Slashdot Mirror
Will Australia Follow China's Google Ban?
gadgetopia writes "A news report in Forbes says that China has blocked Google with its great firewall; now the world waits to see if Australia's Minister for Censorship, Senator Stephen Conroy, will do the same following his outrageous attacks on Google."
Politics might be stupid in Australia, like lots of places. But no, it won't go the same was as China.
We have transparency and rule of law.
However fucked out Communications Minister might be.
--Q
Only a matter of time until the former discredits himself like the latter did. His railing against Google makes him sound foolish.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
...one of the top google search results for "Stephen Conroy" being the less than flattering http://stephen-conroy.com/
Do you mean *Bing* it on ?
(I know.. sorry.. you may mod me down as appropriate).
More like Google decided to punch the guy in the face and get thrown out. I suppose this is more appropriate when the other team has taken a liking to unwanted groping of the cheerleaders....
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Ok, so Google has this "safe search" setting. Presumably if safe search is turned off at least some of what it returns will be material subject to bans in Australia. So it seems that is a perfect justification for banning Google, or at least requiring that Google queries pass through a government-controlled proxy server that can ensure that safe-search is always turned on.
Furthermore Australia has not had the best record of transparency regarding censorship either. For example, 9 Songs was given permission for screening but Comstock Films' documentaries were not, despite those documentaries winning awards (both contain graphic, explicit sexual content). Given that the government won't let citizens see what they are banning, what makes you confident that this won't be exercised in arbitrary ways?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
That's not a firewall...
That's a firewall. :)
coffee | nose > keyboard
"Hillary, Hold on a minute while I put my pants back on. I can explain."
Okay maybe not the greatest, but to me the coolest.
No infrastructure
Nobody is going to enforce it
No company wants all the phone calls saying "I can't access Google" broadband margins are that bad on a per customer basis, the moment they phone rings from a customer they are losing money.
Not going to happen
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
What about censorship of political, religious, and controversial viewpoints? This is about Freedom of expression and Freedom of communication more than it is about any single issue. If the blocking were voluntary so that people could decide individually if their internet should be censored, I could understand. If the black list were publicly available so that people inside and outside the country could audit what is being blocked, I could maybe understand. If the previously leaked block list hadn't included material that they had claimed wasn't going to be blocked, I could maybe, just possibly agree with you.
As it stands, you have a government organization which will have the ability to block any website that they want without warning or explanation. There will be no way for people inside the firewall to know what is and what isn't being blocked. And said government organization has already been shown to be either incompetent or nefarious regarding what is being added to the blacklist. It's a bad situation, and it in fact does trample on human rights.
Certainly. Microsoft provides filtering / censorship solutions since 2006 and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donates millions to groups like "Save the Children" that lobby for blocking child pornography.
PS. Be careful - you could end up arguing for publicly financed, non-profit news sources.
when your economy is trashed by greedy speculation then fear and hysteria. that's what sent germany to the dogs: the great depression, the collapse of the financial world
aka, what the world just experiences in 2008 (on a much smaller scale, true)
but this historical parallel leads us to four observations:
1. the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger, IS kristallnacht, on a smaller scale
2. intolerant deluded propagandized fools hording guns in the woods are the seeds of fascism, NOT our protectors from fascism
3. we need strong government regulation in the financial sector, and the assholes (greenspan and co) who dismantled the 1930s era (irony) protections need to be grilled a la congressional hearings and roundly castigated for their dangerous irresponsibility
4. hopefully the world, and the usa, can weather this horde of angry morons out of work, the seeds of fascism, without them crystallizing around some modern day hitler-like demagogue and mounting a political (and visceral: they love guns) challenge to civilization. and then let the retards fade away into history
interesintg note: many tea partiers receive government benefits (unemployment, medicaid)... while they rail against government aid. they go to tea party rallies... instead of looking for work. fucking ignorant hypocrites
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I don't know. It's still Google turning round to a country and saying "Your laws are wrong". If Google tomorrow decided that actually they were fully in favor of something we see as universally despicable (child porn, say), we'd be all up in arms about Google being immoral and acting counter to the rules of our country, I don't think anyone would be claiming that actually Google are fighting the good fight for internet freedom, and child porn images should be allowed to be distributed freely. It just depends where you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable. Google's line is pretty far from Australia's, and far closer to that of most of the rest of the west.
