Sometimes the most effective way to point out the defects in any bad law are to enforce to the letter as fully as possible. Kids whose parents belong to Baptist or Pentecostal churches need to be turned in. After all, we all know those churches are nesting grounds for dangerous civil rights predators. School officials, teachers, maintenance and kitchen staff, and their spouses must be turned in, if they exhibit any of those same traits. Be especially wary of such people who donate large portions of their incomes to such hate cults. Of course if would be a disgusting perversion of civil rights to turn in people purely because of their religious beliefs. However, given the dangers in the predatory nature of large minority factions of such supremacist church memberships in promoting this kind of oppression, perhaps the only way they'll learn is to get a taste of their own medicine? Terry
Looking at violence spec's between any two select cultures is a good way of distorting statistics. Looking at similar statistics for many countries and cultures gives a different picture, albeit more work to compare. Regardless of available tools, violence rates do have cultural trends, but that doesn't vary by stones and clubs or firearms so much as other factors. Firearms are used mostly defensively when not for practice or recreation, and so are most important to peaceful, lawful people in cultures where other factors raise violence and predation (personal or property crime, often one as a consequence of the other) rates, and the ability to defend self and family are made more important. Another interesting aspect of Germany is what it tightly regulates, and what it leaves to the freedom of its people. Someone walking into an average supermarket or department store in the US can buy vitamins and herbs which if carried to Germany would make one an international drug smuggler. However, it's no big deal who prefers to be nude or dressed in silly costumes around local parks, or if a few couples are envigorated into a little fucking by the lake. Those are signs of a more tolerant and less predatory culture, which naturally would be associated with less violence in many forms than we suffer in the U.S. of Amerika. Would decriminalizing all malum prohibitums, like nudity, sex, drugs, and speech laws, cause the US culture to shift in more tolerant and less violent directions on a broader scale, such as seen in some foreign countries? Terry
Arguing that the FCC should lift net or broadcast censorship is pointless. FWIW, my engineering and legal telecom credentials are "a matter of record" with the FCC. Congress and the Supreme Court are the places to turn. The FCC would like to no longer be stuck in the middle making impossible determinations over arbitrary speech prejudices. Try asking them to so much as define "nudity" or "sex" precisely, citing specific legal basis, and explain how that's religiously and otherwise not discriminatory. Congress forced the V-chip, CATV provisions now being challenged in US v. Playboy which indirectly impact over the air broadcasting, and other such mandates the FCC merely implements. The Supreme Court in the Pacifica case endorsed the notion that it's supposedly possible to define the notion of "indecency" borrowed from select religions in law without illegal bias. The FCC staff are merely like the human rights "war criminals" "shooting down" the persecution targets, as ordered by the Congressional and Supreme Court Generals. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison
Will anyone who can offer a more precise legally upholdable definition of "porn" than "whatever gives the judge an erection" please stand up? Instead of censoring speech, let's remove religious bias from other laws and regulations. Nudity on the beach, the town green, the back yard, or along Main Street, USA harms no one. At most it harms supremacist ILLUSIONS of certain predatory religions. Nudity is a goal in several forms for a number of non-supremacist religions, for which it might be nice to eventually acheive "equal protections of law". Sex, while more controversial given indoctrinated prejudices and bigotry, is likewise a matter of religious ritual and celebration for people of some religions, and as such qualifies for freedom from legal oppression, just as much as anti-sexual religious followers aren't obligated to take their sex to the town square if they prefer otherwise. Nudity is a state of being, deserving equal legal protections as sideburns, hats, other costumes including genital coverage in xtian ideas of religious "decency", covering head hair for females in Muslim ideas of "decency", or carrying a book of one's choice, whether the bibles of xtians, pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or any other group under whatever name. Sex is an activity. To rid laws of religious bias, it might be restricted where motion or making noise would disrupt usage-dedicated places at at times when activities could be disruptive. That means that it's reasonable to restrict sex at some time and place a xtian bible discussion would be legally banned, or where a volleyball game might be banned, but not elsewhere or at other times. Clean up those elements of law, and speech censorship related to them would become moot. ==== As to CyberNot, so long as CyberPatrol is marketed and used in public facilities, citizens have a right to know what illegal criteria are being used to impose illegal discrimination. If Microsystems won't release the info, such that a public user cannot comply with an FOIA demand for the censored sites, citizens are entitled to do whatever else it takes to discover that info. This is a simple issue of the peitioning for redress of grievance prong of the 1st Amendment, not to mention generic speech, press, Establishment clause, or Free Exercise clause prongs. There could be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court if this case raises the issue of how those aspects of Constitutional rights contradict Copyright law. Skala & Janssen appear to have acted to help Americans hold local governments accountable under the law, which might just preempt and contrary business interests of fraudulently promoting intentionally discriminatory criteria as if "neutral" under Lemon v. Keurtzman, or the broad notions of what are equal protections of religion under the 29 CFR 1605.1 analysis of Supreme Court findings and US Code. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison
