If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism
Well, by definition, it sort of does, doesn't it? Not that that's a bad thing. It seems to me that a true capitalist society would have no welfare system whatsoever, so when it comes right down to it most "free" countries have some elements of capitalism, and some elements of socialism thrown into the mix.
Why can't we lapse drug laws? or prostitution laws?
I don't know. Personally, I feel that they need to be reformed in both cases, as they fill our prisons with non-violent offenders, turning non-violent offenders into violent offenders, and forcing the parole of dangerous criminals who should be removed from society for as long as possible. However, I make no claims to know how the laws should be reformed.
I believe murder should be legalized. My ideals are different than the mainstream. Does this make me a great patriot?
I don't want the government to decide what I can see or hear because I don't believe that government officials are qualified to make decisions regarding what sorts of things have artistic, scientific, or literary value. Unless I am mistaken, the FCC does not have a panel of scientists, artists, or literary scholars who decide whether or not something has value. I'm not for obscenity, and I'm not against censorship, I'm just against government censorship. It's not like basic cable is much more risque than broadcast TV, and those stations are outside of the reach of the FCC. Those stations are self regulated by the need to sell advertising space in a wide variety of markets. I believe that the right to free speech trumps the possible danger that someone might hear the f-word, or see a nipple (which, I might add, we all have. Yes, even you have a nipple. Probably 2. Maybe more.). How exactly is that comparable to murder? Does God kill a kitten every time someone bares a breast? Do people die whenever the f-word is uttered?
I question the actions of our government as well, because I have the freedom to do so (do you see a pattern yet?)
Ah, but you think that I'm a moron and a bad American for exercising my right to free speech by publicly questioning the actions of our government. Who's the hypocrite now?
Why is the U.S. such a terrible place again? (and if so, why do you live here again if you think it's so terrible?).
I'm positive that you're putting words in my mouth here. I never called the U.S. a terrible place, it is a wonderful place. I love my homeland, and I embrace and fight to keep the freedoms that have been given to me. If I didn't love the U.S., I wouldn't care about what happens here.
Then you need more life experience. I only assumed so because you have such a narrow view of the world.
Perhaps it's you who have the narrow view of the world. I'm not the one who wants to control what other people can see, say, or do. If I don't want to hear or see something, I turn it off, leave the room, or ignore it.
2. The government can censor obscenity in certain mediums if it lacks serious "literary, artistic, political or scientific value." This is a more controversial one, but it is done.
And what makes gov't officials qualified to determine literary, artistic, or scientific value? Do they have a team of artists who decide what is artistic and what is not? For me, pehaps the most artistic thing shown during the superbowl was JJ's boob. Why? Because it made a social commentary. It made a statement about America's puritanical fear of breasts. It showed us exactly what we can and can't do in the "land of the free".
I never said it did. You can say the U.S. is a non-free country all you want, but the fact that you are living here enjoying all the freedoms of being an american tells me something.
Anyone who believes that they live in a completely free society is an idiot. Regardless of which country we live in, we all give up certain freedoms for the good of our society. This is a necessity. The fact that I have an issue with one particular thing in America does not mean that I am any less patriotic, nor that I love America any less than you. Many of our greatest patriots have been people who have voiced beliefs which were different from the mainstream. If everyone blindly followed what there government told them was right, we'd still have slavery, and only white men who own land would be able to vote.
You are a hypocrite and a complete moron,
If I'm the moron, then how come I'm the one who's managed to express himself without resorting to personal insults? And how am I a hypocrite? Just because I question some of the actions of our government? Was Henry David Thoreau also a hypocrite?
who probably hasn't ventured too far past your mom's basement.
not that it's any of your business, but I do not live in my mom's basement. I'm married, gainfully employed, and a home-owner. It is possible to dissagree with you without living in one's mom's basement.
If you don't think the U.S is a free country, go somewhere else (surprise surprise..you have the freedom to do this if you live in the U.S).
Actually, I think I'll stay here and have my beliefs, thank you very much. Just because I don't believe the same things as you doesn't make me any less American.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I haven't used a single vulgarity in any of my posts here. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the first amendment makes no exceptions, but for some reason our government chooses to. It's not just a matter of principle, either. Large companies are fined millions of dollars (over time) just for trying to compete with cable stations, which aren't controlled by the FCC. There's just trying to do business, but they're unable to stay competitive because more popular programming is available on cable. We're also seeing the death of live television because a few celebrities have chosen to express themselves in ways that the FCC doesn't like. Is it really such a crime that Bono said the F-Word, or that Janet Jackson showed us her blurry nipple, or that Stern makes T&A jokes? Is it really worth a national outcry? For me, I'd rather be able to hear a few obscenities every now and then because if those aren't being censored, I can feel more comfortable knowing that other, more important things aren't being censored, either directly or indirectly.
