares into the camera, gives that goofy fucking grin, whilst whomever it was is carried-out bodily by big men with guns, and says "I just love free speech." and the crowd has to do their obligatory chuckle. Dissent of those in-power in this country is quickly and easily turned aside with a witticism after which they turn right back around and continue fucking us over. And people in this country keep electing these douche-bags over and over for the stupidest of reasons. Repugnicant, Demoflat-- what difference does it actually make when anybody who actually tries to combat and take on the system is brushed aside while the rest line up like pigs at the trough? Don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating simply rolling over and expiring-- its important to continue to fight and challenge these practices. But its a lot like watching a strong, well-financed, well-practiced and well-seasoned football team take on and beat the holy crap out of a weaker, junior rival. Even when the junior team has heart and tenacity, the stronger team still tends to win out if only because of their greater familiarity and practice of the game. So the junior team wins a game or two, or makes a good play-- what difference does that generally tend to make in the long run? And the well-entrenched stronger team knows it. Its not because their position is superior or their motives more pure, its because they are more practiced at the techniques of corruption, political backstabbing and general dirty-tricks. They know what to say and when to say it to laughingly dismiss the typical dissenter-- and if that doesn't work, they bury them in lawyers, call in cops with tear gas and riot gear, or claim "national security" and make them "disappear". That's why speech is free in America. What was once a healthy and important commentary and call to action is now laugh-fodder for savvy political players. Why not let the rabble say what's on their mind? Its extremely rare that any particular one can actually roust up the rest long enough to do any harm. And giving them the "right" makes them feel better about themselves and their illusory ability to "challenge government". Each of them think-- "Yup, this freedom of speech thing is a pretty good idea. I know that I can challenge my government any time and they would listen-- if I wanted to... Ooops, I'm about to miss American Idol!" In truth the issues that bind us are generally far greater than the issues that divide us. The problem is that in our modern world it is ever increasingly difficult to pull enough of us together to matter. So why would Bushit care if someone heckles him with God's own truth? He'll laugh it off, nobody else can (public ally, on-the-spot and in-the-moment) refute him, so the whole thing is diffused and not worthy of further action. The REAL channels of communication are all but locked-away from the average citizen. Sure you can write a letter to the editor, or get your "15-minutes of fame"-- but unless you're just incredibly lucky AND have a camera presence to back it up (ie. you can naturally get ratings so can sell toothpaste and tampons) that's your shot. Everybody who's in the game longer than that very quickly wises up to the reality that there is only so much you can ACTUALLY SAY in a REAL communication channel-- only so far you can push it-- before the dirty-tricks committee comes gunning for you to take you out one way or th

Re:Silly

[MadMidnightBomber]

This also makes it impossible to read e.g. The Female Eunuch - an important political work, whatever you think of the author - on television without censoring the text. Nice going FCC.

Re:Silly

[electrictroy]

The FCC allowed nudity on PBS. The FCC allowed nudity on NBC (Shindler's List). The FCC allowed the use of curse words during the airing of Ken Burn's "The War".

The FCC is strict, but not unreasonable and will allow the rules to be suspended for just causes. (Also the rules are looser for urban stations; often times I hear radio jocks swearing on evening radio.)

And finally, there's always cable. There's no FCC restriction on cable so you can send whatever television you want to send via cable channels.

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm: WRONG. The last episode of Mad TV I saw on Fox almost quoted lines from Vagina Monologues verbatim, granted they had humorous tones to refelect the "characters" reading them. It was a direct spoof of the Vagina Monologues! The FCC is incredibly reasonable on "sanitation," if you will.

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay more attention. The GP was remarking about the fall out caused by the mention of the word "cunt" by Jane Fonda on air. "Cunt" being the title of one of the "Vagina Monologues".

Re:Silly

[b0bby]

I do have to take that report with a grain of salt - the issues they cite are basically that there are some uncertainties over the right of a reporter to protect their sources, and these can lead to reporters being held in contempt of court if they refuse to reveal their sources. This is not a unique issue to the US; there was a German reporter detained a few years ago for similar reasons, who was just cleared last year, and a number in France. Their other main issue is that a Sudanese cameraman, arrested in Pakistan, is being held in Guantanamo. While I do think that this administration has acted illegally and immorally in detaining many of these "foreign combatants", I think that citing this as a restriction on the press in the US is a bit of a stretch. I would say that the French law, cited by RSF, "banning denial of the 1915 Armenian massacres on pain of five years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros", is a far more egregious restriction. When Americans see these types of laws, they tend to compare their constitutionally enshrined right to free speech and conclude (with some justification) that speech is freer here than "most European countries". I have lived in Europe and the US, and I know that nowhere is perfect; I'd move to Iceland if it were a little warmer ;)

Re:Silly

[Just Another Poster]

Rubbish. The US has less freedom of speech than most European countries. Don't just take my word for it though:

I won't take your word for it. I also won't take the word of "Reporters Without Borders", who laughably rank Canada, France, Germany and Sweden ahead of the U.S. in terms of "press freedom".

Show us media in those nations that is as condemning and critical of the nation and government as some American media is of America and the American government.

Re:Silly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

It's telling that you do not waste arguments. Not a single letter of your post is devoted to clarifying why anything I say is wrong, you just state outright that it must be wrong. How do you illustrate this wrongness, how do you justify your thinking ? Well, with an insult, and nothing else.

That is an indication that you refute my claims, not because you reasonably disagree with them (in that case arguments would come very easily to your keyboard), but because your beliefs run counter to it. In short you're demanding respect for your ideology. Note also that this is exactly what you are accusing me of. In short you are projecting your flaws onto me, in order to hold on to your belief, which you know to be nonsense.

The only tyrannical part of my ideology is that it plainly states reality wins out always and everywhere, and that we're fools to deny this. Experiment trumps ideology. Looking up facts trumps ideology (e.g. the blatant racism in the quran trumps your postmodern ideology that islam is not racist). If you feel reality limits your freedom, then yes, you're probably right, my ideology will limit your freedom as well.

However these are not real limits to freedom. It's just the consequences to your actions, and the fact that you're responsible for them. (Such as taking responsability for the fact that your position is not the peaceful position, because you realise perfectly well that what you suggest will lead to a huge war tomorrow, and you hold this conviction because it will narrowly avoid a tiny skirmish today, this is not pacifist, it's stupid and lazy. Fighting the small wars should be fought today (such as defending Darfur from it's muslim government) is the pacifist position).

Re:Silly

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Now I do have issues with the way that some cultures treat women - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia...

Incidentally ... which culture would that be ? Because all the countries you mention have the exact same culture ...

Re:Silly

[rhakka]

Hardly. Late, late at night, you can play "non obscene" but "indecent" material. MAD TV, for example.

woo hoo. I feel so free I could just take flight...

How about being able to have a grown up talk to me like a grown up on the evening news, and if I don't want a child to hear that, I watch a different channel?

Or even better, I could just get over the whole idea that "words" are a problem, and let my child grow up in reality instead of a sanitized never neverland, with me as their guide and interpeter? I know, it's radical.

Re:Silly

[Ironsides]

We actually have a communist party that tries to get themselves elected. I've seen just about everything preached in public. We've had Nazi rallies in the U.S. in the past 50 years with full replica uniforms and swastikas displayed boldly (tell me if you've ever seen THAT in Germany). We have KKK rallies, a group that hates Blacks, Jews and Catholics. We have Westboro Baptist, Here's their website. No, that is not a joke. Those people are real.

Re:Silly

[MrHanky]

I haven't demanded respect for my ideology, I haven't stated my ideology, and your interpretation of my motives and reasoning is just guesswork. For someone claiming to be interested in facts and reality, that's pretty weak.

Re:Silly

[Shakrai]

ut that is a cultural matter and has nothing to do with the religion

Sorry, but I don't see how you can separate "cultural" from "religion". Religion is an undeniable part of culture. What's the driving reason in some of those countries for oppressing women? In Saudi Arabia the justification is generally the Sharia, or Islamic Law. How you can say that has "nothing to do with religion" is beyond me.

To be fair, the Bible has it's fair share of statements that could be used to oppress women, but the Christian fundamentalists haven't been able to get any of that codified into actual law yet. The Islamic fundamentalists have and that's what we should be scared of.

Re:Silly

[jschrod]

To be fair, the Bible has it's fair share of statements that could be used to oppress women, but the Christian fundamentalists haven't been able to get any of that codified into actual law yet.

Well, at least in the US, they try very hard, don't they? All those folks from the Religious Right who want to send women back to the kitchen where they shall raise their children which is their only god-given right. And it's not as if these folks have no influence on a certain US political party...

Re:Silly

[V for Vendetta]

Not only can I deny the holocaust happened (which by the way I am not, I have been to Dachau) but I can say what I want, when I want, without fear of the law.

Come over here to Germany and try to do that in the public. You'll find yourself in front of a judge pretty soon. See what happened to Ernst Zündel, for example.

Re:Silly

[Ardaen]

Europe is not one country, the countries within Europe can vary quite a bit.

Yes, there may be problems in areas with higher Muslim populations in European cities. You haven't really covered why this is or more importantly, how this is relevant to freedom in the USA.

Your statement that mob mentality is being pushed is interesting, but you don't really elaborate. Also your argument on human rights doesn't seem to really go anywhere or touch on the issues. Are you implying that people can have freedom without any sort of established rights? Maybe you see anarchy as freedom?