In the West, most people are unfamiliar with the majority of the few thousand families of world religions, and millions of variants thereof, even though many are lurking right in the USA. As with other predators and criminals, only those religions which make a habit of attempting to pervert law to abuse the civil rights of everyone are of much concern to anyone other than their own followers. If Muslim religion were more prolific in the USA, we'd see even more problems than with xtians of the Rabid Religious Reich. The two are fairly similar, with loving, tolerant factions, moderates, and large minority extremist hate cults. Non-supremacist religions, which often are anti-proselytizing, simply are non-issues to people not following them as personal paths. BTW, congrats to Skala & Jansson! Balancing any Copyright law is a right of all Americans to petition government over redress of grievances. So long as Mattel's subsidiary sells CyberPatrol to such customers, we as citizens are entitled to know whether, or more accurately how severely and in what manner, illegal censorship is being imposed. FOIA law toward such government end used to demand the Cybernot list, and the political grievance prong of the 1st amendment, might be added to other legal arguments as to why block lists of government marketed censorware must be public domain. Cyperpatrol, after some early negotiated rounds of cleanup including meetings with pagan, naturist, and other leaders, did work to become a lot less discriminatory over criteria illegal for schools and libraries to impose on taxpayers and citizens than they were initially, or than many RRR backed competitors. However, the very notion of profanity (of which deity? By what criteria?), nudity (skyclad religious ritual? art? Jain clerical vows?), or sex (religious ritual or spirituality, Neopagan or Buddhist for many) somehow being "neutral" criteria for censorship is rooted in fraud. The only variant is whether the fraud is motivated by outright religious bigotry, economic predation, or political predation. The idea of blocking a Jungian psychology newsgroup also reflects severe religious bias. As an ordained pagan minister, were I refering someone for counseling, I'd specifically choose someone with a Jungian world view as religiously tolerant and more likely to be qualified than a hate monger like Dr. Laura. Of course, all those hundreds of xtian variants who just know their one right way is the only right way can't stand the idea that ethics and values in a culture that legally promises to protect diversity are rarely right or wrong, UNLESS they claim to have an exclusive handle on truth. Historically, the "dirty parts" of literature and medical texts in English switched to Latin, presuming that an educated elite were exempt from censorship. The major change we see today is a 14th Amendment which entitles EVERYONE to live by the same standards. As Peacefire's ongoing effort, of Eddy & Matt's new one prove, censorware is nothing but content selective speech restriction with illegal biases only applicable to those less skilled at circumventing it. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the most effective way to point out the defects in any bad law are to enforce to the letter as fully as possible. Kids whose parents belong to Baptist or Pentecostal churches need to be turned in. After all, we all know those churches are nesting grounds for dangerous civil rights predators. School officials, teachers, maintenance and kitchen staff, and their spouses must be turned in, if they exhibit any of those same traits. Be especially wary of such people who donate large portions of their incomes to such hate cults. Of course if would be a disgusting perversion of civil rights to turn in people purely because of their religious beliefs. However, given the dangers in the predatory nature of large minority factions of such supremacist church memberships in promoting this kind of oppression, perhaps the only way they'll learn is to get a taste of their own medicine? Terry
Looking at violence spec's between any two select cultures is a good way of distorting statistics. Looking at similar statistics for many countries and cultures gives a different picture, albeit more work to compare. Regardless of available tools, violence rates do have cultural trends, but that doesn't vary by stones and clubs or firearms so much as other factors. Firearms are used mostly defensively when not for practice or recreation, and so are most important to peaceful, lawful people in cultures where other factors raise violence and predation (personal or property crime, often one as a consequence of the other) rates, and the ability to defend self and family are made more important. Another interesting aspect of Germany is what it tightly regulates, and what it leaves to the freedom of its people. Someone walking into an average supermarket or department store in the US can buy vitamins and herbs which if carried to Germany would make one an international drug smuggler. However, it's no big deal who prefers to be nude or dressed in silly costumes around local parks, or if a few couples are envigorated into a little fucking by the lake. Those are signs of a more tolerant and less predatory culture, which naturally would be associated with less violence in many forms than we suffer in the U.S. of Amerika. Would decriminalizing all malum prohibitums, like nudity, sex, drugs, and speech laws, cause the US culture to shift in more tolerant and less violent directions on a broader scale, such as seen in some foreign countries? Terry
Arguing that the FCC should lift net or broadcast censorship is pointless. FWIW, my engineering and legal telecom credentials are "a matter of record" with the FCC. Congress and the Supreme Court are the places to turn. The FCC would like to no longer be stuck in the middle making impossible determinations over arbitrary speech prejudices. Try asking them to so much as define "nudity" or "sex" precisely, citing specific legal basis, and explain how that's religiously and otherwise not discriminatory. Congress forced the V-chip, CATV provisions now being challenged in US v. Playboy which indirectly impact over the air broadcasting, and other such mandates the FCC merely implements. The Supreme Court in the Pacifica case endorsed the notion that it's supposedly possible to define the notion of "indecency" borrowed from select religions in law without illegal bias. The FCC staff are merely like the human rights "war criminals" "shooting down" the persecution targets, as ordered by the Congressional and Supreme Court Generals. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison
