Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't Orders 73,000 Private Websites Offline
joeszilagyi sends this excerpt from TorrentFreak:
"... according to the owner of a free WordPress platform which hosts more than 73,000 blogs, his network of sites has been completely shut down on the orders of the authorities. Blogetery.com has been with host BurstNet for 7 months, but on Friday July 9th the site disappeared. ... Due to the fact that the authorities aren't sharing information and BurstNet are sworn to secrecy, it is proving almost impossible to confirm the exact reason why Blogetery has been completely taken down. The owner does, however, admit to handling many copyright-related cease and desists in the past, albeit in a timely manner as the DMCA requires."
I'm not aware of any US citizens who are, or were, detained in the camps at Guantanamo Bay. Are you? It would be quite an impressive story.
It was a typo. It happens. Btw, condescending remarks like yours make it impossible for anyone to love you, both physically and emotionally. I'll live with my occasional typos. You'll live with everyone hating you because you're a virgin prick.
We'll see how long that lasts when the government has the wonderful power of net neutrality to regulate Internet traffic and censor discussion to help "prevent economic terrorism" or "preserve national security."
Soon they won't even need those reasons. They'll just say "This site has been shut down for purposes of net neutrality."
Agree with you,as far as your limited analysis goes. But what is harm? Let's say I live in Libertopia, and have a farm. Well, my rich, mean neighbor wants my farm because my soil is perfect for growing his prize orchids. But I refuse to sell. So he buys up all the land surrounding mine. He says he'll shoot me if I come onto his property. And he'll shoot anyone coming to visit me. Or sell me food. After all, it is his property and he is harming no one by refusing them entrance. Completely legal in Libertopia, where all the government does is protect people and property from 'harm.' It's not his fault if I starve to death, right?
Down the street, we have the quaint town of Ramblesnatch, with picturesque old buildings and clean, unspoiled vistas. Lots of people in Ramblesnatch make their living off of tourism, which is quite popular due to the unspoiled vistas and quaint old buildings. Unfortunately for Ramblesnatch, that mean old rich neighbor wants to put up a garbage boiling plant and a new high density pig farm right next door. It's his land, he can do what he likes, right? It's not his fault if everyone in Ramblesnatch loses their jobs because of his choices, they can't tell him what to do and what not to!
You see, freedom means more than just 'I get to do what I want and you can't stop me unless I'm physically hurting you.' Freedom is only a valid concept within a society which creates it. Outside of society, there is no freedom, only power. Only when you live in a group does the concept of freedom become meaningful.
Freedom is a contract entered into by individuals. Individuals agree that they will protect certain rights. The individual gets a benefit, but at a cost, as with any contract. They must refrain from abridging others freedoms, as defined by society (meaning, the contracts between individuals, which is all society is) and they must protect others whose freedoms are being abridged. That is the cost you pay for freedom: you are limited in what you can do in certain ways, in exchange for not being limited in other, more valuable ways. I certainly like the freedom to swing my arms around wherever I please, but I value the freedom from getting punched in the face more.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And what justifies the massive land grabs governments make, claiming ownership and domain of large swathes of land unused, uncultivated, lying bare? Because they said so?
Well... Yes, actually. It's called "eminent domain". It used to be used where the "seizure" was demonstrably "for the public good". Of course, if you were the one on the losing end, it still pretty much sucked, but there was, at least, that "greater good" rationale. Of course, since the SCOTUS ruled on Kelo v New London, even that rationale no longer exists. Just so there's no misunderstanding, in ruling for New London, the conservative-packed Supreme Court to a giant dump on the Fifth Ammendment (the "takings" clause, specifically).
So tell me, where do "Real American" conservatives like yourself stand on this issue?