I was arguing from "should be", not "is". And I especially don't think the federal government should have an agency benefitting one particular industry.
I'd normally give you a pass for misunderstanding me, but since you called me an idiot without first attempting to understand what I was saying I won't forgive you, not like you care.
Rights don't come from other people, unless you want to get into a stupid semantic argument.
The founders of the country felt that rights were inalienable and NOT created by society or other people. That is, you had natural rights.
I recognize rights on a philosophical level, myself-- basically, anything that does not put force on another person. Putting something in your own body does not, under just about every conceivable circumstance imaginable, force anything on anyone besides yourself. You are not stealing, damaging their property, or hurting them.
I do not live or feel comfortable with your idea of an "ant colony society", where the individual is at the whim of the majority.
So yes, I have the right to do any damn thing I want whether other people like it or not, as long as I do not damage their property or harm them explicitly.
What I want to know is why there even IS a "U.S. Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task Force". This is (or should be) a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Oh wait, duh. The RIAA and MPAA and their "politican contributions". Ca-ching!
Heh, most Linux people (including me) always argue that's one of the benefits of open source, so people can see the bugs and fix it, and then someone complains when Intel might be using it for that reason:)
Let us not be too hasty to chastise intel for being smart...
Nice try, but our concerns are about fair use (loading music from a CD onto computer for backup or MP3 player purposes) and compatibility (Microsoft DRM'd BIOS working with Linux???)
In a series of decisions including Rust v. Sullivan 500 U.S. 173 (1991), and most recently Legal Services Corp. v. Velasquez, 121 S. Ct. 1043 (2001), the Court has drawn a distinction between situations in which the government acts as speaker and those in which the government 'does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message it favors but instead expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers...When a government program is 'designed to facilitate private speech, not to promote a governmental message,' the First Amendment applies in full force (ALA, et al., 2001, pp. 4-5).
from http://www.mlaforum.org/volumeI/issue1/suppression.html
Oh yes, and what about circumvention of such software? Clearly, the schools can try to censor (it is censorship, but in this case legal censorship-- censorship is silencing any speech for whatever reason) speech, but is punishing the circumvention of the software allowable?
Circumventing library filters by use of proxies, for example. I'm not sure but I think that can get you in trouble...
It doesn't matter if they are done in certain public places, it's still censorship. The difference between a company banning pornography and a library is that a library is a public facility.
Public property is specifically the target of the first amendment. Companies can and should be allowed to limit what is done in their facilities, however, the government cannot do the same with speech.
If you are right, then the government can forbid you to be on public land because of any opinion you voice they deem unacceptable.
I'm sorry, but I can't find any online references that say "unlawful combatants" are deemed such at trial. Can you point one out to me, then I'll get back to you.
That is always true of any individual, institution, or authority - so it isn't much of an objection.
Indeed, but there are no safeguards in place, other than blind trust in the military.
If it is determined by a tribunal (i.e. by a military court) that a particular prisoner is an "unlawful combatant" then that prisoner will probably be executed. They certainly won't be held indefinitely. Same goes for those found guilty of war crimes (although a prison term is an option). Prisoners who are merely considered "enemy combatants" can be held until the end of the war. That is the way it has always worked with POWs.
How long until they have military court? Is there a time allocation for these "unlawful combatants"?
Innocent? Do you mean "what if they were not combatants?" Then it is fortunate that they were taken prisoner instead of being shot on the battlefield - which is what will happen if the military is forced to release every prisoner taken.
Strawman. As far as I know, there are no safeguards on whether these really were "unlawful combatants" other than the military's say-so, and as far as I know the wait for being tried in military court can be indefinite.
What is a neutral person was simply fleeing the area of the city the battling was occuring, and they inadventantly fell into the military's hands, and for whatever reason the military just assumed they were "unlawful combatants"? Since they "have no rights" they can be locked up forever just because the military claims they were "unlawful combatants", correct?
The insurgents could possibly have been given the weapons. We don't know yet. Both scenarios are possible, however it's too soon for screaming "WMD!".
It's also interesting that "it's not censorship" if the government has 'always allowed itself' to do something. It still is censorship, even if it is "allowed".
Also, the softwares RESTRICT citizens from using publicly available resources from finding information. This is not a case about preferential treatment, but denying some things outright, based on the filtering software company's discretion. This prevents me from looking at "taboo" things or "innocent" sites caught by the filters. The government has never had any right to attach strings to money if the strings are for illegal purposes, and actively censoring (this is not a choosing which books to allow issue) information that can be transmitted on public grounds has always been illegal. I see no difference in restricting government funds for those who don't censor pro-abortion web sites and restricting funds for libraries who allow people to express pro-abortion stances, whether it is simply on a t-shirt or whispering quietly to another person in the library.
