Understood. It seems to be a matter of semantics and very specific to jurisdiction. I think most people regard terror in terms of the law to be the threat or use of violence to affect political and/or religious change.
There's an interesting little tidbit on it here which seems to state that in Cali the term 'making terrorist threats' is the equivalent of 'making criminal threats':
“Despite its name, the crime of terrorist threats does not necessarily implicate al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations for their inflammatory speech or their attempts at political blackmail. Instead, the offense has more to do with situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. The question presented as to when is a threat actually a violation of the criminal law presents a tension between an individuals free-speech rights and the government’s duty to protect its citizens.”
But what's the new criterion that turns an everyday threat into a terrorist threat? If it's not "to effect political change" any more, what's the new distinction?
Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism.
Sorry, what?
The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined
Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
Sweet, now all you need is an economy that doesn't depend on infinite growth. Without that, what you'll have is a massive spread in the wealth gap. Our economy and our prosperity depends on cheap energy.
Not sure how the term 'Jewish movement' excludes non-Jews. Whites were abolitionists, men were feminists, etc, etc. It's really semantics anyhow, and can easily be resolved by using 'pro-Zionist' instead.
Interestingly, the Charter applies to people, not corporations, and there's no definition of corporation as a legal person in relation to the charter in Canadian law. So I'm not entirely clear how Roger's intends to argue this.
When you speak in public, your name IS our business. You can stand behind your words or you can keep quiet. Choose.
Excellent. Could I have a list of all the stupid things or potentially offensive you said as a teenager or 'in public' to share with your your employer and others?
Let's get over this notion that things that are recorded and archived are equivalent to transient things said in context in a public place, ok?
If you went into a bar and talked to folks about having sex with the underage, and someone overheard you, there's a chance that you'd get your ass handed to you, as well as have the cops called to take you away. What's different about facebook doing it?
Ugh, no, and I really wish we'd stop using this analogy as it fails to take into consideration the differences between communications IRL and electronically.
IRL is generally transient and has context, both subtle and overt. One can change the meaning easily with subtle body language or other environmental factors. And a listener doesn't have access to reams of data which can be strewn together, without context, to create a profile of the communicator.
If you haven't said something in a public place that could be misconstrued out of context as having criminal intent then your likely a pretty damn dull individual.
Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.
Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state
No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control. What it became in the Soviet Union and elsewhere has as much in common with 'socialism' and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has in common with democracy - in name only. The failings of socialism are certainly not the reasons you list - rather, it's that we can't actually implement it without it being co-opted by tyrants and dictators.
Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.
No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.
What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.
Uh, no.... Fascism arose as the opposition to communism. That's why a whole lot of commie-hating, good ole boys even thought it was a great idea at first.
Here's where I think you need a little help: the political spectrum isn't a single axis. It's multi-axis, and the thing you're actually railing on about is authoritarianism which can be of both the left and right variety.
Unfortunately, both sides* seemed to be rather authoritarian in the US. That may be because of the contentious, war-like approach to politics in the country. Which you seem to embrace rather vigorously, btw.
*It's debatable whether or not there is actually a party on the left in the US. I tend to agree with Political Compass' take.
You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.
I wonder what's stopping us from flooding the ISP's with bogus claims, then? Seems like an easy protest.
I believe you're stating your opinion on what 'promoting terrorism' means, not the governments in question or Google's. Would a factual documentary that showed some element of the Taliban, for example, in a positive light be considered 'promoting terrorism?'
In an age where much political dissent is treated as 'promoting terrorism' there is a pretty obvious slippery slope.
And what, exactly, do pictures of swarthy looking folks getting on a plane have to do with anything? Anyone can posit that they were linked to al Qaeda, what's relevant is that Obama's statement was false - they had no proof linking any of the bombers to al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden 'quickly after the 9/11 attacks were carried out'. In fact, it wasn't until a long time after the invasion of Afghanistan that the supposed smoking gun turned up in the form of an OBL statement right before the 2004 elections.
