Soldiers of all persuasions are put into positions where they are the ultimate power in a given situation and sometimes, they give in to the urge to behave like animals.
And that's precisely why occupying troops must be kept under a very tight scrutiny. It's not just for the sake of the civilians in the occupied zones; it's also for the sake of the soldiers themselves, to help them resist such urges.
Being the "ultimate power" in some situation might seem nice, but it's actually horribly, horribly dangerous.
But, again, you have to convince the world that what the pastor was doing wasn't hate speech.
Of course it was hate speech. Now how about you convince the world that it's okay to violate network neutrality and censor speech because it was hate speech?
If a group of Neo-Nazis was going to burn a bunch of copies of the Talmud in Skokie, would anyone really care if a bunch of local Jewish teens came out and beat the living shit out of them? I don't really think so. Not trying to Godwin the thread, just saying -- what asshole is going to defend the "rights" of the Nazis to do that?
The cops will. Here the law protects disgusting people too. That's the very difference between West and Islam.
HOWEVER, what do you think fundamentalist Christians would do if Muslims (or Jews or atheists or whatever) started setting up manger scenes at Christmas and burning them stating how moronic Christianity is?
A lot of noise, just as they are doing now. Why? Did you expect riots on the streets? These are not muslims we are talking about, you know.
Regardless of what the radicals or moderates in Islam say or what their reaction is, we should continue to criticise those members of our own society that are willing to incite others for whatever reason - that is what makes us better than them, and that is why we like to live in our society rather than theirs.
No, what makes our society a better place to live is simply that we don't kill, maim, or otherwise harm the people who incite us. Fred Phelps is still alive, despite being a complete asshole who makes mockery of Christianity (but to be fair, it's because he's crazy, not because he means to). Even dens of crazy such as Rapture Ready forums tend more towards "let's hope these people will convert and be saved" than "kill the heathens!" Oh, and things like the Rapture heresy are tolerated, rather than ruthlessly crushed.
Basically, West is "live and let live", while Middle-East is "live and let die". The latter is a decent Bond movie, but a shitty way to live.
If I own a megaphone, and I don't lend it to you because I don't agree with you, am I violating your free speech rights?
False analogy. It's more like you demanding back a megaphone you rented me because you decide you don't like what I'm saying.
Murray Rothbard solved this cleanly by pointing out that free speech is not a right, rather, free speech is derived from, and limited by property rights.
Property rights are an arrangement of convenience for deciding who can use a limited resource, such as a shirt. Thinking that actual human rights - such as the right to free speech - derive from them is completely delusional.
But then again, what else can you expect from a libertarian? The whole ideology is just a convoluted excuse for why you shouldn't have to pay taxes despite enjoying all the protections and conveniences of a society.
The first amendment prohibits the government from suppressing speech, not Rackspace.
That's a rather serious deficiency due to the power megacorporations wield.
I propose a new, graduated Constitution, that binds all entities, each according to its power and the potential to harm others through abuse. At one end, Joe Average gets off with simply paying taxes; on the other extreme, the Government is subject to all the bindings it currently is/should be, and inbetween Robert Murdoch can continue building his empire but will be subject to ever-stricter rules as it grows.
The current situation, where public places, such as malls, are actually private so you have no rights within, is not sustainable. Privatizing everything, then claiming that censorship is okay since it's a private entity doing that - which it always is, since everything is owned by a private entity - makes complete mockery of the rule of law in general and First Amendment in particular.
I don't even understand this idea that data about your eating habits is yours to keep secret.
All data about me is mine to keep secret. I don't understand this idea that it's OK to stalk you and record everything you do. Did some people read the Lord of the Rings and miss the part where the Lidless Eye was a symbol of evil?
If you ask the lunch lady for mac and cheese, and no chicken thank you, she's not legally bound to respect your privacy.
The lunch lady is unlikely to memorize what hundreds of kids have for lunch, day after day, week after week. A computer, on the other hand, can do that easily.
If DDOS attacks are suddenly legal, there are a fuckton of servers I want to point at the MPAA right now.
They aren't legal for mere mortal serfs like you. They are legal for the nobility by virtue of their divine property rights. Learn your place and bow to your masters.
I don't equate the ability to counterfeit or violate copyright with freedom or even a basic human right.
And yet the rest of your post goes on to talk about freedom of speech. Well, in teh America, you can't post details about Scientologist beliefs, because those are copyrighted.
The left leaning citizens complain that the "Tea Party" folks are exercising their rights and getting results yet they do nothing in return.... argh!
They have, apparently, done enough to make you aware of their criticism.
Now what really concerns me is that the US was the only party in the negotiations that wanted to keep the contents of ACTA secret. This is to make it easier to rubber stamp though congress, and get the treaty signed before any of the pesky US citizens can exercise their rights to stop it.