In schools, it is much the same thing. Schools have a right on what to teach, but they cannot go out of their way to prevent people from hearing about topics, whether a student tells another student about something "taboo" or they can read it on the internet. The government has never had a right to do that.
Libraries and schools shouldn't be supported by the government, anyway.
Your argument boils down to "Just trust the military, they're good guys, if they did something wrong they'll be held accountable".
You keep on ignoring the fact that the military can (and obviously does) make mistakes. Apparently, these "unlawful combatants" can remain at Guantanamo for an indefinite period of time. What if some are innocent? Or are they guilty until proven otherwise, because "the military says so"?
Since they don't get a trial, how the hell is anyone going to find out if the military was lying or not?
Also, all the military has to do, if I'm not mistaken, is SUSPECT them of being "unlawful combatants". What ensures the military suspicion is well-founded?
How do you know they are unlawful combatants if they don't get any trial? Innocent until proven guilty is only a "good thing" if it applies to a US citizen, correct? Or just not someone ACCUSED of being an "unlawful combatant"?
You say most of the prisoners ("Unlawful Combatants") were captured on the battlefield firing at US soldiers, etc etc. How can you know this if there is no trial?
This is really pissing me off. This is simply unacceptable. Google is really a good company, with their "do-no-evil" policy and nonintrusive method of making $$$.
YOU, the user, ACCEPT THE AGREEMENTS when you sign up. That should be between YOU and GOOGLE, not Mr. Politician's job.
Sure, there are ridiculous EULA but targetting Google like this is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not my fault those things exist.
I was arguing from "should be", not "is". And I especially don't think the federal government should have an agency benefitting one particular industry.
I'd normally give you a pass for misunderstanding me, but since you called me an idiot without first attempting to understand what I was saying I won't forgive you, not like you care.
Rights don't come from other people, unless you want to get into a stupid semantic argument.
The founders of the country felt that rights were inalienable and NOT created by society or other people. That is, you had natural rights.
I recognize rights on a philosophical level, myself-- basically, anything that does not put force on another person. Putting something in your own body does not, under just about every conceivable circumstance imaginable, force anything on anyone besides yourself. You are not stealing, damaging their property, or hurting them.
I do not live or feel comfortable with your idea of an "ant colony society", where the individual is at the whim of the majority.
So yes, I have the right to do any damn thing I want whether other people like it or not, as long as I do not damage their property or harm them explicitly.
You miss my point entirely, then flame me. Good job!
I'm aware, but property/copyright disputes should be civil matters, correct?
If I crash into your mailbox I don't expect to be taken to criminal court, I expect it to be a civil matter.
No, what's disturbing is that they continue to waste money and time on something that doesn't work and is an abridgement of a person's rights anyway.
What I want to know is why there even IS a "U.S. Justice Department's Intellectual Property Task Force". This is (or should be) a civil matter, not a criminal one.
Oh wait, duh. The RIAA and MPAA and their "politican contributions". Ca-ching!
Canada certainly does not have free speech.
Heh, most Linux people (including me) always argue that's one of the benefits of open source, so people can see the bugs and fix it, and then someone complains when Intel might be using it for that reason :)
Let us not be too hasty to chastise intel for being smart...
Nice try, but our concerns are about fair use (loading music from a CD onto computer for backup or MP3 player purposes) and compatibility (Microsoft DRM'd BIOS working with Linux???)
Those don't say anything about them getting trials to be determined as "unlawful combatants", only that tribunals are authorized.
In a series of decisions including Rust v. Sullivan 500 U.S. 173 (1991), and most recently Legal Services Corp. v. Velasquez, 121 S. Ct. 1043 (2001), the Court has drawn a distinction between situations in which the government acts as speaker and those in which the government 'does not itself speak or subsidize transmittal of a message it favors but instead expends funds to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers...When a government program is 'designed to facilitate private speech, not to promote a governmental message,' the First Amendment applies in full force (ALA, et al., 2001, pp. 4-5).
n .html
from http://www.mlaforum.org/volumeI/issue1/suppressio
Oh yes, and what about circumvention of such software? Clearly, the schools can try to censor (it is censorship, but in this case legal censorship-- censorship is silencing any speech for whatever reason) speech, but is punishing the circumvention of the software allowable?