As for your unemployment comment. You don't really back it up at all, you just say they lie. How do I know you don't lie? You seem angry, spiteful not rational. Also what does this have to do with freedom?

Overall to me your response reads as "us versus them" to me. You see "your" side being attacked, so you attack back, pointing out all the flaws in "my" side. Sadly the two sides don't exist as such. Even if they did, pointing out the other side's problems doesn't make your side's problems vanish.

Re:Silly

[Ardaen]

Maybe you should visit them, spend some time there. Look at it from the point of view of locals before you go and say that.

They may be similar from your point of view, but that doesn't mean the culture of each of those countries is the same.

Re:Silly

[jschrod]

Then why don't you try attracting attention to the statistical correlation between rape cases and muslim population in European cities. The correlation is real (and perfectly calculateable, and as you know this implies that either rapes make someone muslim, or that muslims rape (a lot) more than othres).

One of the first things that one learns in any introductionary statistics course is: Correlation must not be used as explanation of cause and effect. This is polemics, and has nothing to do with math.

So, is your statement made out of ignorance, or of malice?

If ignorance, I would recommend a 101 statistics course in any university. It's really enlighting when you will read other published stats in the future. If malice, drop an appropriate answer so that we know that we can ignore future posts from you.

Re:Silly

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope you're joking - the US press is basically a patriotic circle-jerk, all the reporters wearing their little lapel pins and beating off to chants of USA! USA! None of the countries you mention have one tenth of the arrogance in their aggrandized self worth as the USA does. US "freedom of speech" can be relegated to "Free speech zones". That's not free speech - your rights are circling the bowl. It's time to do something about it, or watch them wash away to the sewers.

Re:Silly

[KevReedUK]

My guess is that the GP was using angle-brakets around a variable name, i.e. [minority] (Replace the []s with their eqiuvalent wakas) between the word "the" and the word "should" in the bold section of your quote......

Re:Silly

[Just Another Poster]

I really hope you're joking - the US press is basically a patriotic circle-jerk, all the reporters wearing their little lapel pins and beating off to chants of USA! USA! None of the countries you mention have one tenth of the arrogance in their aggrandized self worth as the USA does.

So basically, you cite the fact that Americans are allowed to express patriotism as an example that America's press is horribly censored.

US "freedom of speech" can be relegated to "Free speech zones".

Such zones were set up in order to protect people from being blockaded or assaulted by maniacs, so the police wouldn't have to go into crowds with batons and Tazers.

Re:Silly

[aproposofwhat]

Yes, Sharia is usually the justification, but Sharia and the Koran are poles apart when it comes to how to treat women.

Sharia has been (mis)informed over the centuries by the cultures in which Islam has assimilated, and has at its base an interpretation of the Koran from the perspective of tribal and very patriarchal societies.

Sharia isn't Islamic in the true sense, because in its implementation it contradicts the Koran by denying women the status that Mohamed (pbuh) gave them.

The trouble with the cultures I despise isn't their Islamic nature, it's their patriarchal ignorance (this also applies to various Christian sects and to Orthodox Judaism in its more extreme form.s)

Correction

[Shihar]

*This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does NOT make law.

Once again...

[zappepcs]

The courts demonstrate their inability to understand the Internet as well as other technical matters. It no wonder that CSI is popular? I'm certain that lawyers are watching it to find out how crime scene science works.

Seriously, the court had to have some understanding that what they ruled on was TOTALLY ineffectual, right? If they did not know, then perhaps they should be encouraged to recuse themselves from future cases involving anything to do with the Internet, computers, or ... well, anything.

Yes, IANAL and I know that the judge is not supposed to interpret the law as much as they are supposed to apply the law to the facts presented. This indicates a lack of effort on the part of the defense, but I'm not believing that for a second, especially in view of not so distant past rulings in favor of the **AA.

The sad facts here are that the 'establishment' view the Internet in vastly different ways than do the common people and the people who ARE in the know.

Sounds like this should be something brought up at every chance when a judge in your locale wants to be (re)elected?

Perhaps Anonymous can speak loudly on such issues?

Re:Once again...

[Watson Ladd]

The injunction requested was against Dynadot. It was not against wikileaks. Dynadot didn't contest it as they didn't want to spend the money. So what the judge did was ineffective, but it was what Julius Baer wanted.

pendulum

[globaljustin]

it's time to recontextualize and essentially reboot our understanding of privacy, freedom, information, free speech, and similar civil rights

in other words, Americans as a whole need to learn what the internet does, and take a fresh look at how our freedoms are being shit on by the US government. we must demand the same digital freedoms and privacy protection that we have in non-digital media and more.

looking through this wikileaks story and a previous story about FOIA documents that show torture devices the government has been developing motivates me to seek a true change.

the American people must claim their rights or they will be taken

Re:pendulum

[BVis]

in other words, Americans as a whole need to learn what the internet does, and take a fresh look at how our freedoms are being shit on by the US government. we must demand the same digital freedoms and privacy protection that we have in non-digital media and more.

I disagree. The more ignorant the general (moronic) public remains of how the internet works, and the more our lives come to depend on internet access, the better. Why? Because then, after years of retrograde progression, the smart people will have an advantage over the willfully ignorant.

Take this situation, for example. Those With Money have decided they don't want people to know a particular set of information. They've either decided that attacking the DNS entry for the domain was the Right Way To Do It, meaning they're complete imbeciles, or that attacking the DNS entry was all that was necessary to keep Joe Sixpack from being able to read it for himself on his computer tv web screen.

Either way, the smart people will then have access to information that puts them at some sort of advantage, because they can work around the attack.

Now if we can just figure out some way to keep those morons from voting...

Re:pendulum

[globaljustin]

I share some of your sentiments
 
 

The more ignorant the general (moronic) public remains of how the internet works, and the more our lives come to depend on internet access, the better.

I'm confused with the second part of your sentence, but I understand what you mean about how as the internet gets more 'mainstream', more morons will be using it. You use some strong language to describe the general public, and I often think that as well. That's my whole point. People need to stop being morons. That's it. I don't care if alot of them are comfortable in their ignorance, or whatever, playtime is over.

The fact is, the internet HAS BECOME mainstream. It's done. Past tense. Party's over. Everyone and their brother is posting shitty blogs, downloading brittney spears songs, and just clogging up the tubes. I'm calling for a massive wake up call.

It's amazing to me how much general knowledge has passed by the wayside. It seems like most men or women over the age of say 65 or so know how to can food, grow a garden, fix a combustion engine, repair clothing, and in general do alot for themselves. I grieve for the passing of these skills. Sure some are obsolete, fine...but they haven't been replaced with any new skills. That's what i'm calling for...if you don't feel like you need to know how to can tomatoes and make preserves, fine, but you damn well better have a basic understanding of the internet and how computers work. Everyone SHOULD know the basics of the internet because everyone is using it now.

The Writing Has Been On The Wall

[Jane Q. Public]

for quite a while now. Years. But most people didn't listen: "I'm confortable in my job for X Corporation. Nothing seems wrong to me!"

Wake up, people!

There is really not much else to say.

Re:The Writing Has Been On The Wall

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm confortable in my job for X Corporation. Nothing seems wrong to me!"

That's because having money (and the benefits it brings) can give you the impression you have certain freedoms. Except if you need money to be free, you aren't free.

Re:The Writing Has Been On The Wall

[skeftomai]

Come on man, we all know the government was instituted by god...it's wrong to speak out against the government!

Re:"World leading"?

[darkhitman]

Why do US people believe their country is a leader in everything, when cold, hard numbers eminently suggest otherwise?

You have cold, hard numbers regarding the "rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place"? Numbers which are capable of eminently suggesting things? I would love to see those. Personally, I can't even figure out what that's saying.

Re:"World leading"?

[p0tat03]

Because they are? Hell, I'm Canadian, I love my country, and even I have to admit that the USA does an immense number of things extremely well. Technology, for one - there is a reason that the majority of the world's tech R&D occurs in the USA, or is funded by the USA. The Americans have a strong history of "stealing" the best and brightest from all the countries of the world, and making them work for Uncle Sam. With promises of a better quality of life, freedom from persecution, and a culture where performance is rewarded, the US *is* the world leader in these things.

Of course, that is all changing somewhat suddenly now. Recent administrations have sabotaged scientific research funding for religious and partisan purposes, skilled immigrants are now the target of hatred, instead of being welcomed with open arms. Millions of Muslims are being socially ostracized and targeted for doing absolutely nothing except being non-Christian.

Don't get me wrong, America still does a lot right. But if you guys want to maintain your position as the grand superpower of the world, you need to seriously turn some of that shit around. It's already going to take DECADES to fix your foreign policy disaster, your economic fuckups, and restore scientific and technological integrity to your academia... so get started.

Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse.

Re:"World leading"?

[flyingsquid]

Why do US people believe their country is a leader in everything, when cold, hard numbers eminently suggest otherwise? Mass-hypnosis?

Because, obviously, the US is leader in free [CENSORED]. Concerning news and political discourse, I think if you compare our [CENSORED] to the [CENSORED] of any other [CENSORED], you will find that our [CENSORED] is head and shoulders above that of any other [CENSORED]. Admittedly, certain alarmist elements, such as the [CENSORED] and those of the [CENSORED] party may lead you to believe that our government engages in [CENSORED] but the reality is that intellectual debate and news reporting in this country are [CENSORED], [CENSORED], and most important of all [CENSORED]. Really, all of this concern is just alarmism. We have nothing to fear except [CENSORED].