To put it bluntly, you can't get it stopped. Your only choice is between right-wing evil (Republicans) and right-centrist evil (Democrats). Your de facto two-party system means that your leaders are pretty much entirely unchecked. That, in turn, means that your only hope is that multi-party EU will put on the brakes, and luckily for you, it seems to be doing just that.
Two parties is just one more than in Soviet Russia, so why do you expect to get more than just a tiny bit more freedom either?
Sure the supreme court recently reaffirmed a corporation's right to contribute to political campaigns or PACs, but we have the freedom to associate and nothing should limit that association's free speech which includes funding political campaigns.
You have the right to associate. Why should the association have free speech rights? You already do, as do the persons who you are associating with. If the association is deprived a voice, who is being silenced?
Why should you be allowed to invent fictional persons who promote your interests? The whole thing bears an uncanny similarity to sock puppets on Internet forums, with all the same problems.
Thankfully a corporation still can not cast a vote in an election.
It doesn't need to, since it's allowed to bribe the electees.
They knew the plans for the death star were on that ship and since a high ranking politician was on board they couldn't just destroy it right away.
What high-ranking politician? The only people on the ship at that point were Obi-Wan, Luke, Han, Chewie, R2-D2 and 3-CPO. None of them were politicians.
Besides, if the Empire was willing to blow up an entire planet, I doubt they'd spare a ship either. It simply doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, Han shot first and Lucas simply cut that from the movie.
So... Why did the Death Star capture Millenium Falcon? They destroyed Alderaan to invoke terror; wouldn't they want as many ships as possible to spread the word that it's gone?
Mr. Lucas, is this another instance of making someone else shoot first?
First thing is food, health, education, a future; once you have all that, you can go with lesser important details like democracy.
History strongly suggests that you can only have the former when you have the last. Dictatorships have a tendency to channel all resources for the benefit of the dictator, leading to ordinary people starving. It happened in France, it's happening in North Korea now.
If you lack freedom, chances are that you'll soon lack everything else too.
And who should we blame? Corps, who like everyone, has their best interests in mind, or those who grant their wishes?
Both. Why would either those who say "please screw people over for my benefit" or those who answer "okay" be without blame?
It should be pretty clear as to the real cause of monopolies...
Monopolies are caused by the exponential nature of compound interest. The more money you have, the easier it is to make more, resulting in you having yet more money. The end result is a singularity forms and sucks everything in, then implodes when there's nothing left to consume.
This process can be prevented by regulating corporations, ideally to the point where they're simply not allowed to grow beyond a certain size, but this goes against the pseudo-religious believes of the Free Market Fundamentalists, so the government has been lax in its duties lately.
The question is, will it turn into a full fledged witch (terrorist) hunt between citizens or will the citizens realize their enemy is more than a person, or a group of people, or a country, or even a political/religious ideology.
Judging by America's past and present of one moral panic after another, from Salem Withc Trials to McCarthyism, from Comics Code to current obsession with Sexual Predators and Child Pornography, I'd put my money on a witch hunt.
Besides, American citizens do have a tendency to flip out and start killing or threatening other citizens with depressing regularity, so considering your fellow citizens potential terrorists is actually quite justified. There was a story just a few days ago on Slashdot about some ecoterrorist taking a TV station hostage...
The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is hardly blind faith. On the other hand, "accused therefore guilty" is blind faith on the accuser. Or do you know of some actual evidence that backs the accusations?
Slashdot Mirror
And that's precisely why occupying troops must be kept under a very tight scrutiny. It's not just for the sake of the civilians in the occupied zones; it's also for the sake of the soldiers themselves, to help them resist such urges.
Being the "ultimate power" in some situation might seem nice, but it's actually horribly, horribly dangerous.
Of course it was hate speech. Now how about you convince the world that it's okay to violate network neutrality and censor speech because it was hate speech?
The cops will. Here the law protects disgusting people too. That's the very difference between West and Islam.
A lot of noise, just as they are doing now. Why? Did you expect riots on the streets? These are not muslims we are talking about, you know.
No, what makes our society a better place to live is simply that we don't kill, maim, or otherwise harm the people who incite us. Fred Phelps is still alive, despite being a complete asshole who makes mockery of Christianity (but to be fair, it's because he's crazy, not because he means to). Even dens of crazy such as Rapture Ready forums tend more towards "let's hope these people will convert and be saved" than "kill the heathens!" Oh, and things like the Rapture heresy are tolerated, rather than ruthlessly crushed.
Basically, West is "live and let live", while Middle-East is "live and let die". The latter is a decent Bond movie, but a shitty way to live.
The problem is, not being a muslim seems to equate being a target of islamic terrorism.
False analogy. It's more like you demanding back a megaphone you rented me because you decide you don't like what I'm saying.