First, Australia's censorship regimen is directed almost exclusively at sexually explicit content. It's not that different from obscenity law here in the US, except that the government (rather than a committee of twelve specially selected for their lack of qualifications) gets to make the decision. So I think the Australian censorship purpose is not directed at political viewpoints, etc. However, the fact that it is centrally managed makes it open to abuse. Believe it or not, we went through a lot of the same sort of crap during the Reagan Years and the Meese Commission. Thank goodness our courts stepped in (here in the US) and put an end to some of those abuses.
At the same time, I am not entirely sure the situation in the US, post-Miller v. California, is much better. Miller basically allowed individual communities what sexually explicit content they wanted to be allowed. This means that individual communities can serve as venues for attempts to censor the porn market in the US. The Meese Commission made great use of this, usually bringing prosecution against porn companies in as many jurisdictions as they could trying to force either bankrupcy due to defence fees or a conviction somewhere (anywhere!). Of course charges would be dropped if the defendant would sign away his/her Constitutional rights...... Lawyers involved said "we never lost a case." (That is, until they went after "Adam and Eve" and that company countersued... The government lost the countersuit and had to drop charges.) Eventually this tactic was declared to be Unconstitutional but only because of the terms of the proposed settlements. The idea of multi-jurisdictional is not entirely foreclosed. All we need is an overreaching executive and they could do something worse: instead of filtering the internet, they could put folks in jail.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If the US passed a law mandating filtered internet to only filter child porn websites, then refused to publish a list of which sites were blocked, then leaked the list by accident and it was found that the list included many sites that had nothing to do with child porn, you can bet your ass I'd be up in arms over that law and I imagine so would Google and a lot of other people.
Freedom of Expression is a factor of your country's culture. Not every culture believes it's so great. And even the USA censors many stupid things -- like a naked Bart Simpson. Go figure, he's twenty years old, but he looks like a fourth-grader, and so it's considered child porn and illegal to draw a naked cartoon.
You think Freedom of Expression is important. And you like in a country that agrees with you. If it didn't, you would leave. Others would not.
And either way, that's not to say that your culture is the better way. You don't get to control aliens -- terrestrial or otherwise. Your vote simply doesn't count in other countries. It's that simple -- and no one asked you.
That's exactly what we're claiming. Google believes that information should be free, not controlled by those in power for their own ends, and it has shown a willingness to fight for that freedom.
Before you say "But it's only kiddy porn!" just ask yourself how often bad and self serving legislation is passed under the mantra that it's "for the children"?
I read the internet for the articles.
It's still Google turning round to a country and saying "Your laws are wrong".
Of course. And Google (and everybody else) should do exactly that to every country whose laws are wrong
Now, most laws are really neither right or wrong in this sense, they're just different ways of doing things - but if you believe in right and wrong in the first place, you cannot avoid considering some laws to be wrong as well (against human rights, say) and then you should say so and and act accordingly, whoever or whatever you are.
As for child porn, the proper reason for banning it isn't the (admittedly disgusting) nature of the material as such but the fact that making it is child abuse. If you think it's just an arbitrary line between what kind of material is and what isn't acceptable as such, you're already too far down the slippery slope. Remember the Australian MP wanted to ban sex films with small-breasted women because they'd titillate pedophiles?
That woman was Saturday Night Live alumna Victoria Jackson. Made me wonder if she wasn't intentionally trolling Fox in some sort of lame attempt at guerrilla comedy to resuscitate her non-existent career.
It's kind of sad that our country has that large a group of people dumb enough that their well-founded ire can be so crassly misdirected like that.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Your argument is the same as the Pitcairn island rapists. ...as one of their defense.