There's a vast difference between suspicion and proof, and one would expect that there's a requirement of proof in order to invade a country. Chomsky is largely pointing that out, as have a number of other commentators.
"I don't believe Osamam Bin Laden was involved in 9/11"
Since you put that in quotes you are stating that's actually Chomsky's words. Source?
And PS, they didn't 'quickly learn that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda'. Otherwise, they could have provided conclusive evidence to the Taliban that Osama had in fact masterminded these attacks.
I don't follow conspiracy theory, but the fact is the evidence at the time was circumstantial at best.
In Japan and Canada, private citizens aren't allowed to even own handguns.
I like your comment, but we actually are allowed to own them. I wouldn't even know where to buy one and I'm pretty sure I'd end up qualifying for a Darwin if I had one, but they'll let me nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Understood.
It seems to be a matter of semantics and very specific to jurisdiction. I think most people regard terror in terms of the law to be the threat or use of violence to affect political and/or religious change.
There's an interesting little tidbit on it here which seems to state that in Cali the term 'making terrorist threats' is the equivalent of 'making criminal threats':
“Despite its name, the crime of terrorist threats does not necessarily implicate al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations for their inflammatory speech or their attempts at political blackmail. Instead, the offense has more to do with situations involving domestic violence, hate crimes, bomb threats, and school violence. The question presented as to when is a threat actually a violation of the criminal law presents a tension between an individuals free-speech rights and the government’s duty to protect its citizens.”
But what's the new criterion that turns an everyday threat into a terrorist threat? If it's not "to effect political change" any more, what's the new distinction?
Someone could be scared, somewhere. Maybe.
Terrorist threats have nothing to do with terrorism.
Sorry, what?
The term has been used for many decades before the Patriot act was even imagined
Yes, and prior to 9/11'ish it was generally reserved for acts that sought a political goal through terror. It's only been very recently that the political motivation was dropped as a requirement.
Sweet, now all you need is an economy that doesn't depend on infinite growth. Without that, what you'll have is a massive spread in the wealth gap. Our economy and our prosperity depends on cheap energy.
Not sure how the term 'Jewish movement' excludes non-Jews. Whites were abolitionists, men were feminists, etc, etc.
It's really semantics anyhow, and can easily be resolved by using 'pro-Zionist' instead.
Always nice to learn something new on /. Thanks.
Interestingly, the Charter applies to people, not corporations, and there's no definition of corporation as a legal person in relation to the charter in Canadian law. So I'm not entirely clear how Roger's intends to argue this.
My damn Roomba still can't manage to finish a floor without being foiled by a chair.
When you speak in public, your name IS our business. You can stand behind your words or you can keep quiet. Choose.
Excellent. Could I have a list of all the stupid things or potentially offensive you said as a teenager or 'in public' to share with your your employer and others?
Let's get over this notion that things that are recorded and archived are equivalent to transient things said in context in a public place, ok?
If you went into a bar and talked to folks about having sex with the underage, and someone overheard you, there's a chance that you'd get your ass handed to you, as well as have the cops called to take you away. What's different about facebook doing it?
Ugh, no, and I really wish we'd stop using this analogy as it fails to take into consideration the differences between communications IRL and electronically.
IRL is generally transient and has context, both subtle and overt. One can change the meaning easily with subtle body language or other environmental factors. And a listener doesn't have access to reams of data which can be strewn together, without context, to create a profile of the communicator.
If you haven't said something in a public place that could be misconstrued out of context as having criminal intent then your likely a pretty damn dull individual.
Again, no. And you're missing the point - you claimed Fascism 'competed by co-opting some of the appealing economic ideas from communism' which is incorrect. Fascism arose as the honeymoon period with communism with coming to an end. The fascists primary beef with communism was that social ownership translated into a very poorly run state. The remedy, as they saw it, was for the state to take the control back. In that sense it was very much the opposite of communism.