Will anyone who can offer a more precise legally upholdable definition of "porn" than "whatever gives the judge an erection" please stand up? Instead of censoring speech, let's remove religious bias from other laws and regulations. Nudity on the beach, the town green, the back yard, or along Main Street, USA harms no one. At most it harms supremacist ILLUSIONS of certain predatory religions. Nudity is a goal in several forms for a number of non-supremacist religions, for which it might be nice to eventually acheive "equal protections of law". Sex, while more controversial given indoctrinated prejudices and bigotry, is likewise a matter of religious ritual and celebration for people of some religions, and as such qualifies for freedom from legal oppression, just as much as anti-sexual religious followers aren't obligated to take their sex to the town square if they prefer otherwise. Nudity is a state of being, deserving equal legal protections as sideburns, hats, other costumes including genital coverage in xtian ideas of religious "decency", covering head hair for females in Muslim ideas of "decency", or carrying a book of one's choice, whether the bibles of xtians, pagans, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or any other group under whatever name. Sex is an activity. To rid laws of religious bias, it might be restricted where motion or making noise would disrupt usage-dedicated places at at times when activities could be disruptive. That means that it's reasonable to restrict sex at some time and place a xtian bible discussion would be legally banned, or where a volleyball game might be banned, but not elsewhere or at other times. Clean up those elements of law, and speech censorship related to them would become moot. ==== As to CyberNot, so long as CyberPatrol is marketed and used in public facilities, citizens have a right to know what illegal criteria are being used to impose illegal discrimination. If Microsystems won't release the info, such that a public user cannot comply with an FOIA demand for the censored sites, citizens are entitled to do whatever else it takes to discover that info. This is a simple issue of the peitioning for redress of grievance prong of the 1st Amendment, not to mention generic speech, press, Establishment clause, or Free Exercise clause prongs. There could be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court if this case raises the issue of how those aspects of Constitutional rights contradict Copyright law. Skala & Janssen appear to have acted to help Americans hold local governments accountable under the law, which might just preempt and contrary business interests of fraudulently promoting intentionally discriminatory criteria as if "neutral" under Lemon v. Keurtzman, or the broad notions of what are equal protections of religion under the 29 CFR 1605.1 analysis of Supreme Court findings and US Code. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison
In the West, most people are unfamiliar with the majority of the few thousand families of world religions, and millions of variants thereof, even though many are lurking right in the USA. As with other predators and criminals, only those religions which make a habit of attempting to pervert law to abuse the civil rights of everyone are of much concern to anyone other than their own followers. If Muslim religion were more prolific in the USA, we'd see even more problems than with xtians of the Rabid Religious Reich. The two are fairly similar, with loving, tolerant factions, moderates, and large minority extremist hate cults. Non-supremacist religions, which often are anti-proselytizing, simply are non-issues to people not following them as personal paths. BTW, congrats to Skala & Jansson! Balancing any Copyright law is a right of all Americans to petition government over redress of grievances. So long as Mattel's subsidiary sells CyberPatrol to such customers, we as citizens are entitled to know whether, or more accurately how severely and in what manner, illegal censorship is being imposed. FOIA law toward such government end used to demand the Cybernot list, and the political grievance prong of the 1st amendment, might be added to other legal arguments as to why block lists of government marketed censorware must be public domain. Cyperpatrol, after some early negotiated rounds of cleanup including meetings with pagan, naturist, and other leaders, did work to become a lot less discriminatory over criteria illegal for schools and libraries to impose on taxpayers and citizens than they were initially, or than many RRR backed competitors. However, the very notion of profanity (of which deity? By what criteria?), nudity (skyclad religious ritual? art? Jain clerical vows?), or sex (religious ritual or spirituality, Neopagan or Buddhist for many) somehow being "neutral" criteria for censorship is rooted in fraud. The only variant is whether the fraud is motivated by outright religious bigotry, economic predation, or political predation. The idea of blocking a Jungian psychology newsgroup also reflects severe religious bias. As an ordained pagan minister, were I refering someone for counseling, I'd specifically choose someone with a Jungian world view as religiously tolerant and more likely to be qualified than a hate monger like Dr. Laura. Of course, all those hundreds of xtian variants who just know their one right way is the only right way can't stand the idea that ethics and values in a culture that legally promises to protect diversity are rarely right or wrong, UNLESS they claim to have an exclusive handle on truth. Historically, the "dirty parts" of literature and medical texts in English switched to Latin, presuming that an educated elite were exempt from censorship. The major change we see today is a 14th Amendment which entitles EVERYONE to live by the same standards. As Peacefire's ongoing effort, of Eddy & Matt's new one prove, censorware is nothing but content selective speech restriction with illegal biases only applicable to those less skilled at circumventing it. Rev. Terry Smith ERLAN Electronic Communication Freedoms Liaison