Nonsense

[mosb1000]

"The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."

People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.

There is a book about how the Republicans used corruption to sell government downsizing as part of their party platform. They worked tirelessly through the 1980's and 90's to portray government corruption as an entirely inexorable outcome, and then they played the shrinking government card.

Our government was designed to be the most transparent and least corruptible government that has ever existed. I don't want to get all patriotic on you, but there was some genius at play when our Constitution was written. I know that there are layers of law and bureaucracy that exist on top of the Constitution, but those are all heavily scrutinized as they are written and established to prevent corruption. Have some faith in your country.

Oh, and I think the book is called What's the matter with Kansas.

Re:Nonsense

[yndrd1984]

Are you saying "Republicans used corruption to sell government downsizing as part of their party platform, therefore it must be wrong?" How would you respond to "Democrats used people with health problems to sell government-run healthcare as part of their platform", with the implication that that was an argument against it?

Our government was designed to be the most transparent and least corruptible government that has ever existed.
Do you really think that the way the Constitution is currently interpreted really reflects the thoughts of those geniuses?

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, Contrary to this statement, I have seen the US way of suing anyone for anything leading to mistrust and fear rather than actually solving problems.

Re:Nonsense

[halycon404]

Our Constitution isn't interpreted. Its forgotten and ignored. Which is a completely different thing. The Constitution for the United States of America is exactly four hand-written pages long. It is one of, if not the, shortest overall governing set of laws in the entire world. For the most part its fairly simple and straight forward to understand. And it gets lost in the absolute avalanche of laws which fall below it. No one quotes Constitutional passages from the house or senate when trying to get a bill passed. They simply don't mention it, and hope everyone else forgets those absolutely tiny four pages as well. In the overall grand scheme of things, four pages is a relatively easy thing to let slip from your mind.

Re:Nonsense

[__aailob1448]

So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden?

oh! oh! oh! The first one! The first one!

First, there is no reason why the bank can't get a fair trial because of what you mentionned. The judicial system is what needs to be fixed if this isn't the case.

Second, this isn't about the ex-CEO's right to leak. If he did something illegal, throw him in jail. Don't shoot the messenger.

Third, I don't care about some bank's court case. Wikileaks and what it stands for are a much more important resource and I don't think this tradeoff is beneficial to us at all.

Things are never cut and dry for the parties most affected. For the rest of us, it is. Wikileaks >> Some Bank's possible embarassment and/or losses. They shouldn't have anything to hide to begin with. They're a bank, not the CIA.

Re:Nonsense

[F1Rumors]

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything Unless your action falls into the catch 22 trap, discussed here under Supreme Court Won't Hear ACLU Wiretap Case.

Insular American Media

[jnelson4765]

Propaganda, ignorance, and no mass media reporting on how the rest of the world thinks. That's why the movie Sicko was such a huge shock to the American people - the vast majority of Americans have been fed nothing but negative propaganda about socialized medicine (circa 1950's anticommunist, with updated graphs), but never see any of the positive aspects, like not going bankrupt after breaking your leg.

I'm quite sure the Romans said the same thing until the day the Goths sacked Rome...

Re:Insular American Media

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the movie Sicko was such a huge shock to the American people

You're so deluded, it's pathetic. Did you ever stop to ask yourself that if Michael Moore really found the rest of the world so much better, why did he decide to come back?

Re:Insular American Media

[Notquitecajun]

Using Michael Moore - and Cuba - is a VERY bad example. Moore is nothing but a leftist (notice my non-use of the term liberal or left-wing here) propogandist.

Re:Insular American Media

[jonaskoelker]

Using Michael Moore - and Cuba - is a VERY bad example.

Why is that?

Moore is [...] a leftist prop[a]gandist.

It seems you 'murrkans have the choice of rightist propaganda and leftist propaganda. Might as well choose the true kind, right? ;-) By the way, !(propaganda => falsehood): "The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful" (thus spake wikipedia).

(notice my non-use of the term liberal or left-wing here).

I noticed. Since you stress it, you must be trying to convey something with the distinction. What's your definition of leftist and left-wing, and how are they distinct?

Re:Insular American Media

[Notquitecajun]

Visitors to Cuba see a limited amount of what is going on, and rarely does the real thing show through. Everything that is in "Sicko" is what the Cuban government wanted America to see - it's all sanitized to try and convince audience what isn't there.

I understand that propoganda can utilize truth; however, it's only to a point - very selective. It's the nature of propoganda. Moore cuts and pastes and doesn't tell half the story.

"Leftist" I use because "liberal" can be too generic. Leftists are akin to people that are vehemently promoting what can be a Marxist viewpoint - and very militant about what they do (it's what the -ist suffix has come to define - a militant ideal). Sheehan, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore - they're leftists, IMHO.

Re:"World leading"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not for a long time now. Barely tolerably backwards and getting worse is more the perception in Europe. Why do US people believe their country is a leader in everything, when cold, hard numbers eminently suggest otherwise? Mass-hypnosis?

Thank you for the non-specific, totally clichéd criticism of my country. Europe is the one continent that we haven't fucked over (in fact we have saved your asses from implosion twice,) and yet you seem to hate us the most. If you want to go onto the list of continents to be fucked over, let us know.

A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public]

First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), then even a municipal judge can "change law". Further, it does not even have to be a judge. A jury can change law, and that decision too would have to be overturned by a higher court in order for that change to be invalidated. [http://www.fija.org/]

Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States. Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.

Third, the United States has very strong libel laws. The difference is that unlike in many nations, libel must generally be proven before it can be punished. Also, libel against "public figures" is much harder to prove... but that is by design, and for very good reason. (In many other places, speech against politicians or other "public figures" is punished much more harshly than speech against other citizens. But that does not mean that libel laws do not exist in the US. They do... they are just fairer than most.)

And finally, the fact that it is worse elsewhere does NOT mean that it is good here. That is like saying to one man in line, "Look, you only got a broken finger! The next guy in line has a broken leg!"... and then using that to justify breaking fingers. Sorry, but it is not a valid argument.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Anonymous Coward]

Short version: juries don't decide law, it's way too early in the case to say "zOMG COURT IS IN THE CORPORATIONS' POCKETSES".

Long version:

IANAL (though I am a law student), but : Juries can only decide issues of fact, while judges rule on issues of law (though judges can do it all themselves in some situations). Judges essentially tell juries "if you find fact X is true, then you must find the plaintiff guilty (or liable for damages, etc), but if you find that fact Y is true, you must find the plaintiff innocent."

Though I haven't seen the opinion, the court's order was likely to be a temporary* injunction to safeguard Bank Julius Bayer's reputation until more information comes to light. Once the case is litigated as far as it will go, then you can talk about what laws that court may or may not have decided. Even if the court ever makes a ruling (i.e. there is no settlement), it can be overruled by a higher state court, depending on the standard of review for the applicable law.

If the appellate court can only decide whether the lower court abused its discretion, then it's more difficult to overrule. Someone who is familiar with California law can answer whether that is or isn't the standard. If it can review the whole case "de novo" (as if it was the first court to hear it), then it can overrule more easily.

*Yes, it does say "permanent", but there's no way a court can grant that kind of injunction in a preliminary hearing and then just leave it at that. If it tried, that would probably be an abuse of discretion. There is more litigation to follow.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

I have no problem with most of what you said...but...

Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States.

If by "hate speech laws", you mean US laws prohibiting certain subjects in speech, I'd like to see a list. I'm having a mighty hard time finding any. Are there, in fact, any laws (still standing) at any level in the US saying that you are not allowed to disparage thus-and-such-a group, or deny the Holocaust, or something along those lines?

Or are you talking about adjuncts to harassment and that kind of thing?

Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.

Punishing one crime differently from another based on intent is ridiculous?

So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other? That John Wayne Gacy should have received exactly the same punishment as an elderly man who screwed up in his car and ran down the same number of people at a farmer's market?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[twizmer]

Decisions of a court are only precedent in the formal sense in courts below that which made the ruling. One might of course cite a favorable ruling in legal arguments, but it is not binding on other courts.

The US does have hate speech laws, but they are very limited in scope by the application of the First Amendment. See for example R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul where SCOTUS overturned a hate speech law because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The classes of speech which can be constitutionally restricted remain quite small.

Similarly, US libel laws are restricted in any number of ways. Truth is always an absolute defense. Strict culpability is no allowed (some level of mens rea must be proven).

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Enlightenment]

Nah. Juries can also decide that they won't convict regardless of the facts. It's called jury nullification.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[twizmer]

So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other?

This is really a straw man. The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?" The difference between intentionally and unintentionally causing death is not the same as intentionally killing someone because he was an [epithet] or because he slept with your wife or whatever.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public]

No, to your first point I will answer that we have laws that provide for harsher punishment for certain crimes (including slander, libel, etc.) *IF* they were committed for certain reasons, such as race and so on. That is commonly referred to as a "hate crime", even though the actual crime is a "normal" crime. The distinction (as pointed out by the other reply) is the motivation behind the crime.