It's only when you try to view SOME (not all) sexually explicit sites that you might be blocked. They can't block them all of course, and there are anon proxies they do not block - so you have options.
You know, I'm not really looking for access to sexually explicit sites here, I'm debating the principle.
Well, seeing as the constitutional ammendment for freedom of speech was written to protect political speech
Show me where:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Of course, you're misunderstanding the concept of "free speech" anyway - there's no guarantee of free access to any medium...only the guarantee that you're free to talk your mind.
I assure you I'm not misunderstanding the concept of free speech. Yes, yes, I know, not "free as in beer"...ah, if only Slashdot had a "+1 Witty". What I'm saying is that in today's society, people with money have more access than do poor people to nationwide mediums which provide access to the freedom of speech.
Obsenity censorship is a little bit different than blanket technology censorship. Blurring out a naked breast CBS or bleeping out the F-word on the radio is a little bit different than blocking access to Blogger.
I don't really see the difference.
Show me where the first amendment defines the difference:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Libraries? Some may have content censors but that is sexual censorship only, not political (you could still post political messages from them).
Which part of the constitution specifies that freedom of speech doesn't apply to sexual material?
And if you have a laptop there a myriad of free WiFi hotspots.
still had to have enough money to buy a laptop, and to live in a section of town that will have WiFi hotspots. So, yes, I have ample access to free speech. Shouldn't a poor neighbor who doesn't work in the technology sector, and who lives in an undesireable portion of town also have access to free speech?
No shit. However, if I have to have enough money to afford things like an internet connection or cable tv in order to access the freedom of speech, then people who don't have that amount of money are not able to 1. speak there mind freely in a public forum, and 2. access uncensored thoughts from other people.
Oh, by the way, I guess I'm expanding the notion to include free expression. If you want to limit it to freedom of *speech*, how about the fines that the FCC levies against radio broadcasters. Yes, such as Howard Stern, but also others. Or, how about Lenny Bruce?
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Well, the national outcry over a blurry nipple is one that I can think of. And the subsequent fines. As I believe Kim Campbell said, any society where you can't look around and find something offensive to someone is not a free society.
Yes, and in Iran, they're free to speak and write as well...as long as they don't publish what they say or write on the Internet. All I'm saying is that if we expect other's to embrace freedom, maybe we should start embracing it here at home.
How can we tell them not to censor the web when we censor just about everything here at home. I mean, yes, the web is pretty well uncensored in the US, but TV isn't, and neither is radio. In fact, there's no free non-censored medium in America. You have to pay for Internet, Cable, Satellite TV, or Satellite Radio in order to have the right to free speech in a country who's first amendment to the constitution guarantees that right. How can we expect Iran to have free speech/expression if we don't really even support it?
Windows 2000/XP doesn't allow non-administrators install applications.
I dunno...On a semi-public computer, I've ended up with AIM and WeatherBug and various browser toolbars and all sorts of crap like that which I'd never install.
It sucks that "run as..." wasn't working well in win2k. If you are in XP, give it another shot. It works great, and will save you a lot of pain, believe me.
I thank you, but I honestly don't see how it would save me pain. I can see how it would save *some* people pain, but I've never had a problem where I've accidently installed something that I didn't intend to, and nobody else has access to my computers, other than my wife, and I trust her as well. I have a Linux router with a firewall in between my ISP and the rest of my computers, so I'm more-or-less safe from being owned by a hacker, I don't have IIS running, I run Firefox instead of IE, and there's not a chance I'll install anything unless I know that it's source can be trusted...
Slashdot Mirror
If you think that a functioning welfare state providing a safety net for the poor constitutes state socialism
Well, by definition, it sort of does, doesn't it? Not that that's a bad thing. It seems to me that a true capitalist society would have no welfare system whatsoever, so when it comes right down to it most "free" countries have some elements of capitalism, and some elements of socialism thrown into the mix.
Hitchcock's Psycho is based on a book by Robert Bloch...the book's good too, but the movie's a classic...