They claimed it was in their culture to rape 12 year old girls
So should you respect that and let that happen ?
paranoid idiots with guns, not the government
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There's the problem right there: In a free society it's supposed to be a stewardship, not a dictatorship.
I highly doubt most citizens of a free country want their government to restrict where they can go online, much less censor via a secret list.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
This is about Freedom of expression and Freedom of communication more than it is about any single issue.
Ok, but if a country doesn't feel that their people have that right, who gives Google a right to usurp it?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
there's no fascism in somalia for example. it is a utopia of people free of government living in happiness and prosperity. unlike socialist european countries with their silly concern for the common good, mired in poverty and misery
and i am sorry for smearing the tea party the way i do. clearly, i have absolutely zero evidence of any tea party anger. it's a meek polite debate society of highly intelligent philosophers. all of their language and actions is something out of '60s love in. and i have absolutely zero, zero! proof to the contrary. i apologize deeply for my horrible misunderstandings
pfffffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Erm.. did you see the simpsons movie? It wasn't censored.
It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.
Clearly [insert company who off-shored work to China]'s don't respect a country's right to manage their own laws. If I ran a country, and enacted some laws, and law a company refusing to follow my laws in my country, yeah I'd ban them, of course.
A country's laws, and culture, are their own to set, and not to be controlled by any outside nation. Sure we'll make exceptions for real human rights like food and water and torture. But censorship of illegal material and such doesn't come anywhere close.
*Of course, the nice irony is of course that China has a horrible record when it comes to "real" human rights--as if there were fake human rights.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
A counter argument to this goes as follows.
We as people give up control of certain functions to the government. The control is given in a semi-voluntary fashion (unless your one of the founders of the government). As such the right to dissent against the rules and laws of the government is heightened from a privilege to a basic human right.
Without this right the government can impose undue hardship and often devolves into totalitarian rules, regardless of where it started (Chavez says hi).
As a race(human) we have decided in the last 75 years to highlight and spread the gospel of basic human rights for all people, across cultural and national borders. It is true we do not have a vote in another country but other impacts from such crusading are tangible and can cause change. It depends on a lot of factors, but it can happen.
This is how someone can come to the conclusion that regardless of local law or culture, censorship is a human rights issue.
I am not saying I agree with this 100%,(I have given it some thought and there is a great deal of merit in the premise). I am just saying that your blanket statement is not accurate and does not address the nuances of the issue.
there's some very polite well tempered tea party activists
but what is the basis of tea party passion?: anger. anger at the government
you don't have a large movement whose root emotion is anger, without violence somewhere. which we've already seen, and will see more of. its inevitable. the way you talk, the tea part is some sort of philosophical debate society. sell that bullshit elsewhere please
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Knowledge is just as much a real human right as food and water and torture.
are you entirely certain that wasn't genuine?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
You certainly agree with Nazi Germany government to punish a foreign information company which refuses to deliver information that could identify people of jewish origin.
If you had went back to Germany in the 20's and told them that within 20 years, their country would elect one of the most intolerant demagogues and world history as dictator and begin systematically committing the genocide of a sizable portion of their population, they would have laughed at the thought.
They might not have expected actual genocide (I mean, no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition), but Weimar Germany was never a stable polity and everyone knew it. There was a monarchy before the war, which might not be Slashdot's favorite form of government, but it only got worse thereafter. The Kaiser's abdication in 1918 was immediately followed by violence in the streets between leftists and nationalists (who eventually all threw in their lot with the Nazis). There was even a short-lived "People's Republic of Bavaria" around this time, as well as the founding of the Nazi party itself. The various rebellions were eventually put down and replaced by the perpetually weak Weimar Republic, but they continued to operate. The brutal provisions of the Versailles treaty kept the country in a state of perpetual depression throughout the twenties (the famous hyperinflation was in 1923), causing widespread political discontent, characterized by street fights between socialists and nationalists. The government was already harassing leftist media outlets by the late 20's, before the Nazis even took power.