To your second point, I will answer: THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done? As far as punishment is concerned, that is. Historically, in order to find someone guilty it was sufficient to show motivation... it was not important what that motivation was. It is already a capital crime. Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?

ISN'T THAT RACISM??? (You need not answer. Of course it is.)

By their essential nature, "hate crime" laws are hypocritical and discriminatory. Those reasons alone are sufficient to remove them from the books, just like the other hypocritical and discriminatory laws that favor the "common folk" over minorities. You don't fight racism with more racism, no matter which direction it is pointed. You fight racism by getting rid of it, in whatever form it assumes.

Your final comparison I will just ignore. It has no bearing on the discussion at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public]

Decisions of the court establish precedent, which can be cited in court at any level. What I was saying was that at least theoretically, the principle of stare decisis should hold UNLESS there is reason to contradict that precedent at a higher level. I.e., while the higher courts are not bound, if they are aware of a past decision that bears on a current case, and they disagree, they are bound by principle, ethics, and tradition to show why that decision should not hold. That is the way they are supposed to work.

Usually, those lower court rulings will sooner or later trickle up and be tested at a higher level. So minor courts can, in fact, establish law, and strongly influence it even when "make" is too big a word.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?"

And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done?

Why, yes, it does.

Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?

The value of one group of people vs. another doesn't enter into the question. It's the intimidating and/or chilling and/or provocative effects on the target group. Depending on the response, the attacking group may be further emboldened against the attacked group, leading to more violence and de facto oppression, or the attacked group may mount reprisals against the attacking group, leading to more violence and de facto states of feud. This is how (some) genocides and civil wars start.

ISN'T THAT RACISM??? (You need not answer. Of course it is.)

What it is is a diversionary straw man.

By their essential nature, "hate crime" laws are hypocritical and discriminatory. Those reasons alone are sufficient to remove them from the books, just like the other hypocritical and discriminatory laws that favor the "common folk" over minorities.

As far as I know, the hate crime laws don't say "blacks are protected but not whites". Or whatever X vs. Y you want. Neither are there reverse cases (any more).

Your final comparison I will just ignore. It has no bearing on the discussion at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.

You can ignore whatever you want; those with inconsistent views often do, in order to preserve them.

The fact is, however, that it does have a direct bearing on the discussion in that it represents another case of the exact same phenomenon -- the state of mind of the perpetrator determining, in part, the nature of the crime.

Whatever benefit of the doubt you wish to confer on me, the condescension remains unappreciated.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[garutnivore]

To your second point, I will answer: THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done? As far as punishment is concerned, that is. Historically, in order to find someone guilty it was sufficient to show motivation... it was not important what that motivation was. It is already a capital crime. Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?

The criminal justice system is not about the victim punishing the criminal but about society containing the threat posed by a criminal. There is a punitive aspect to that and also a corrective aspect (i.e. ideally the criminal should change his anti-social behavior) but containing the threat is first and foremost. I do see a difference between Joe beating Bob because Bob insulted him and Joe beating Bob because Bob is black. In the latter case you have a significant proportion of the population which because of genetics which they do not control are likely targets of Joe's violence. In the first case violence erupts because someone insulted Joe. The trigger "insulting Joe" is highly contingent on circumstances. That is, there is no individual in society for which "insulting Joe" is true all the time. In the second case violence erupts because there was a black guy around to beat on. The trigger "being black" is not contingent. There are several individuals in society for which "being black" is true all the time. I do think that if Joe happily beats black people, he's more of a threat to society than if he just happens to beat someone (no matter what their race is). I hold this true whatever races are involved in the scenario: white, black; black, white; white, white; black, black. (Yep, you can totally hate on your own race.) Other non-contingent conditions could also be considered like if someone beats other people because they are: male, fat, have blond hair, handicapped, homeless, etc. (Some of these are contingent in the long term but not in the short term. It is possible to stop insulting someone if they threaten you but you can't suddenly stop being fat or homeless.)

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Free_Meson]

First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), then even a municipal judge can "change law". Further, it does not even have to be a judge. A jury can change law, and that decision too would have to be overturned by a higher court in order for that change to be invalidated.

Wow. Rarely have I seen such wildly inaccurate information, even on the internet. A court's decision is only binding on lower courts. No other courts are bound by the decision. They can (and often do) completely ignore it. They can elect to use it in explaining their own decision on the issue, but they could also elect to use inane internet ramblings. A judge at any level could formulate a rule that is later adopted by superior courts, and even the Supreme Court, but they certainly can't "make" law.

Juries have absolutely no role in changing law in the U.S. They aren't even supposed to consider issues of law, and their verdicts aren't even necessarily binding on their own trial court for the issues of fact that juries are supposed to consider! (The only jury verdict that can't be overturned/reversed by the presiding judge is an acquittal in a criminal case).

Please educate yourself on the function of a system before spouting off on it. The legal system of the U.S. is complicated but well documented. There's no good reason to speak about it with ignorance.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[LifesABeach]

justice.

By and large, Judges are ordinary people who have an excellent talent for administering law for the public good. But every so often, there comes a judge who's personal agenda becomes more important than the public's perception of law, and constitutional issues. I cannot help but wonder how this judge ignored the First Amendment?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[wafath]

There is another well known exception to free speech rights: assault & other forms of threats against individuals & groups. Hate crime laws are really just a subset of that exception.

Hate crime laws acknowledge that certain crimes also carry an additional threat, and that threat could be even more damaging that the original crime.

Example: Burning two pieces of (your) lumber on someone else's property: relatively minor crime.

Burning a cross erected on the front yard of an African-American family is a threat of physical harm to that family and potentially all members of the community. Context is everything, see?

Also remember that many hate crime laws were enacted at the federal and state level as a way to move trials. In some cases, heinous crimes did not lead to conviction because the jury refused to convict. In other cases the local law enforcement refused to even investigate. Hate crimes allowed federal prosecutors to move the trial out of the local community where most potential jurors were either sympathetic or even co-conspirators to the crime.

Have prosecutors abused hate crime laws? Of course they have. That is what prosecutors do. But there are far worse laws on the books.

W

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Curunir_wolf]

And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.

So certain people get "special" protection. Because they are "special"? Because it's really difficult to determine motivation in these circumstances. If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?

Oh, wait... bald people are part of a "special", "protected" class. Well, that's just wrong, and it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.

The Constitution also expressly forbids this type of thing - in fact the principle of equal protection is even older. Everyone should get "Equal protection under the law". Period. Anything else is just a variation of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."

Re:A couple of corrections...

[cayenne8]

"Nah. Juries can also decide that they won't convict regardless of the facts. It's called jury nullification."

I thought it was called "the first OJ Simpson trial".

:-)

Re:A couple of corrections...

[cayenne8]

"Hate crime laws acknowledge that certain crimes also carry an additional threat, and that threat could be even more damaging that the original crime."

Ok...you kill a person named 'Bob' for whatever reason, maybe as a mob hit.

Or, you kill 'Bob' because he is gay, or black, or white.....etc.

Now...either way, Bob is dead. Why on earth would the reason make the crime worse???

I'm sorry , I don't buy it....murder is murder, no matter the reason. A mass murderer that goes out killing people targeted at random is commiting no less of a crime than one that targets ONLY a certain racial profile. Either way, it is a mass killing, and should be treated as such.

To base it otherwise says some groups are more important and should be protected 'more' than other groups.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[kmcrober]

This is wrong. Stare decisis flows from higher courts to lower courts, and sometimes works horizontally, but doesn't flow upwards. It does not mean that lower courts' rulings bind or are even strongly relevant to a higher court. Lower courts' decisions may be cited in higher courts, but they are not binding precedent, even if "there is no reason to contradict that precedent." Higher courts are not "bound by principle, ethics, and tradition" to address lower courts that disagree with a decision they reach, if for no other reason than that a significant decision by a court of appeals with a large jurisdiction - like a federal circuit or a supreme court - would require dozens or hundreds of pages to deal with all the contrary lower courts' opinions.

Nor do juries decide law, as you said in the GP post. Juries are factfinders. They do not establish legal precedent, they do not determine legal principle, and they do not create common law. They assess evidence to adjudicate disputed facts.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[__aailob1448]

Are you a minority?

People are naturally tribal and our brains reflect that. That means that our impulses will invariably tend to be racist or adversarial to outside groups. Until the day our brains and culture are no longer contributing to the problem, we try to counter those impulses by instilling a sense of shame and guilt in the individual and publicly stigmatizing racism and other forms of discrimination. Hate crime laws are part of that.

Do you have a better idea that doesn't ignore the shortcomings of human nature?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Nazlfrag]

They are both thoughtcrimes. You're just artificially putting more weight on being a racist over being an arsehole. Courts and cops aren't going to solve racism by becoming thought police, but it won't stop them trying. We have to be equally intolerant of racists and plain vanilla arseholes if we value freedom of speech and thought.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[wafath]

Because in the second case it caries the transparent threat to the rest of the community: "If you don't start acting the way 'we' want you to, we will do this again." In addition to Bob being dead, you have potentially victimized the entire community.

And often the behavior that they are trying to stop is exercising basic rights, like, participating in government. The effects of hate crimes are real and devastating.

If you don't believe me, look what happened in the US south from around 1873 until the mid 1960s. Especially look at 1873-1877. Notice how quickly Republican governments folded under these threats.

W

Re:A couple of corrections...

