No. He shows that it's possible to modify a system.
He's more famous for showing that it's also possible for a system to self-organize according to its self-contained environment, in the absence of the influences of outside intelligence.
yes, people have the right to follow the laws they believe and ignore the ones that they find unjust.
Sure, being of free will you always have that. You then have the right to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail or the gallows.
Or you could do the legal thing and propose that the law be changed, and get 50% or more of a quorum with the power to change the law to agree with you. This may involve getting arrested for it and finding your quorum in the supreme court of the land.
But, and you should trust this, Assange isn't going to get any such change accomplished here. Australia has a law that makes what he did a crime, and if the U.S. has enough pull and realizes the law exists then Australia will enforce it, should they come into possession of Assange.
And I'm not saying "just trust our leaders." I bring up the law because many have argued that since he didn't break a law in the country he was in he didn't do anything illegal; so I point out that yes he did break a law that had jurisdiction over him so that argument is wrong. And then I try to imply that it doesn't matter, he was wrong and deserves to hang.
The people with most of the votes are not proposing these noxious amendments, they are getting maximum value in compromise from the people who are.
Whereas before, when the Noxious party was in power, such noxious amendments were proposed and passed without so much as a serious offer of compromise.
Dramatically speaking, a Comedy is a drama that ends with all things well, while a Tragedy is a drama that ends worse than it began.
Given Fox News's goal of turning this nation (and eventually the world) into a fascist state run by corporations and then into a feudal oligarchy run by the few people able to afford corporations and then, ultimately, into a feudal monarchy ruled by the one person who dominates the oligarchs, I chose the word precisely.
It doesn't matter where he's a citizen, it only matters where he is when he commits any particular action.
Not sure where you got that idea, but it's false. You certainly can be prosecuted by your own country for breaking their laws anywhere on the planet. And you can be prosecuted for breaking one country's laws without ever having been there. Cf. all those folks sitting in Gitmo right now, waiting for trial.
Why should I care if something I do on the internet is illegal in Iran?
You shouldn't, if it's not illegal anywhere you will ever be, and you're not an Iranian citizen (therefore in some other country on a visa that will, eventually, expire and get you sent back to Iran, unless you seek asylum and get it on the grounds that what you did shouldn't be a crime but will get you incarcerated if your visa expires).
Assange broke the laws of Australia, where he is a citizen, when he released another country's secrets.
In any case, there is legal means for the information to be released, and he refused to request that. He could have kept asking people in the government to do it, until he ran out of people. At that point, he might have had a case for finding another way to release it. But since the law is clear that if the information is improperly classified it must be declassified, and since the law is clear on the procedure for declassification to ensure anything that should still be classified remains classified, it would actually be illegal to turn down his request, and illegal to do anything to him because he requested it. Thus he wouldn't have had to go very far before finding someone willing to declassify it.
The other side of the aisle would have sufficed, no matter which side he started on.
But Assange does not care about the law, He doesn't even understand the law.
Nor does he care about ethics, which would have led him to care about the law that allowed the information to be released properly.
What he did hurt a lot more people than it helped, and helped the wrong people a lot more than the right people. I'm one of those people who believes that there is nowhere that such a thing is the right thing to do.
I don't have to cite it (and the shield law will protect me for not citing it), but I do need to make sure it's true. Which I didn't do (as evidenced by my admission that I'm getting it second hand), so you should have caught me on that.
However, I'm not a "journalist", so the rules of journalism don't apply to me (and the shield law wouldn't either).
Where did it say you have the right to aid and abet crime to develop your stories?
You didn't. So you can be held in contempt, i.e., jailed while you refuse to reveal your accomplices/sources, for years, if the police think you got the story from a criminal.
In lieu of a shield law we have a mish-mash of case law that may or may not be rational across jurisdictions and may or may not cover a general set of cases that have not yet occurred.
Some people think this is a hole in the right to a free press, and are trying to plug it.
But not too much, because clearly there are criminals, like Assange, who will masquerade as "journalists" to commit their crimes. They should also look at not allowing protection for actual aiding and abetting, so we don't end up with a class of journalists who commit crimes in order to get stories on them (youhearme, Spider-Man!?).
Except that there are plenty of examples where the rights in both the 1st and 2nd amendments are limited by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.
But you have to understand what "abridge" means in this context. It means simply to modify by reduction, but to lessen. It's possible to put limits on a thing without reducing its power or value. In fact, it's possible to put limits on a thing that increase its power and value. The question is in who gets to define what increases are of value, and what limits cause those increases.