Property rights are an arrangement of convenience for deciding who can use a limited resource, such as a shirt. Thinking that actual human rights - such as the right to free speech - derive from them is completely delusional.
But then again, what else can you expect from a libertarian? The whole ideology is just a convoluted excuse for why you shouldn't have to pay taxes despite enjoying all the protections and conveniences of a society.
That's a rather serious deficiency due to the power megacorporations wield.
I propose a new, graduated Constitution, that binds all entities, each according to its power and the potential to harm others through abuse. At one end, Joe Average gets off with simply paying taxes; on the other extreme, the Government is subject to all the bindings it currently is/should be, and inbetween Robert Murdoch can continue building his empire but will be subject to ever-stricter rules as it grows.
The current situation, where public places, such as malls, are actually private so you have no rights within, is not sustainable. Privatizing everything, then claiming that censorship is okay since it's a private entity doing that - which it always is, since everything is owned by a private entity - makes complete mockery of the rule of law in general and First Amendment in particular.
Finland, judging by my memories.
All data about me is mine to keep secret. I don't understand this idea that it's OK to stalk you and record everything you do. Did some people read the Lord of the Rings and miss the part where the Lidless Eye was a symbol of evil?
The lunch lady is unlikely to memorize what hundreds of kids have for lunch, day after day, week after week. A computer, on the other hand, can do that easily.
They aren't legal for mere mortal serfs like you. They are legal for the nobility by virtue of their divine property rights. Learn your place and bow to your masters.
So... what would that leave?
And yet the rest of your post goes on to talk about freedom of speech. Well, in teh America, you can't post details about Scientologist beliefs, because those are copyrighted.
They have, apparently, done enough to make you aware of their criticism.
To put it bluntly, you can't get it stopped. Your only choice is between right-wing evil (Republicans) and right-centrist evil (Democrats). Your de facto two-party system means that your leaders are pretty much entirely unchecked. That, in turn, means that your only hope is that multi-party EU will put on the brakes, and luckily for you, it seems to be doing just that.
Two parties is just one more than in Soviet Russia, so why do you expect to get more than just a tiny bit more freedom either?
You have the right to associate. Why should the association have free speech rights? You already do, as do the persons who you are associating with. If the association is deprived a voice, who is being silenced?
Why should you be allowed to invent fictional persons who promote your interests? The whole thing bears an uncanny similarity to sock puppets on Internet forums, with all the same problems.
It doesn't need to, since it's allowed to bribe the electees.
Actually, it's "free" as in "tax-free tee" ;(.
What high-ranking politician? The only people on the ship at that point were Obi-Wan, Luke, Han, Chewie, R2-D2 and 3-CPO. None of them were politicians.
Besides, if the Empire was willing to blow up an entire planet, I doubt they'd spare a ship either. It simply doesn't make sense. Unless, of course, Han shot first and Lucas simply cut that from the movie.
Or? Everyone knows that Candlejack works for the CI
So... Why did the Death Star capture Millenium Falcon? They destroyed Alderaan to invoke terror; wouldn't they want as many ships as possible to spread the word that it's gone?
Mr. Lucas, is this another instance of making someone else shoot first?
Why not? Your brain cells are doing just that. How's it feel to be the collective consciousness of a bunch of unicellular clones?
History strongly suggests that you can only have the former when you have the last. Dictatorships have a tendency to channel all resources for the benefit of the dictator, leading to ordinary people starving. It happened in France, it's happening in North Korea now.
If you lack freedom, chances are that you'll soon lack everything else too.
That's pretty much capitalism in a nutshell, and is the reason why everything is as durable as wet cardboard nowadays.
Both. Why would either those who say "please screw people over for my benefit" or those who answer "okay" be without blame?
Monopolies are caused by the exponential nature of compound interest. The more money you have, the easier it is to make more, resulting in you having yet more money. The end result is a singularity forms and sucks everything in, then implodes when there's nothing left to consume.
This process can be prevented by regulating corporations, ideally to the point where they're simply not allowed to grow beyond a certain size, but this goes against the pseudo-religious believes of the Free Market Fundamentalists, so the government has been lax in its duties lately.
Isn't that a bit harsh, no matter how bad the code he made is ?-)
Judging by America's past and present of one moral panic after another, from Salem Withc Trials to McCarthyism, from Comics Code to current obsession with Sexual Predators and Child Pornography, I'd put my money on a witch hunt.
Besides, American citizens do have a tendency to flip out and start killing or threatening other citizens with depressing regularity, so considering your fellow citizens potential terrorists is actually quite justified. There was a story just a few days ago on Slashdot about some ecoterrorist taking a TV station hostage...
"Innocent until proven guilty" is hardly blind faith. On the other hand, "accused therefore guilty" is blind faith on the accuser. Or do you know of some actual evidence that backs the accusations?