[cayenne8]

"Because in the second case it caries the transparent threat to the rest of the community: "If you don't start acting the way 'we' want you to, we will do this again." In addition to Bob being dead, you have potentially victimized the entire community.

And often the behavior that they are trying to stop is exercising basic rights, like, participating in government. The effects of hate crimes are real and devastating.

If you don't believe me, look what happened in the US south from around 1873 until the mid 1960s. Especially look at 1873-1877. Notice how quickly Republican governments folded under these threats."

I'm sorry, but, I call BS. Those are examples from a LONG time back in history, and hanging a noose somewhere today, which in poor taste....certainly is not going to have any of the widespread effects it used to have in the past. I think the minority communities are sufficiently free, empowered and active enough that this poses no real threat to them or their freedoms.

If you commit a crime against someone else, regardless of the reason the person was targeted for a crime....it is bad. It is NOT made worse if it was due to someones sexualty or race or religion. If you give those 'special' status, then you are treating them extra-equally in the law, which I'm pretty sure is against the tenets of the US constitution.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Anonymous Coward]

I basically agree with you.

To be complete, we discriminated crimes based on motivation before "hate crimes" were invented. For example, running over people with your car. You will get vastly different treatment if you back your car over your 2yo kid (by accident) than if you get pissed, put the kid behind the car and then back over him deliberately.

We've always had differing degrees of murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide, just to treat the crime of causing the death of another person. These differentiations are largely driven by the motivation of the killer (from accident through premeditated malice aforethought).

What makes "hate crimes" odious is that it effectively ascribes greater punishments based on the victims race, sex, orientation, etc. Greater punishment implies greater worth, which SHOULD be a violation of the Equal Protection clause and basic equality of man.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[BitterOak]

First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), Actually, that is not strictly true, at least in the US. Generally, if the constitutionality of a law is challenged, as would probably be the case in which freedom of speech was threatened, the Court of Appeals will generally review the case de novo. That is to say, deference doesn't have to be given to the opinion of the lower court. The appellate court can look at the case fresh, and can decide the outcome differently without pointing out a specific error made by the district court judge.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[CorSci81]

I don't think the victim's race/sex/orientation alone is sufficient to impose hate crimes penalties. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I recall reading there also has to be some evidence that the victim's race/sex/orientation was also a motivating factor in committing the crime. If you kill someone in a robbery and they just happen to be black I doubt it would be a hate crime. If there's evidence you were specifically targeting them because they were black it probably would be.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

So certain people get "special" protection.

Who said anything about a special class of people? This is about a class of discrimination. KKK guys beat up a black guy to run blacks out of town? That's a hate crime. Black gang beats up white guy to keep crackas out of their turf? That's a hate crime.

There are no special classes in this, because you fall into one or another of the partitions along a discriminatory test. This is still equal protection under the law.

If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?

I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, though, if it starts being a problem.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

They are both thoughtcrimes. You're just artificially putting more weight on being a racist over being an arsehole.

Is it "artificial" and a "thoughtcrime" to punish someone more for planning something ahead vs. doing it on the spur of the moment? To talk with someone else about it first vs. planning it all alone?

Courts and cops aren't going to solve racism by becoming thought police, but it won't stop them trying.

They're also not gonig to stop murder by becoming "nanny state anti-violence hall monitors" or whatever inflammatory propagandistic label you want to apply. But it can attenuate it.

We have to be equally intolerant of racists and plain vanilla arseholes if we value freedom of speech and thought.

It isn't illegal to be a racist, nor to be an asshole. It is illegal to act on those impulses in certain social interactions, though.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, though, if it starts being a problem.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

Your point is that allowing discrimination on the basis of some stupid "us vs. them" criteria is perfectly fine? Wow. Ok, wow.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Curunir_wolf]

Your point is that allowing discrimination on the basis of some stupid "us vs. them" criteria is perfectly fine? Wow. Ok, wow.

No - that was *your* point. I said:

it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections and privileges for their group ad infinitum.

and you said:

I'm unaware of any laws setting hair length as a prohibited basis for discrimination. Could be added, though

demonstrating my point. Get it now?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Nazlfrag]

It isn't illegal to be a racist, nor to be an asshole. So why should the penalty for crimes involving racism be harsher if racism is not illegal?

How do you seek to prosecute these hate crimes, in the extreme case everyone is in a minority of one and could legitimately cry persecution. Who do we cover, racism by the race of the victim (everyone has a race), sexism (we all have a sex), ageism (we are all relatively young or old), sexuality (we all have one). Face it, every crime ever committed could be construed as a hate crime.

We should all be equal under the eyes of the law.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

Clearly, you're too slow to understand this without having very simple words to read it from. So I shall attempt this, one last time.

The laws do not, repeat, do not, say this:

These groups are protected: blacks, gays, women...

They do say this:

You can't discriminate (in certain things) based on race, sexual preference, gender...

Do you see the difference? I'm beginning to wonder by now if you can.

The first, which is not how it is, and which you and those like you keep insisting it is, would create, as you say, a set of "special groups".

The second, which is how it actually is, specifically prevents the creation -- or continuation -- of "special groups".

If you still don't understand, I don't think you can be made to.

With that, I wash my hands of you.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

So why should the penalty for crimes involving racism be harsher if racism is not illegal?

Why should the penalty for killing involving planning ahead be harsher when planning ahead is not illegal? You might want to look up the term mens rea.

in the extreme case everyone is in a minority of one and could legitimately cry persecution

Right, because a group consisting of one person is exactly equivalent to one consisting of billions. This is why your run-of-the-mill street thug is exactly the same as, say, Hitler.

Face it, every crime ever committed could be construed as a hate crime.

Every crime ever committed was done as a way of persecuting a demographic? News to me, pal.

We should all be equal under the eyes of the law.

How is protecting all races, genders, etc. not equal protection? Come to that, how is not protecting all races, genders, etc. equal protection? Or protection at all?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Curunir_wolf]

Well now you're just being an ass. We were discussing "Hate Crime", not anti-discrimination. But go ahead and act like you don't know WTF the debate was about if you want to. But it really makes you look like an ass.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Nazlfrag]

Conspiring to commit a crime is illegal. Nice Godwin by the way, all that talk of racism I'm surprised it took that long. Look, all this talk is meaningless. I don't subscribe to the mentality that police and courts can solve social problems such as racism and other hatred of minorities. I guess you do. Let's just call it a day huh?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

Conspiring to commit a crime is illegal.

I didn't say anything about conspiring; the example was about planning ahead. But conspiracy is an equally valid example: why should it be more illegal to conspire to commit a crime than it is to simply commit the crime?

Nice Godwin by the way, all that talk of racism I'm surprised it took that long.

Yeah, I thought about going with Pol Pot, but what the hell. Not that it really is a Godwin, since I was sarcastically describing the logical conclusion of what you were arguing.

Way to ignore the point, by the way.

I don't subscribe to the mentality that police and courts can solve social problems such as racism and other hatred of minorities.

Who said anything about solving? Police and courts don't solve problems; they are supposed to clean up after them, and, with proper application, discourage future problems.

But as long as you're dismissing the idea of the law having anything to say about discrimination, why not overturn the Civil Rights Act and we can go back to "coloreds only" drinking fountains and such?

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Nazlfrag]

Say a bunch of heavy metal fans beat up some ravers because they hate their music, is that a hate crime? A bunch of kids graffitis 'school sux', hate crime? Someone jaywalks because they hate traffic lights. Hate crime? Someone litters because they hate the local council. Hate crime? Where do you draw the line on personal motivation? A nihilist who hates the world commits a crime, is that automatically hate crime? An emo who hates everything as a fashion statement commits a crime, hate crime? Everyone hates something. Vegans hate meat. Pacifists hate violence. Everyone is guilty of hate crime, that is why it should never be law.

Equality under the eyes of the law does not mean repealing civil rights, just the opposite, it mean enforcing them equally regardless of citizens personal opinions or status as a member of some group.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Atario]

You are gravely confused about the definition of a "hate crime". It isn't just a crime where someone can use the word "hate" in describing it. It is a crime intended to intimidate a class of people.

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public]

I might have been wrong in the first case, but not in the latter. Juries do not "make" law, but they can invalidate laws. If you do not think so, check the link I gave.

Compensation?

[corsec67]

When the wikileaks.org url is put back online, could they seek compensation for the lost time that they suffered as a result of that ruling?

Or could I short some stock in a company, sue them for hosting sensitive/"evil" information, and then buy the stock back when the domain gets turned into a blank page? (Use any online company here, something like child-porn on flickr would be an easy target)

Reaction

[Animats]

This is not going well for Bank Julius Baer.

Press reaction is very favorable to Wikileaks. The New York Times even published the IP address of Wikileaks. There's favorable coverage in The Associated Press, the British press, the Australian press, etc. Since it's on the AP feed, it's going to be in papers across the US tomorrow. Not much TV coverage yet.

Bank Julius Baer is trying to take their US business public. Their proposed billion dollar IPO could be derailed by these disclosures.

they're asking for it

[ILuvRamen]

You know, the more that a group of people that's deemed "evil" by the public opinion pushes to hide something that's deemed "good," the more people jump onboard and push harder to defy them. It's like a political Streisand effect. If a court tries to remove a website from the internet, it doesn't just attract attention, it pisses more people off than it would have normally. And that of course makes more people fight to defend it. There are going to be so many mirrors for that sight it's not even funny. Heck, they can e-mail me their database and page structure and I'll put it on my site cuz this whole situation is the typical court ordered bullshit :-P

Re:"World leading"?