Both are socialistic - individuals exists to serve the state
No, and perhaps you're unclear on what socialism actually is - it's intended to be social control, not state control. What it became in the Soviet Union and elsewhere has as much in common with 'socialism' and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has in common with democracy - in name only. The failings of socialism are certainly not the reasons you list - rather, it's that we can't actually implement it without it being co-opted by tyrants and dictators.
Fascism and communism are both totalitarian ideologies that still have much in common despite their differences.
No, in theory communism is not totalitarian. In fact it's the opposite - the workers, rather than the state, have control. In Marx's view, the state would wither away after a transition period. Of course that's the utopian view, the ideology has been hijacked enough times to say with some certainty that the ideal of communism is near impossible to achieve.
What's also important is that the Nazis railed against the notion of the workers, or people, having control. They bemoaned the bureaucracy and ineffectiveness, and posited that a strong, central fascist state was the answer. At that point they weren't even fighting against what communism was to become, they were actually opposed to the ideal.
Uh, no.... Fascism arose as the opposition to communism. That's why a whole lot of commie-hating, good ole boys even thought it was a great idea at first.
Here's where I think you need a little help: the political spectrum isn't a single axis. It's multi-axis, and the thing you're actually railing on about is authoritarianism which can be of both the left and right variety.
Unfortunately, both sides* seemed to be rather authoritarian in the US. That may be because of the contentious, war-like approach to politics in the country. Which you seem to embrace rather vigorously, btw.
*It's debatable whether or not there is actually a party on the left in the US. I tend to agree with Political Compass' take.
You can report it yourself without any middlemen if you assert you hold copyright to something and its been infringed on from this IP, and if past is any indicator there are no penalties for false claims.
I wonder what's stopping us from flooding the ISP's with bogus claims, then? Seems like an easy protest.
Brent crude is around $90, only about a $10 premium over WTI.
crude is at US$20/barrel
It's actually at $80USD a barrel.
What I really want is a system that prevents me from hearing other folks cough, laugh at the wrong moment, or left their cell phone on ring.
Headphones
I believe you're stating your opinion on what 'promoting terrorism' means, not the governments in question or Google's. Would a factual documentary that showed some element of the Taliban, for example, in a positive light be considered 'promoting terrorism?'
In an age where much political dissent is treated as 'promoting terrorism' there is a pretty obvious slippery slope.
And what, exactly, do pictures of swarthy looking folks getting on a plane have to do with anything? Anyone can posit that they were linked to al Qaeda, what's relevant is that Obama's statement was false - they had no proof linking any of the bombers to al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden 'quickly after the 9/11 attacks were carried out'. In fact, it wasn't until a long time after the invasion of Afghanistan that the supposed smoking gun turned up in the form of an OBL statement right before the 2004 elections.
There's a vast difference between suspicion and proof, and one would expect that there's a requirement of proof in order to invade a country. Chomsky is largely pointing that out, as have a number of other commentators.
"I don't believe Osamam Bin Laden was involved in 9/11"
Since you put that in quotes you are stating that's actually Chomsky's words. Source?
And PS, they didn't 'quickly learn that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda'. Otherwise, they could have provided conclusive evidence to the Taliban that Osama had in fact masterminded these attacks.
I don't follow conspiracy theory, but the fact is the evidence at the time was circumstantial at best.
His political writings are of the most dangerous twaddle
Dangerous twaddle? Do ideas frighten you?
Pretty sure the GP was talking about Japanese innovation and not their economic model.
In Japan and Canada, private citizens aren't allowed to even own handguns.
I like your comment, but we actually are allowed to own them. I wouldn't even know where to buy one and I'm pretty sure I'd end up qualifying for a Darwin if I had one, but they'll let me nonetheless.
Replying to undo an incorrect mod. Consider this a +1