They might have been intellectually sophisticated, but politically and economically sophisticated they were not. I know Australia and the UK hate freedom a lot, so I'm not saying it couldn't happen there, but the situation in Weimar Germany is really not at all comparable.
I wanna see him do it, mostly to see what happens to him and how fast.
http://pinopsida.com
i stopped reading there
the usa has plenty of problems
but if you believe the usa government is fascist, in any way, simply means you're low iq, highly propagandized, and beneath the intellectual charity of paying anymore attention to your ignorance
please wake the fuck up from your delusions
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When people finally realize that 100 million free thinkers can overwhelm any government regardless of the consequences, then it will become interesting. However, weaning these people off their bread and circuses is the issue. Denying access to the mainstream circus ie. google, stumbleupon, 4chan etc... only creates the incentive to find alternative diversions. The greatest fear of any government is to lose the attention of the captivated. Boredom begets excitement.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
and refuting him on his points directly. there is violence in the tea party movement. the grandparent denies it, i assert it as simple truth, as any perusal of any reputable news source to your liking will show. any other confusions of yours you need help clearing up?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Your vote simply doesn't count in other countries.
Assuming citizens of said countries have a vote in the first place. And a vote counts for jack shit when government strangles the media. Like North Korea; it's illegal to say that Tiger Woods is a better golfer than Kim Jong-Il. I guess you might say, "That's their culture of autocracy; deal with it!" but I'm more inclined to say, "That's terrorizing bullshit."
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I demand my right to torture! ;-)
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
In Australia, people would care. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just move to Baidu.
I though this was just a glitch on Google's part: Google issued a statement at its headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., that said: “Lots of users in China have been unable to search on Google.com.hk today. This blockage seems to have been triggered by a change on Google’s part.”
and i stand against it, and it disgusts me
but if you think the current situation in the usa is anything even remotely what went on in mussolini's italy, or hitler's germany, or franco's spain, you are simply unintelligent
we do not live in a fascism. really
the usa has plenty of problems, but these incredibly crude equatings that you are making with fascism does not even remotely describe the reality you live in. but they do adequately describe a lack of mental capacity on your part
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
they'd just divert all Google requests to a proxy server that would do some extra filtering on both the request and response side......
If they actually blocked Google, many Australians would think they just went too far. Not like anyone uses Google to search for porn or anything (or at least that's probably not what most Australians think) ;-)
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'll bet Bing Crosby's ghost is really pissed about his name being used this way.
String theorist announces that he can explain everything.
--
Powered by heat from rabbit on the moon.
What, you filed a buck report?
Here be signatures
What about censorship of political, religious, and controversial viewpoints? This is about Freedom of expression and Freedom of communication more than it is about any single issue.
I was under the impression that, constitutionally and legally speaking, Australia recognizes neither as a right.
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
First they blocked the child porn sites,
and I didn't speak up because I abhore child abuse.
Then they blocked all gay sex sites,
and I didn't speak up because I'm not gay.
Then they blocked all the sites that support terrorists,
and I didn't speak up because I forgot that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Then they blocked all porn sites,
and I didn't speak up because I like my sex real.
Then they blocked all the all political sites,
and I didn't speak up because who reads those things anyway?
Then they blocked all the web sites complaining about the blocking,
and I couldn't speak up.
(Apologies to Martin Niemöller)
Do as you would be done to.
You broke my eyeballs.
Reply to That ||
To be perfectly honest, Google can do whatever the fuck they want. If they say or do things that are illegal in the countries they operate in or that simply piss off the governments of those countries then the countries have every right to stop them doing business there and/or take legal action against them. Conversely, if Google don't like things that governments are doing in countries they are operating in then they too are free to withdraw their services (á la China).
If it were another *government* saying or doing the above then I could understand people getting worked up about it, but this is a private company and, barring illegal acts, they are free to do whatever they want, subject ultimately to the will of their shareholders. I'm not saying that's a good thing per se - just look at all the companies that screw customers to make more money for the shareholders - but that's how it is.