[halycon404]

God I hate this debate. Are we as a nation arrogant. Probably, yes. Are we as individuals, arrogant. Nope. Most of us have long ago learned we've lost our edge in several areas, if we ever had an edge to begin with in those areas is still under debate. But if we aren't world leading... why is so much of the world bound and determined to follow our lead? Iraq? Guess who Europe followed there. Afganastan. Guess who Europe followed there, again. Patent laws? Well, the rest of the world seems hell bent on adopting American versions there of. Copyright? Same thing. If you want us to stop thinking we are world leaders, simply stop following. Its that simple. Our research base may not be what it was, our education system may be in the crapper, and our manufacturing may as not well exist. But if the rest of the world keeps following us into our doom... Then like as not, we are world leading. You got a couple choices, China and India have the potential to be, hell, for that matter Russia still has the potential to be.. But you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault.

Re:"World leading"?

[coaxial]

Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse. Or as the saying goes, "Freedom of Speech means nothing, if only the people you agree with are free to speak." Or as I like to put it, "It's everyone's inalienable right, to make sure that everyone knows just how stupid you are."

It would be nice!

[Mr.Ballmer]

But realistically it is not possible to control all of these crazy people in this ghetto they call the internet! http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com/

Seems everyone is misinterpreting the two orders

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted anonymously for legal analysis. The following is my opinion and my opinion only.

Every lay discussion of the orders in this case have gotten it wrong about what happened. The judge did not have second thoughts about granting the injunction. There are two orders, and they are directed at separate parties, even though they are part of the same case.

The first order is the settlement with the registrar. The registrar Dynadot settled with Bank Julius Bear to dismiss any claims BJB may have against it, in return for the permanent injunction that you see there. Dynadot agreed to do, among other things, lock the domain, disable it, preserve all DNS data, and produce all information it has about who registered the hostname and who had access to it.

This permanent injunction, between BJB and Dynadot, is not binding on Wikileaks, because Wikileaks was not a party to it. I think this is the big story here. Essentially Dynadot rolled over and settled with BJB without letting Wikileaks participate in the process or have any say whatsoever. Depending on the terms of its registration agreement, Wikileaks could very well file a complaint against Dynadot for unjustly terminating its service. Be wary of your registrars and internet service providers, because if this stands, they can agree to terminate your service without your involvement.

The second order is a temporary restraining order against Wikileaks, prohibiting them from publishing the documents at issue. They are listed at the end of the order. Unfortunately for BJB, due to the the way Wikileaks is architected, the operators of Wikileaks do not host the documents themselves, nor can they order their removal. Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences? The answer is no. "We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers." That's why those who run the company have nothing to do in response to the injunction and why the documents are still online. Wikileak's response is due tomorrow Feburary 20th at noon, and the hearing will be on Friday February 29th at 9:00am at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102 at the US Courthouse, so be sure to show up!

Re:"World leading"?

[Tom]

whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. Actually, it's a good way to get a lawsuit against you, with all the proper proceedings of a fair trial but that's beside the point. The point is that those laws were set up by the allied occupation forces after WW2. They're not really a german idea, though we've found them useful and decided to keep them. But saying the US is the champion of free speech and then using a contrast where it was them who caused that contrast to exist in the first place is a little cheap.

Re:Seems everyone is misinterpreting the two order

[Eric in SF]

I thought this was common knowledge among nerds - your registrar could yank your domain for any reason. Standard boilerplate agreement between big company and small potatoes consumer.

Dynadot's Service Agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

Peachy. Again, my opinion, and my opinion only.

2. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

You agree to be bound by Dynadot's dispute resolution policy that is incorporated herein by reference, and that is located on our web site at http://www.dynadot.com/icann_dispute.html. You agree that Dynadot, in its sole discretion and at no liability to You for any resulting loss or damage, may modify our dispute resolution policy at any time, without notice. Revised dispute resolution policies will be posted on our web site and are effective immediately. You agree that, by maintaining any service through Dynadot, after modifications to our dispute resolution policy have become effective, You have agreed to these modifications. You agree to periodically review our web site to make Yourself aware of any such revisions or changes. You agree that, if You do not agree to any modification, You may terminate this Agreement without refund or credit to You of any fees paid by You to Dynadot.

For the adjudication of any disputes brought by a third party against You concerning or arising from Your use of a domain name registered with Dynadot or Your use of our services, You (but not Dynadot) agree to submit to subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and venue of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the courts of Your domicile. You agree that in the event a dispute arises with any third party, You will indemnify, defend, and hold Dynadot harmless pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. You agree that, if Dynadot is notified that a complaint has been filed with a judicial or administrative body regarding Your use of our services, You will not make any changes to Your account or services without our prior approval, and that Dynadot may take whatever action it deems necessary, in its sole discretion, regarding modification, assignment and/or control of the service or account as necessary to comply with the actions or requirements of the judicial or administrative body. You understand and agree that Dynadot will comply, if so obligated, with all court orders, domestic or international, directed against You and/or the domain name registration.

Things are not looking good for Dynadot. I can't see anything that would enable Dynadot to enter into arbitrary settlements affecting a registrant's rights without their input or participation. They don't seem to be covered because the injunction is solely between BJB and Dynadot, not Wikileaks or their domain name. Dynadot was not compelled to enter into this agreement (i.e., entering into the settlement was not "necessary to comply" with any court action); it appears to have been entirely voluntary.

Grim future

[thatblackguy]

Kazakhstan....rather than block sites, it slows them down, frustrating the users of political content into looking elsewhere. A practical example of why we need net neutrality and what happens without it.

The court order that muzzled Wikileaks.org (covered here) was prompted not by the government but by a bank registered in the Cayman Islands. That just adds insult to injury. As if the local corporations weren't enough, other companies can mess with your freedom of speech. I also like how they quote it's still available from the link http://88.80.13.160/ or the other http://www.wikileaks.be/

No, the terms are specified in the contract.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a still a contractual relationship, and the contract would be unenforceable if the registrar could truly yank the domain for any arbitrary reason. See this comment.

Re:No, the terms are specified in the contract.

[Eric in SF]

I see the point being made about the fact that Dynadot made this agreement voluntarily rather than being ordered, but my point was more to the distrust of courts around the world. I am not aware of any country where registrars operate that give the registrar the legal right to disobey a court order. And the reality of today's world is that the party with the most money/power/influence usually prevails in court, at least until there have been a few appellate review rounds, regardless of whether that party is really in the right. Anyone making a controversial stand that is opposed by government or big business better have a fallback plan B, C, D, etc. to cover what happened today.

I'm waiting for a US court to order ISPs to filter content entering the USA at the packet level - that'll be fun fireworks to watch. I believe this scenario was mentioned if Sealand ever took off as a haven for offshore internet gambling.

I made that point myself.

[Jane Q. Public]

Try the link.

Re:"World leading"?

[Mr2001]

Patent laws? Well, the rest of the world seems hell bent on adopting American versions there of. Copyright? Same thing. If you want us to stop thinking we are world leaders, simply stop following. [...] you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault. Er.. you think the people of those other countries are rising up and demanding to follow us into granting more power to copyright and patent holders?

You don't think, maybe, American corporations are pushing those countries down the same path they've already pushed the US down?

Re:"World leading"?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a really bad example of suppression of free speech. The Strafgesetzbuch allows Nazi symbolism and songs to be used in educational settings and in an anti-Nazi context, and Germany had very good reasons for wanting to stop hatred like the Third Reich gaining a foothold again.

Re:"World leading"?

[Ardaen]

If you want to go onto the list of continents to be fucked over, let us know. This is why the USA gets compared to a playground bully.
Reading that line its not hard to believe or understand where the parent quote comes from:

Barely tolerably backwards and getting worse is more the perception in Europe. I'm just hoping you where aiming at humorously proving that point and are just a bit too subtle... but I fear not.

You're wrong... it *is* a good ting

[tkrotchko]

"I am not saying that [...] a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing"

Oh, I would say that.

"Hate Speech" is not defined. It simply means speech that is offensive to someone. Almost by definition, this type of law runs counter to the idea and ideals of free speech. It can easily be abused by political enemies, by a government that doesn't want criticism, or by one group to silence another.

Re:You're wrong... it *is* a good ting

[KDR_11k]

It doesn't mean offensive, it means designed to incite hatred towards a segment of the population based on an arbitrary distinction. Inciting hatred is much different from just insulting someone.

Re:"World leading"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it because the Germans have a natural hatred of minorities and a love of gas chambers?

Re:"World leading"?

[XavidX]

Think of a country as a system. Or even perhaps the whole world. Who is running the system. The Government??? perhaps. Large Corporations?? perhaps. Or maybe it is many things. Maybe the system is so complex that it runs itself and is out of control.

I believe that what is fucking everything up for everyone is greedy individuals, greedy governments, and greedy corporations and everybody else who just does not care about the average Joe. If the average public opinion mattered, things may be a bit different.

Re:"World leading"?