If the government says "only those who register as journalists will be afforded special protection", that increases the value of the freedom of the press. If it says "only those who I say are journalists will be afforded special protection" then it lessens it.
None of this is relevant to Wikileaks, who are not journalists but anarchists, and who completely disregarded safety and morality when they refused to use safe and legal means to release the information they had illegally obtained. There is a procedure for declassifying improperly classified documents; and the information in many of those documents was improperly classified; but the rest of the information was properly and rightly classified, and releasing it has caused great harm and possibly the unnecessary loss of life. Wikileaks, who are not in any sort of legal authority anywhere, did not have any right to put anyone in danger.
Nor should this be relevant to journalists, since it should be illegal for them to do such a thing as well. The laws for declassifying improperly classified documents already protect anyone seeking such declassification from any sort of retaliation, so there is no reason for someone trying to get it done to avoid trying, and if they are denied, then they get to report on that, knowing that the coverup is always more damaging than the crime.
No, it's like having freedom of religion, but in order to avoid being chased down and locked up by the IRS, you first have to inform the IRS that you are a church.
The question isn't whether you have to claim special status before acting outside the usual set of laws, it's about how onerous the application process is.
And there's always "the right to a free press applies only to those who own one".
Slashdot Mirror
No. He shows that it's possible to modify a system.
He's more famous for showing that it's also possible for a system to self-organize according to its self-contained environment, in the absence of the influences of outside intelligence.
These facts are not irreconcilable.
Note the scale legend in the lower-left of the image.
That "few dozen trees" is a forest a mile long and half a mile wide.
Yeah, but the Japanese Navy does.
We can't even terraform Earth right.
Don't tell that to these guys. They're making a lot of money at it.
these guys, too
And these dudes are just off the hook.
But that's the trees. This is the forest.
Turns out, we're pretty good at it. Evolved to it until it's an instinct, you might say.
Mars is a rusty rock.
Jupiter, on the other hand, is fucking gorgeous.
http://library.thinkquest.org/18652/jupiter_io.jpg
TL, DR, DTR
(too long, didn't read, doomed to repeat)
Beer.
You don't own it, you only rent it.
Until it takes over the universe.
There's not "nothing" in Nevada.
There's hundreds of holes made by nuclear weapons tests.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Nevada_Test_Site_craters.jpg
The Yucca Flats/Yucca Mountain area is actually the perfect place to put nuclear waste, because it is nuclear waste.
No, I'm saying the question was moot.
In this case it's up to Sweden, not you or me or Afghan men or boys, to decide what's "dating" and what's "sexual molestation" to be prosecuted.
yes, people have the right to follow the laws they believe and ignore the ones that they find unjust.
Sure, being of free will you always have that. You then have the right to be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail or the gallows.
Or you could do the legal thing and propose that the law be changed, and get 50% or more of a quorum with the power to change the law to agree with you. This may involve getting arrested for it and finding your quorum in the supreme court of the land.
But, and you should trust this, Assange isn't going to get any such change accomplished here. Australia has a law that makes what he did a crime, and if the U.S. has enough pull and realizes the law exists then Australia will enforce it, should they come into possession of Assange.
And I'm not saying "just trust our leaders." I bring up the law because many have argued that since he didn't break a law in the country he was in he didn't do anything illegal; so I point out that yes he did break a law that had jurisdiction over him so that argument is wrong. And then I try to imply that it doesn't matter, he was wrong and deserves to hang.
Yes, we do have change.
The people with most of the votes are not proposing these noxious amendments, they are getting maximum value in compromise from the people who are.
Whereas before, when the Noxious party was in power, such noxious amendments were proposed and passed without so much as a serious offer of compromise.
Because the alternative is to dictate the content of bills before they are even proposed, which is antithetical to the 1st Amendment.
Dramatically speaking, a Comedy is a drama that ends with all things well, while a Tragedy is a drama that ends worse than it began.
Given Fox News's goal of turning this nation (and eventually the world) into a fascist state run by corporations and then into a feudal oligarchy run by the few people able to afford corporations and then, ultimately, into a feudal monarchy ruled by the one person who dominates the oligarchs, I chose the word precisely.
It doesn't matter where he's a citizen, it only matters where he is when he commits any particular action.
Not sure where you got that idea, but it's false. You certainly can be prosecuted by your own country for breaking their laws anywhere on the planet. And you can be prosecuted for breaking one country's laws without ever having been there. Cf. all those folks sitting in Gitmo right now, waiting for trial.