No, they didn't act irresponsibly. It's bad business for a bank to give out a loan to someone who's unlikely to pay it off - hence why those people were denied loans and the government created the CRA to strong-arm banks into making those loans. What's good for the bank (meaning increasing profits) is to NOT give out loans to people unlikely to pay it off.
I beg you, learn something about economics, finance, or banking in general (as in read a textbook). All you're doing is making yourself look ridiculous by spouting off irrelevant crap and insults instead of learning how the industry actually works.
they're introducing new (same as the old) REG-U-LA-TIONS so it doesn't happen again. because REG-U-LA-TIONS will fix the problem. DUH
If you knew anything about the history of our economy, you'd know that every time the economy is good regulations are loosened, then after people get greedy and make mistakes, regulations are tightened because people want someone to blame and by having more regulations, they can pretend that things will be different next time. It's a cycle that happens endlessly.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I don't know. It's still Google turning round to a country and saying "Your laws are wrong".
(a) It's called "lobbying". I realise this may shock you, but it's not actually uncommon, and it is rarely frowned on anywhere.
(b) Google has done nothing of the kind. Conroy's comments were an unprovoked attack on Google, not a response to an attack by Google.
people, organizations and groups act irresponsibly all the time in the market. its the default state in fact: no regulations leads to bubbles and pops, bubbles and pops, forever, in the market
study the banking panics of the 1800s sometime. simple human greed, followed by simple human fear: thats all you need. the cra isn't a cause, that's like saying the existence of money in my wallet is the fault of me being mugged, not the behavior of the mugger: the banks CHOSE to engorge themselves irresponsibly, no one held a gun to their head asshole
the idea of purely rational players in the market is bullshit. a world without regulations is one ruled by human psychology: greed and lust followed by fear and hysteria, banking panic after banking panic. you need regulations to keep the market fair and stable
they removed regulations under clinton, then bush, and gee, what happened next? use your genius to figure out what happens when you have an unregulated market, study some economic history, you ignorant free market fundamentalist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Its not enough they ban certain titles. Now its only a matter of time before unclassified mature content video games make the great Aussie firewall.
Our Minister for communications etc. might be an idiot, but we're still a developed Western democracy in which the majority of the population have internet access and Google has most of the search engine market share. Blocking Google would be the end of this government and the internet filter; not a single voter would support it.
1. a market without regulations naturally bubbles and pops continually
2. therefore, you need regulations for a stable and healthy market
3. the reason the market crashed in 2008 is because it bubbled as regulations were systematically removed under clinton and bush
anything else i can help you with today darling?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Ha-ha!
It's not "only kiddy porn". It's anything that the OFLC deems as "not appropriate", which includes some sexual fetishes and goes as far as some of the more disturbing material on topics such as abortion etc.
Do you believe that anyone is best served by filtering out one side of the debate on a political topic? Then you'd be happy that the OFLC can call anything "RC" - all it takes is a complaint for it to be considered. So today we have a "Labor" government. What if the govt manages to get the main opposition (the Liberal party) website rated RC under the same conditions as the dentist's office (namely, the site was hacked and used as a CP store for a short time)?
What on earth are you talking about? or even think you are talking about? What is it you imagine Google has done here? Conroy was simply attacking Google to distract attention from how much everyone hates the censorship, not because Google had done or said anything at all.