[halycon404]

I understand the world isn't mostly black and white, that the vast majority is gray. At some level of removal though, it doesn't matter why a person, or a country, does something. They either did something, or they didn't do something. They made a choice, for either good or bad, and for whatever reasons given; the choice was still made. It doesn't matter why you did it, doesn't matter what internal and external pressures were involved, doesn't matter if most of the people involved really wanted it. It only matters that you did it... or in this case... Are doing it.

Nifty peace of American History. When Congress voted to go into WWII, every sitting member of the house voted for the war.. except one. Its probably the most famous congressional vote ever made. Fist fights broke out over this vote, letters got sent in anger to the representative. It didn't matter why she did it, only that she voted against fighting the people who bombed Pearl Harbor, and sunk the Lusitania. Personally, I think it was one of the more noble votes ever cast in the history of the US political system. She voted against it because by her beliefs, no country should ever decide unanimously to send its sons to die in a war. But no one cared about why at the time, only that it was done.

Re:"World leading"?

[Mr2001]

At some level of removal though, it doesn't matter why a person, or a country, does something. They either did something, or they didn't do something. They made a choice, for either good or bad, and for whatever reasons given; the choice was still made. It doesn't matter why you did it, doesn't matter what internal and external pressures were involved, doesn't matter if most of the people involved really wanted it. And at some other level of removal, there's no person, no country, no reason or logic - just a bunch of atoms bouncing around the universe. But that's not a very useful way to think about human ethics either, is it?

The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 judge.

[Futurepower(R)]

Shihar, I agree with what you said. However, it seems to me that people, including you, don't deal with abuse very well.

Note that the grandparent comment to this one, which is your extremely sensible observations, is moderated 0, Flamebait, and the parent comment, which is a minor and obvious correction you wrote, is +3, Informative. That's crazy.

The "one minor judge" has succeeded in stopping most access to the WikiLeaks site, except for technically knowledgeable people. That shows the mood of the U.S. government. There is no cry from the U.S. government to restore free speech.

The problem is not just "one minor judge". It is an entire governmental culture of corruption. See this thread in another Slashdot story (which includes comments I wrote): The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption. That comment is moderated "60% Insightful, 40% Flamebait" as I write this. Perhaps 60% of the readers understand the issues, and 40% want to avoid thinking about abusive situations.

In actuality, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can make no law against free speech. It doesn't say that the U.S. government cannot allow misleading speech, or do other things to prevent free expression. The governmental guarantee is much weaker than most people realize. The power of the rich who want corruption is much stronger than most people realize.

Knowing fondness for defense of free speech

[mapkinase]

Knowing fondness for defense of free speech of Western media one would think that all the material at Wikileaks would be immediately copied on the front pages of all major Scandinavian newspapers. Anybody had any links to those newspapers?

Re:"World leading"?

[halycon404]

Ethics change, which was the point of the second paragraph. Ethically, that vote cast by Jeanette Rankin.. was wrong according to the vast majority of Americans. It ended her political career, and almost started a riot on the Congressional steps. 60 years later though, its considered one of the most ethically important things ever done by a member of Congress. It is vitally important to be able to look at something from a step in removal; to say an action was either taken, or not taken, for whatever reason were given or not given. To remove yourself from the controversy of the times, and the long view of history. Its only then that you are able to decide for yourself, if something is right, or wrong.

Everyone here, is one form or another of geek. Science geek, math geek, computer geek, what have you. What is the first thing we do when given a problem? We study the problem. We don't look for answers, we don't make judgement calls on if the problem is solvable, we don't even try to solve it. We want all the data we can get on the problem itself, before we start trying to figure out how to solve or fix the problem.

Same thing.

More alternative links. Excerpts from the story.

[Futurepower(R)]

More alternative links, besides www.wikileaks.be:
www.wikileaks.ws
www.wikileaks.cx

WikiLeaks information about the story at the Sunshine Press copy of WikiLeaks: Cayman Tax Avoidance.

The way WikiLeaks recommends to find stories about the censorship: Google News.

Excellent article: Wikileaks' Leaked Documents Blocked But Unbowed. I got all the above information from that article.

Quotes from the Cryptome.org story mentioned in the parent comment:

"The website WikiLeaks.org has been taken off line in many parts of the world. "

"Several factors have taken the site off line including DDoS attacks, which was followed by a fire which took out the main servers hosting the site in Sweden..."

Wikileaks previously published hundreds of documents obtained from a whistleblower of the Swiss Bank, "purportedly showing offshore tax evasion and money laundering by extremely wealthy and in some cases, politically sensitive, clients from the US, Europe, China and Peru."

Re:"World leading"?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

"But saying the US is the champion of free speech and then using a contrast where it was them who caused that contrast to exist in the first place..."

Look back further, to the events leading to the allied occupation of Germany, to see who caused what.

Re:"World leading"?

[Mr2001]

It is vitally important to be able to look at something from a step in removal; to say an action was either taken, or not taken, for whatever reason were given or not given. To remove yourself from the controversy of the times, and the long view of history. Its only then that you are able to decide for yourself, if something is right, or wrong. Luckily, our legal system doesn't take that view. If you're pressured into signing a contract under duress, the courts don't wait around for the detached historians of the future to decide whether it should be enforced or not: they conclude, just from the fact that you were pressured, that you can't be held responsible for this "choice" because you didn't really have a choice.

Re:The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 jud

[Yaa 101]

Yes, part of the problems of the US people is that they can't stand critics and intellectuals, it's their own fault that they are in such a mess.

Re:"World leading"?

[dargaud]

Iraq? Guess who Europe followed there. Hmmm, they followed France for the most part IIRC ?

Re:"World leading"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is fair to say that if America didn't impose its will on others, there would be very few nations following America as you say.

OP is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

OP is correct.

If I say that illegal mexican immigration is a bad thing and they're ruining social services, education etc etc, that is considered "hate speech" by a lot of people. Particularly if I say "I think they should all be rounded up and sent back".

What is "inciting hate"? Completely arbitrary.

It's nonsense.

Re:OP is correct

[KDR_11k]

"a lot of people" != "the law".

Re:"World leading"?

[p0tat03]

But that's the antithesis of freedom of speech and freedom of creed. We all agree that Nazism is a Bad Thing, but the mark of a truly free society is to allow people to believe in these things, even if it is ostensibly bad.

RSF methodology has issues

[MyNameIsFred]

I have issues with the RSF methodology. They conflate two problems, government suppression of speech and other groups suppressing speech. For example, Italy fares poorly not because of government action but because "journalists continue to be under threat from mafia groups." And one of the strikes against the US is the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which appears to have been a criminal act due to his investigation of "Your Black Muslim Bakery," and not due to government suppression. Only a fraction of the issues are directly due to the government, for example the jailing of Josh Wolf because of his refusal to turn over video tapes subpoenaed in an arson investigation. And in that example, there is plenty of grey. My point, is that the RSF rankings need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Re:RSF methodology has issues

[Lemmy Caution]

I think it is correct to look at a society's level of freedom, rather than just a government's. It is an index of the actual freedom of thought and discourse in that culture. After all, many countries have very open-seeming constitutions, but have para-military or other semi-official organizations which crush dissent. The use of civil law to squelch discussion is as serious as the use of criminal law to do so, at least from the perspective of the open exchange of ideas.

Re:RSF methodology has issues

[MyNameIsFred]

While it might be legitimate to look at a society's level of freedom, I don't believe the RSF study does this in any meaningful way. How do you do a meaningfully compare the impact of the mafia in Italy to the murder of Chauncey Bailey by a criminal organization in the US? Both are criminal organizations, but how do you compare their impact? And does this relate to a blogger, Josh Wolf, who may not have the protections that a reporter has in protecting sources? Is the RSF seriously saying that because someone talks about something in a blog, that the courts cannot subpoena the blogger for information relevant to a trial? While I think blogging requires some protection, an unlimited ability to avoid subpoenas by saying I'm a blogger would bring the court system to a stand still. My point, the disparate examples cited by RSF are impossible to quantify and rate. There are many reasonable questions about which is a more serious problem - the mafia, a murder, a subpoena? Hence their ratings are meaningless.

Slashdot is no longer worth reading

[smitth1276]

Unfortunately, the tone of the posted articles nowadays is just as naive and simplistic as the majority of the commenters--you are an excellent example. When commenters collectively and simplistically complain that 40% of people don't agree with their juvenile worldview and therefore "want to avoid thinking about abusive situations", you have a problem. Lay off the silly demogogic rhetoric and take a long look at yourself. Try to be a little more intellectually curious. Try to understand opposing views, rather than dismissing them. It may make you feel a little less "cool" on slashdot, but ultimately you will be a better and more informed person.

As an exercise, why don't you try to play devil's advocate right now, and explain in non-sarcastic, intelligent language why the court might have taken the position that the site should be shut down? Let's see how well you understand the issue, or whether you are merely one of the "X% who want to avoid thinking".

Re:"World leading"?

[Tom]

Look back further, to the events leading to the allied occupation of Germany, to see who caused what.

As far as I know, Nazi symbols were not illegal during the Third Reich. :-)

Corporate government? Judge the judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no government involvement in the shutdown. A judge ordered the shutdown. I'm sure if you look at the judge's record you'll find a record of a liberal judges-can-write-laws behavior. Natter at the judge.

Re:Seems everyone is misinterpreting the two order

[__aailob1448]

Thanks for clarifying.

Re:"World leading"?