Why can't we lapse drug laws? or prostitution laws?
I don't know. Personally, I feel that they need to be reformed in both cases, as they fill our prisons with non-violent offenders, turning non-violent offenders into violent offenders, and forcing the parole of dangerous criminals who should be removed from society for as long as possible. However, I make no claims to know how the laws should be reformed.
I believe murder should be legalized. My ideals are different than the mainstream. Does this make me a great patriot?
I don't want the government to decide what I can see or hear because I don't believe that government officials are qualified to make decisions regarding what sorts of things have artistic, scientific, or literary value. Unless I am mistaken, the FCC does not have a panel of scientists, artists, or literary scholars who decide whether or not something has value. I'm not for obscenity, and I'm not against censorship, I'm just against government censorship. It's not like basic cable is much more risque than broadcast TV, and those stations are outside of the reach of the FCC. Those stations are self regulated by the need to sell advertising space in a wide variety of markets. I believe that the right to free speech trumps the possible danger that someone might hear the f-word, or see a nipple (which, I might add, we all have. Yes, even you have a nipple. Probably 2. Maybe more.). How exactly is that comparable to murder? Does God kill a kitten every time someone bares a breast? Do people die whenever the f-word is uttered?
I question the actions of our government as well, because I have the freedom to do so (do you see a pattern yet?)
Ah, but you think that I'm a moron and a bad American for exercising my right to free speech by publicly questioning the actions of our government. Who's the hypocrite now?
Why is the U.S. such a terrible place again? (and if so, why do you live here again if you think it's so terrible?).
I'm positive that you're putting words in my mouth here. I never called the U.S. a terrible place, it is a wonderful place. I love my homeland, and I embrace and fight to keep the freedoms that have been given to me. If I didn't love the U.S., I wouldn't care about what happens here.
Then you need more life experience. I only assumed so because you have such a narrow view of the world.
Perhaps it's you who have the narrow view of the world. I'm not the one who wants to control what other people can see, say, or do. If I don't want to hear or see something, I turn it off, leave the room, or ignore it.
2. The government can censor obscenity in certain mediums if it lacks serious "literary, artistic, political or scientific value." This is a more controversial one, but it is done.
And what makes gov't officials qualified to determine literary, artistic, or scientific value? Do they have a team of artists who decide what is artistic and what is not? For me, pehaps the most artistic thing shown during the superbowl was JJ's boob. Why? Because it made a social commentary. It made a statement about America's puritanical fear of breasts. It showed us exactly what we can and can't do in the "land of the free".
I never said it did. You can say the U.S. is a non-free country all you want, but the fact that you are living here enjoying all the freedoms of being an american tells me something.
Anyone who believes that they live in a completely free society is an idiot. Regardless of which country we live in, we all give up certain freedoms for the good of our society. This is a necessity. The fact that I have an issue with one particular thing in America does not mean that I am any less patriotic, nor that I love America any less than you. Many of our greatest patriots have been people who have voiced beliefs which were different from the mainstream. If everyone blindly followed what there government told them was right, we'd still have slavery, and only white men who own land would be able to vote.
You are a hypocrite and a complete moron,
If I'm the moron, then how come I'm the one who's managed to express himself without resorting to personal insults? And how am I a hypocrite? Just because I question some of the actions of our government? Was Henry David Thoreau also a hypocrite?
who probably hasn't ventured too far past your mom's basement.
not that it's any of your business, but I do not live in my mom's basement. I'm married, gainfully employed, and a home-owner. It is possible to dissagree with you without living in one's mom's basement.
2) howard stern
Oh, yes, he's *never* been censored before.
If you don't think the U.S is a free country, go somewhere else (surprise surprise..you have the freedom to do this if you live in the U.S).
Actually, I think I'll stay here and have my beliefs, thank you very much. Just because I don't believe the same things as you doesn't make me any less American.
Um, replace "There's" with "They're" in my previous post...I dunno what I was thinking
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I haven't used a single vulgarity in any of my posts here. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the first amendment makes no exceptions, but for some reason our government chooses to. It's not just a matter of principle, either. Large companies are fined millions of dollars (over time) just for trying to compete with cable stations, which aren't controlled by the FCC. There's just trying to do business, but they're unable to stay competitive because more popular programming is available on cable. We're also seeing the death of live television because a few celebrities have chosen to express themselves in ways that the FCC doesn't like. Is it really such a crime that Bono said the F-Word, or that Janet Jackson showed us her blurry nipple, or that Stern makes T&A jokes? Is it really worth a national outcry? For me, I'd rather be able to hear a few obscenities every now and then because if those aren't being censored, I can feel more comfortable knowing that other, more important things aren't being censored, either directly or indirectly.