Maybe a full transcript of his remarks will help. TRANSCRIPT follows. Context: the host is trying to get quick closing comments from the Minister and from Colin Jacobs, the VP of Electronic Frontiers Australia. He asks for a closing comment from the Minister first; Jacobs is not given a chance to comment. (No one has even mentioned Google, Inc.)
more than they fear morons running around with guns?
its a serious, honest question
i for one would gladly outlaw guns. the result? lots less senseless deaths. increase in risk of fascism? zero
guns are not the salvation from, nor the guard against, a descent into fascism. fascism does not derive from a gunfight, nor is some gunfight going to save us from fascism. its some sort of boyscout fantasy
indeed, if anything, if fascism comes to the usa, ti will be born of the same paranoid rantings of psychotics hording guns in the woods
put it this way: if you trust to guns, more than you trust to words, that shows the extent of your commitment to civil democratic values
guns are incompatible with democracy. they do not underpin it, they threaten it
if the noble experiment known as the united states ever comes to an end, it will done at the hands of armed factions, it will not be saved by such visceral forces
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Stop being so dramatic, that's not going to happen just because Conroy disagrees with them and said some barely nasty words.
in one state of Australia, yes, but the rest use their own email servers...
... wait, what?
The beatings and destruction of property was started by the Brown Shirts or SA in numerous riots. Whilst many of these riots were directed against the Socialists (Bolsheviks, and some yanks* believe Hitler was a commie) the Jews were always valid targets. The SA were not Government employees or even Nazi party employees. It was a mainly volunteer organisation (army) and unpaid. The SA could not have been government forces as one of Hitler's first acts was to disband the SA and move responsibility all official Nazi party enforcement to the SS (Black Shirts).
Tea Partiers are members of a political organisation, just like the Brown Shirts were in 1920's Germany. The only think the SA had over the Tea Partiers is organisation and German efficiency.
This is an outright fabrication.
It was the Weirmar government who introduced it in 1919 to comply with the treaty of Versailles (so in effect, We the allies put weapon bans in Germany). This was relaxed in 1928 by the German (non Nazi, they didn't get power until 1933) government to only require a firearm license permitting private weapon ownership. The Nazi government made a revision in 1938 which only banned Jewish people from carrying guns. The 1938 revision also exempted Nazi party members from gun laws (inc licensing), reduced the licensing age from 20 to 18 and most of the law was only applied to handguns, not rifles or ammunition.
Some reading on the subject here.
Please learn some history before commenting on history, thank you.
* Nothing against Americans, most of you are intelligent or at the very least nice people, but you have a fair few vocal nutters.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
What about censorship of political, religious, and controversial viewpoints? This is about Freedom of expression and Freedom of communication more than it is about any single issue.
I was under the impression that, constitutionally and legally speaking, Australia recognizes neither as a right.
True. We do have, broadly speaking, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of religion... sorta. We have an implied freedom of speech under our signature on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it won't stand up.
So, under my implied right, I declare Conroy to be insane.
Or filtered through the 'how Americans see us' setting,
"I declare Conroy to have a few wallabies loose in his top paddock"
Kids! Bringing about Armageddon can be dangerous. Do not attempt it in your home!
No more likely the U.S. Republic will end the same way the Roman Republic ended. A takeover by a single leader, who manipulates his way into a position of dictatorship, and then holds-on to that power using the force of government, to suppress the masses underfoot.
i agree 101%
but why do you think GUNS will save you from such a man? the only thing that matters is the power of belief: such a man will never gain power as long as enough don't believe in his charismatic lies. but if a certain critical mass believe in such a demagogue, his followers most certainly will make sure to outgun whatever resistance is offered as they claw their way, with guns, to power and to cement it... with guns
in other words, the deciding factor in such a nightmare scenario is not the gun, on the side of democracy. those who cling to the power of attraction to your cause with words do not reach for a gun, they reach for a pen. but those who depend upon coercion and fear will be armed to the hilt. guns appeal to those who wish to subdue, it is not the tool of those who wish to persuade. to depend upon the gun to save you means you don't believe in democracy and rule by consensus, you believe in rule by visceral force
simply put: the idea that guns will save us from fascism is a fallacy. when you examine it, the only thing that saves us from such a scenario is enough of the populace believing in the legitimacy of democracy over the charisma of a demagogue, who most certainly will be well-armed and will be careful to outgun whatever resistance is offered, because this is his way: physical force
simply put, in a domestic civil arena, the gun is the tool of the enemies of democracy, not the tool of democracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it