[das_schmitt]

Was this text written by a heuristic generator? wtf XD

What's the difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the civil court says you must pay damages and you can't afford it, you're homeless and penniless. If they get a restriction on you against saying it, it IS government power that will put your sorry ass in jail if you break it. If you tell the court that your speech is not illegal and intend to continue doing it, the court will use government privilege to put you in jail for contempt (what if the court deserves contempt?).

If the CoS silence you while you're leading up to the court case, they will be using government privilege to stop you talking. Failing to stop then brings you up against the government.

So in what way is this not government censorship? Without government help, the could not silence you.

Re:"World leading"?

[shentino]

Unfortunately, duress is an affirmative defense that you have to raise yourself...and if the person putting you under duress does a nice enough job of sweeping the evidence under the rug, you're screwed.

Sorta like being held indefinitely by the FBI as a terrorist until you confess, and you are tortured without witnesses.

Good luck recanting, some guy already tried that and failed.

Slashdot is no longer worth reading? Don't read it

[Futurepower(R)]

Title of your comment: "Slashdot is no longer worth reading"

Then don't read it! And certainly don't post comments.

"Try to understand opposing views, rather than dismissing them." I agreed with Shihar's view, as I mentioned. I just added what I considered to be more insight.

I disagree with what you said. I am trying to dramatize what I consider to be extreme corruption in the U.S. government.

The best source of research I've found is Cooperative Research History Commons.

What are the redeeming features of Naziism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any? So far as I can see, it's all about how a few people are the Master Race and everyone else is the cause of all their problems.

Hang on, sounds like CoS. Did "El" nicj the idea from Hitler???

Anyway, there's no upside to being united in hate.

Re:What are the redeeming features of Naziism?

[p0tat03]

The trick with censorship is that it will always be a double-edged sword. For every hatemonger you squelch, the law will be perverted to squelchy a legitimate complaint. I for one would rather have some annoying, hateful folk about, than to quiet legitimate discontent.

Not to mention "freedom of speech" is not "freedom to speak what society in general feels is worthy and non-threatening". Freedom of speech should not come with caveats and exceptions. The only restraints on it should be where the speech is unjustly and materially causing damage to someone else (i.e. your right to free speech interferes with someone else's inalienable right).

Corporations ARE Persons?! wtf?

[GeekZilla]

Corporations are not people.

I know that. You know that. Everyone knows that. Except, we are all wrong.

"This is the text of the 1886 Supreme Court decision granting corporations the same rights as living persons under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Quoting from David Korten's The Post-Corporate World, Life After Capitalism (pp.185-6):"

"In 1886, . . . in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitutions affords to any person. Because the Constitution makes no mention of corporations, it is a fairly clear case of the Court's taking it upon itself to rewrite the Constitution. Far more remarkable, however, is that the doctrine of corporate personhood, which subsequently became a cornerstone of corporate law, was introduced into this 1886 decision without argument. According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that:"

"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does."

"The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that:"

"The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

Call me crazy, but that is one of the most stupid things the Supreme Court ever decided. I think I understand where they were going, but the precedent they set is really scary and, I am sure, has something to do with the rise of coporate power and influence in America today.

That, and all their money

Re:Corporations ARE Persons?! wtf?

[electrictroy]

Yeah that does seem silly. I would describe a corporation as a "Dictatorship" or "Oligarchy" wherein just the CEO or Board of Directors have a voice, and the employees underneath have none (they must follow the corporate dictates, or else be fired).

I don't think the courts should be granting dictatorships/oligarchies the same legal protections as a person. On the contrary, such dictatorial arrangements that seek to diminish the employee to the level of a "serf" should have no legal status whatsoever. For example, the corporation may speak, but that speech may be revoked, because they are non-free, non-democratic organizations.

Corporations should have revocable privileges, not rights.

Oh Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off your crack addled ass and point out so much as a singular reference that jury nullification has ever been successfully accomplished.

Judges dismiss this courtroom strategy off hand and never look back for every time they are forced to deal with the notion, full well know the defendant is a certifiable crackpot in need of remediation that only long stays in the nearest loony bin provide.

You must be young.

Re:Oh Please ...

[Enlightenment]

William Penn.

Re:The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 jud

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What the hell would you know? You're talking out of your ass. I'd mod you up if I hadn't already posted in this thread.
The idiots who modded you flamebait are only proving your (and the GP's) point.

Bullshit and lacking context

[Anonymous Coward]

The Swedish government ordered the removal of a site displaying the Muhammed caricatures. They were immediately removed.

Belgium has banned an entire fucking political party, compare that with taking a website offline.

The people writing this article, and the summary, are brainless idiots. Or people with special interests who will gain from hyperbole and FUD.

Re:"World leading"?

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

:-))

They did sue

[mosb1000]

There's a difference between losing your court case, and not being allowed to have one at all. In this case, the ACLU won the case, then lost on appeal, then the Supreme Court rejected a final appeal.

ironic

[globaljustin]

i know...irony...i write a post about how everyone should have basic internet skills, and then I fuck up the html tags for the blockquote...

"World leading"? No indeed.

[Captain_Chaos]

Wow. Who modded this tripe "insightful"? That's the highest concentration of bullshit I've seen in a long time!

Yes, most of you as individuals are arrogant as well as ignorant; a very dangerous combination. Your post is an excellent illustration of the point. "Europe" does some of the same things as the US. Because you are ignorant you have no idea why this happens, and because you are arrogant you just assume it must be Europe following the US.

To pick one: Europe did not follow the US into Iraq. The only European country with any significant contribution to the illegal war there was the UK. The rest of Europe recognized that it was a dumb idea and wisely stayed out of it. Only now that the US has thoroughly fucked it up and made the world a more dangerous place are countries stepping in to help pick up the pieces.

To pick another: Europe is not following the US with regards to copyright legislation. Both the US and Europe are implementing the same international WIPO copyright treaty.

To pick yet a third: Europe is doing the opposite of adopting American patent law, for instance when it comes to software patents, which are not enforceable in Europe.

There was a time when the US was world-leading when it came to freedom and democracy. That time is long gone. Now the US is just using its lingering economic and military power to meddle and interfere in the rest of the world. Don't mistake that for "leading".

I agree

[Reziac]

...with you completely (in fact, I'm stealing your post to quote elsewhere :)

The concept of "hate crimes" is itself discriminatory, and IMO ultimately makes any existing issues with racism (ie. tribalism) worse. Indeed, I would posit that the longterm result is to make inverse crimes acceptable:

It's not okay if whites beat someone up because they're black.

But it has become socially "okay" if blacks beat someone up because they're white.**

And that creates racial resentment, EVEN IF IT DID NOT PREVIOUSLY EXIST.

Thus the concept of "hate crimes" may successfully target a certain negative behaviour in the short run, but it encourages it in the long run.

========

** Ask anyone who fled South Africa after the end of apartheid made S.A. more unsafe for whites than it ever was for blacks.

No straw man here!

[Jane Q. Public]

Not at all. Laws that punish -- OR empower -- certain people over others based on race or creed or other such factors are DISCRIMINATORY! By the very definition of same. There is no "straw man" argument about that, nor for that matter do I much care what the INTENDED PURPOSE of the law is. It is still discriminatory. The best intentions in the world still do not justify bad laws.

When you create special classes of people who are able to do more -- or less -- than other people in the same society, then you are making a mistake. When you punish criminals more or less depending on WHO they committed the crime against, then you are doing just that. Regardless of the intent of the law.

Quote: "As far as I know, the hate crime laws don't say "blacks are protected but not whites". Or whatever X vs. Y you want. Neither are there reverse cases (any more)."

Then you must not live in California, where a couple of years ago or so a judge ruled that a man who claimed minority status because he was a white male (a REAL minority in California now), would be denied because his "group" of people had not suffered "historical discrimination". Pardon me, I do not have a citation, but that one should not be too hard to find.

Quote: "You can ignore whatever you want; those with inconsistent views often do, in order to preserve them." Hmmm... MY views are inconsistent? I am the one saying that it is not acceptable to discriminate no matter what way the discrimination points. You are arguing that it is acceptable to apply laws to people differently based solely on someone's minority status. Just who is being inconsistent here?

Be that as it may, it is THAT argument that is the "straw man". I mentioned nothing of "levels of punishment" based on the severity of the crime. The topic was levels of punishment based on the minority status of the victim. Those are two very different subjects.

Your later argument that it is a "case of the exact same phenomenon" is simply false. You describe the difference between a fatal accident and intentional murder. The difference there is the existence of intent to commit a crime. That has nothing whatever to do with deciding to rob or kill a rich white-anglo-saxon-protestant versus deciding to rob or kill a poor-black-jew. In that scenario (which is actually relevant to the discussion), intent exists in both cases. Legally (and ethically, and morally) that is a completely different situation than the one you described.

And finally, quote:

"So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other? That John Wayne Gacy should have received exactly the same punishment as an elderly man who screwed up in his car and ran down the same number of people at a farmer's market?"

And quote:

"Whatever benefit of the doubt you wish to confer on me, the condescension remains unappreciated."

No, sir. I merely pointed out where there were flaws in your arguments, quite impersonally. YOU were the party who was being accusatory, insulting, and condescending. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt, that such was not intended. Now I am not so sure.

If you really want me to be condescending, just ask. I will oblige you.