It's only when you try to view SOME (not all) sexually explicit sites that you might be blocked. They can't block them all of course, and there are anon proxies they do not block - so you have options.
You know, I'm not really looking for access to sexually explicit sites here, I'm debating the principle.
Show me where:
Of course, you're misunderstanding the concept of "free speech" anyway - there's no guarantee of free access to any medium...only the guarantee that you're free to talk your mind.
I assure you I'm not misunderstanding the concept of free speech. Yes, yes, I know, not "free as in beer"...ah, if only Slashdot had a "+1 Witty". What I'm saying is that in today's society, people with money have more access than do poor people to nationwide mediums which provide access to the freedom of speech.
I don't really see the difference.
Show me where the first amendment defines the difference:
Libraries? Some may have content censors but that is sexual censorship only, not political (you could still post political messages from them).
Which part of the constitution specifies that freedom of speech doesn't apply to sexual material?
And if you have a laptop there a myriad of free WiFi hotspots.
still had to have enough money to buy a laptop, and to live in a section of town that will have WiFi hotspots. So, yes, I have ample access to free speech. Shouldn't a poor neighbor who doesn't work in the technology sector, and who lives in an undesireable portion of town also have access to free speech?
No shit. However, if I have to have enough money to afford things like an internet connection or cable tv in order to access the freedom of speech, then people who don't have that amount of money are not able to 1. speak there mind freely in a public forum, and 2. access uncensored thoughts from other people.
no, that's a lot of com. A lot of news would be news.news.news.com
About a billion people saw that blurry nipple.
Yeah, and only a small percentage complained...and last I checked, in Great Britain, you can show a blurry nipple on TV.
Yeah, sorry, I muddled up freedom of speech and freedom of expression...same amendment, though...
Oh, by the way, I guess I'm expanding the notion to include free expression. If you want to limit it to freedom of *speech*, how about the fines that the FCC levies against radio broadcasters. Yes, such as Howard Stern, but also others. Or, how about Lenny Bruce?
Also, you contends that "we don't really even support" free speech. I can't think of any outstandingly unconstitutional abridgements of free speech besides The Sedition Act and the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform bill, one of which was repealed. Clue me in here, please.
Well, the national outcry over a blurry nipple is one that I can think of. And the subsequent fines. As I believe Kim Campbell said, any society where you can't look around and find something offensive to someone is not a free society.
"there's no free non-censored medium in America." "the web is pretty well uncensored in the US"
I don't know about you, but I pay money to access the internet.
An adult with something worth saying wouldn't post as Anonymous Coward. Perhaps you should think of something worth saying, and then post that.
Yes, and in Iran, they're free to speak and write as well...as long as they don't publish what they say or write on the Internet. All I'm saying is that if we expect other's to embrace freedom, maybe we should start embracing it here at home.
How can we tell them not to censor the web when we censor just about everything here at home. I mean, yes, the web is pretty well uncensored in the US, but TV isn't, and neither is radio. In fact, there's no free non-censored medium in America. You have to pay for Internet, Cable, Satellite TV, or Satellite Radio in order to have the right to free speech in a country who's first amendment to the constitution guarantees that right. How can we expect Iran to have free speech/expression if we don't really even support it?
Windows 2000/XP doesn't allow non-administrators install applications.
I dunno...On a semi-public computer, I've ended up with AIM and WeatherBug and various browser toolbars and all sorts of crap like that which I'd never install.
It sucks that "run as..." wasn't working well in win2k. If you are in XP, give it another shot. It works great, and will save you a lot of pain, believe me.
I thank you, but I honestly don't see how it would save me pain. I can see how it would save *some* people pain, but I've never had a problem where I've accidently installed something that I didn't intend to, and nobody else has access to my computers, other than my wife, and I trust her as well. I have a Linux router with a firewall in between my ISP and the rest of my computers, so I'm more-or-less safe from being owned by a hacker, I don't have IIS running, I run Firefox instead of IE, and there's not a chance I'll install anything unless I know that it's source can be trusted...