Why should I care if something I do on the internet is illegal in Iran?
You shouldn't, if it's not illegal anywhere you will ever be, and you're not an Iranian citizen (therefore in some other country on a visa that will, eventually, expire and get you sent back to Iran, unless you seek asylum and get it on the grounds that what you did shouldn't be a crime but will get you incarcerated if your visa expires).
Being able to talk your way into that kind of power is certainly attractive.
Talk?
You mean that if violence and drugs were involved that would make it unattractive?
I was questioning the idea that telling me to stop questioning an idea is a questionable idea.
What's the idea of telling me to stop?
Assange broke the laws of Australia, where he is a citizen, when he released another country's secrets.
In any case, there is legal means for the information to be released, and he refused to request that. He could have kept asking people in the government to do it, until he ran out of people. At that point, he might have had a case for finding another way to release it. But since the law is clear that if the information is improperly classified it must be declassified, and since the law is clear on the procedure for declassification to ensure anything that should still be classified remains classified, it would actually be illegal to turn down his request, and illegal to do anything to him because he requested it. Thus he wouldn't have had to go very far before finding someone willing to declassify it.
The other side of the aisle would have sufficed, no matter which side he started on.
But Assange does not care about the law, He doesn't even understand the law.
Nor does he care about ethics, which would have led him to care about the law that allowed the information to be released properly.
What he did hurt a lot more people than it helped, and helped the wrong people a lot more than the right people. I'm one of those people who believes that there is nowhere that such a thing is the right thing to do.
It means simply to modify by reduction, but to lessen.
D'oh! Should read:
It means not simply to modify by reduction, but to lessen.
I don't have to cite it (and the shield law will protect me for not citing it), but I do need to make sure it's true. Which I didn't do (as evidenced by my admission that I'm getting it second hand), so you should have caught me on that.
However, I'm not a "journalist", so the rules of journalism don't apply to me (and the shield law wouldn't either).
In Afghanistan, an older man taking a young boy back to his place for sex is called dating.
Now ask your question.
Seriously, who holds the people at the Discovery Channel hostage for anything?
People looking for their hostage situation to become a long-running reality series.
Him and Stalin.
Two peas in a pod. Just like all the other peas.
You have the right to a free press.
Where did it say you have the right to aid and abet crime to develop your stories?
You didn't. So you can be held in contempt, i.e., jailed while you refuse to reveal your accomplices/sources, for years, if the police think you got the story from a criminal.
In lieu of a shield law we have a mish-mash of case law that may or may not be rational across jurisdictions and may or may not cover a general set of cases that have not yet occurred.
Some people think this is a hole in the right to a free press, and are trying to plug it.
But not too much, because clearly there are criminals, like Assange, who will masquerade as "journalists" to commit their crimes. They should also look at not allowing protection for actual aiding and abetting, so we don't end up with a class of journalists who commit crimes in order to get stories on them (you hear me, Spider-Man!?).
Except that there are plenty of examples where the rights in both the 1st and 2nd amendments are limited by laws passed by Congress and signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court.
But you have to understand what "abridge" means in this context. It means simply to modify by reduction, but to lessen. It's possible to put limits on a thing without reducing its power or value. In fact, it's possible to put limits on a thing that increase its power and value. The question is in who gets to define what increases are of value, and what limits cause those increases.
If the government says "only those who register as journalists will be afforded special protection", that increases the value of the freedom of the press. If it says "only those who I say are journalists will be afforded special protection" then it lessens it.
None of this is relevant to Wikileaks, who are not journalists but anarchists, and who completely disregarded safety and morality when they refused to use safe and legal means to release the information they had illegally obtained. There is a procedure for declassifying improperly classified documents; and the information in many of those documents was improperly classified; but the rest of the information was properly and rightly classified, and releasing it has caused great harm and possibly the unnecessary loss of life. Wikileaks, who are not in any sort of legal authority anywhere, did not have any right to put anyone in danger.
Nor should this be relevant to journalists, since it should be illegal for them to do such a thing as well. The laws for declassifying improperly classified documents already protect anyone seeking such declassification from any sort of retaliation, so there is no reason for someone trying to get it done to avoid trying, and if they are denied, then they get to report on that, knowing that the coverup is always more damaging than the crime.
No, it's like having freedom of religion, but in order to avoid being chased down and locked up by the IRS, you first have to inform the IRS that you are a church.
The question isn't whether you have to claim special status before acting outside the usual set of laws, it's about how onerous the application process is.
And there's always "the right to a free press applies only to those who own one".