Circumventing library filters by use of proxies, for example. I'm not sure but I think that can get you in trouble...
Ah, thank you for enlightening me. I was not aware on just how much power the government has declared for itself.
It doesn't matter if they are done in certain public places, it's still censorship. The difference between a company banning pornography and a library is that a library is a public facility.
Public property is specifically the target of the first amendment. Companies can and should be allowed to limit what is done in their facilities, however, the government cannot do the same with speech.
If you are right, then the government can forbid you to be on public land because of any opinion you voice they deem unacceptable.
I'm sorry, but I can't find any online references that say "unlawful combatants" are deemed such at trial. Can you point one out to me, then I'll get back to you.
That is always true of any individual, institution, or authority - so it isn't much of an objection.
Indeed, but there are no safeguards in place, other than blind trust in the military.
If it is determined by a tribunal (i.e. by a military court) that a particular prisoner is an "unlawful combatant" then that prisoner will probably be executed. They certainly won't be held indefinitely. Same goes for those found guilty of war crimes (although a prison term is an option). Prisoners who are merely considered "enemy combatants" can be held until the end of the war. That is the way it has always worked with POWs.
How long until they have military court? Is there a time allocation for these "unlawful combatants"?
Innocent? Do you mean "what if they were not combatants?" Then it is fortunate that they were taken prisoner instead of being shot on the battlefield - which is what will happen if the military is forced to release every prisoner taken.
Strawman. As far as I know, there are no safeguards on whether these really were "unlawful combatants" other than the military's say-so, and as far as I know the wait for being tried in military court can be indefinite.
What is a neutral person was simply fleeing the area of the city the battling was occuring, and they inadventantly fell into the military's hands, and for whatever reason the military just assumed they were "unlawful combatants"? Since they "have no rights" they can be locked up forever just because the military claims they were "unlawful combatants", correct?
The insurgents could possibly have been given the weapons. We don't know yet. Both scenarios are possible, however it's too soon for screaming "WMD!".
It's also interesting that "it's not censorship" if the government has 'always allowed itself' to do something. It still is censorship, even if it is "allowed".
Also, the softwares RESTRICT citizens from using publicly available resources from finding information. This is not a case about preferential treatment, but denying some things outright, based on the filtering software company's discretion. This prevents me from looking at "taboo" things or "innocent" sites caught by the filters. The government has never had any right to attach strings to money if the strings are for illegal purposes, and actively censoring (this is not a choosing which books to allow issue) information that can be transmitted on public grounds has always been illegal. I see no difference in restricting government funds for those who don't censor pro-abortion web sites and restricting funds for libraries who allow people to express pro-abortion stances, whether it is simply on a t-shirt or whispering quietly to another person in the library.
In schools, it is much the same thing. Schools have a right on what to teach, but they cannot go out of their way to prevent people from hearing about topics, whether a student tells another student about something "taboo" or they can read it on the internet. The government has never had a right to do that.
Libraries and schools shouldn't be supported by the government, anyway.
The recent "WMDs" could very well have been brought in from elsewhere.
And what about netnanny and other censorship software in public schools and libraries?
I doubt he'll answer you.
Your argument boils down to "Just trust the military, they're good guys, if they did something wrong they'll be held accountable".
You keep on ignoring the fact that the military can (and obviously does) make mistakes. Apparently, these "unlawful combatants" can remain at Guantanamo for an indefinite period of time. What if some are innocent? Or are they guilty until proven otherwise, because "the military says so"?
Since they don't get a trial, how the hell is anyone going to find out if the military was lying or not?
Also, all the military has to do, if I'm not mistaken, is SUSPECT them of being "unlawful combatants". What ensures the military suspicion is well-founded?
How do you know they are unlawful combatants if they don't get any trial? Innocent until proven guilty is only a "good thing" if it applies to a US citizen, correct? Or just not someone ACCUSED of being an "unlawful combatant"?
You say most of the prisoners ("Unlawful Combatants") were captured on the battlefield firing at US soldiers, etc etc. How can you know this if there is no trial?
This is really pissing me off. This is simply unacceptable. Google is really a good company, with their "do-no-evil" policy and nonintrusive method of making $$$.
YOU, the user, ACCEPT THE AGREEMENTS when you sign up. That should be between YOU and GOOGLE, not Mr. Politician's job.
Sure, there are ridiculous EULA but targetting Google like this is ridiculous.
Mod parent up more, please.