Americans are still consumers, and while we may be a largely unthinking purchasing mass, people can quite easily distinguish "shitty" from "awesome" which is exactly the distinction one can make between a mass media run network with terrible latency and low bandwidth and one run by, say, Google.
Yea, because Google, who is in bed with the CIA, would be a MUCH better choice. Google will probably be the Internet 2(read Net Neutralized)bringer of doom. What else would they need all that fiber and all those data centers?
The internet should not be run by a handful of corporations, or one corporation. The Internet should stay the decentralized network that it is.
Simply giving control to a single company, Google(as you seem to be OK with), is not the answer. if anything it is worse than five companies.
gillbates said,
"Speech with political consequences shouldn't be restrained, but speech with violent consequences ought not be protected. Drawing the line between the two isn't easy, because political speech often has violent consequences."
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads...
"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, unless of course it is violence inducing".
OK, so I added the italicized part. Do you seriously believe this? As you said, political speech often has violent consequences, a specific Revolutionary War comes to mind. Our founding fathers were fully cognizant of the implications of speech. They were not idiots. Though, they also understood that in order for a people to remain free a society must be willing to deal with the criminal miscreants among them without derogating liberty of the innocent.
If he actually started a genocide, it would be one thing. Hell, if this guy moved massive amounts of funds to buy weapons for a horde of genocidal maniacs to do his bidding, those things would be perfectly punishable. But, simply talking about a proposed genocide of the Palestinians, something I am wholly against, does not ACTUALLY kill people.
If I am not mistaken a Dr. Eric R. Pianka called for the genocide of 90% of the people GLOBALLY. While I do not agree with him -I actually think he is an evil, immoral and unethical spawn of Satan's rectum- he can not be held accountable until he actually makes moves to create his "airborne ebola" and distribute it.
Don't willfully give up freedom. Property crimes are the only things which should be punished, assuming also that a person's body is the utmost in private property. See, that way only those who actually hurt others can be punished of a crime. Last I checked, I have never been bruised, cut or had my house burned down by mere words. Rather, it was the actions of individuals.
I know, this would never happen in the Empire! Oh, but it will.
As usual it will be happening under the guise of protecting our children. IT'S FOR THE KIDS! Senator John "Globalist Shill" McCain introduced a bill in 2006 called "Stop the Online Exploitation of our Children Act of 2006". That bill allows for what is happening in Sweden, only ours is all juiced up on roids.
It would, from the thinkprogress article linked below,
-"Commercial websites and personal blogs "would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000."
and my favorite,
-"Internet service providers (ISPs) are already required to issue such reports, but under McCain's legislation, bloggers with comment sections may face "even stiffer penalties" than ISPs."
Of course it is all in the definitions. How do YOU define obscene or offensive? Maybe as "something that is lascivious" and appealing to prurient interests. Maybe something that is abnormal, unhealthy, degrading or shameful? They have all been used to define illegal obscenity. Pick your word, the more broad, vague and all-encompassing the better. Of course these word games have been played time and time again to do nothing more than rip away the first amendment from the citizens.
The excuse of protecting the children to relieve the citizen of his/her rights is one of the oldest in the politicians bag of liberty stealing, tyranny inducing tricks.
is breaking the law, no matter what the motive. Greenpeace might have a good motive but it does not give them the legal right to forcibly hi-jack oil rigs(yes, ransacking it with choppers and boats then refusing to leave is forcibly). This is no different. ANY DOS attack is ILLEGAL. Freedom of speech or any other amendant does NOT give anyone the right to break the law. If they want to get their point across and not look like you average extremist whack-job they will do it the old fashion way.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, because Google, who is in bed with the CIA, would be a MUCH better choice. Google will probably be the Internet 2(read Net Neutralized)bringer of doom. What else would they need all that fiber and all those data centers?
The internet should not be run by a handful of corporations, or one corporation. The Internet should stay the decentralized network that it is.
Simply giving control to a single company, Google(as you seem to be OK with), is not the answer. if anything it is worse than five companies.
Just my two cents.
The Captain
gillbates said,
"Speech with political consequences shouldn't be restrained, but speech with violent consequences ought not be protected. Drawing the line between the two isn't easy, because political speech often has violent consequences."
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads...
"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, unless of course it is violence inducing".
OK, so I added the italicized part. Do you seriously believe this? As you said, political speech often has violent consequences, a specific Revolutionary War comes to mind. Our founding fathers were fully cognizant of the implications of speech. They were not idiots. Though, they also understood that in order for a people to remain free a society must be willing to deal with the criminal miscreants among them without derogating liberty of the innocent.
If he actually started a genocide, it would be one thing. Hell, if this guy moved massive amounts of funds to buy weapons for a horde of genocidal maniacs to do his bidding, those things would be perfectly punishable. But, simply talking about a proposed genocide of the Palestinians, something I am wholly against, does not ACTUALLY kill people.
If I am not mistaken a Dr. Eric R. Pianka called for the genocide of 90% of the people GLOBALLY. While I do not agree with him -I actually think he is an evil, immoral and unethical spawn of Satan's rectum- he can not be held accountable until he actually makes moves to create his "airborne ebola" and distribute it.
Don't willfully give up freedom. Property crimes are the only things which should be punished, assuming also that a person's body is the utmost in private property. See, that way only those who actually hurt others can be punished of a crime. Last I checked, I have never been bruised, cut or had my house burned down by mere words. Rather, it was the actions of individuals.
The Captain
I know, this would never happen in the Empire! Oh, but it will.
- blogs/
As usual it will be happening under the guise of protecting our children. IT'S FOR THE KIDS! Senator John "Globalist Shill" McCain introduced a bill in 2006 called "Stop the Online Exploitation of our Children Act of 2006". That bill allows for what is happening in Sweden, only ours is all juiced up on roids.
It would, from the thinkprogress article linked below,
-"Commercial websites and personal blogs "would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000."
and my favorite,
-"Internet service providers (ISPs) are already required to issue such reports, but under McCain's legislation, bloggers with comment sections may face "even stiffer penalties" than ISPs."
Of course it is all in the definitions. How do YOU define obscene or offensive? Maybe as "something that is lascivious" and appealing to prurient interests. Maybe something that is abnormal, unhealthy, degrading or shameful? They have all been used to define illegal obscenity. Pick your word, the more broad, vague and all-encompassing the better. Of course these word games have been played time and time again to do nothing more than rip away the first amendment from the citizens.
The excuse of protecting the children to relieve the citizen of his/her rights is one of the oldest in the politicians bag of liberty stealing, tyranny inducing tricks.
Don't ever say it can't happen here.
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/12/13/mccain-war-on
Woot! Already downloading the torrent of Duke Nukem Forever pre-release for it!!!
is breaking the law, no matter what the motive. Greenpeace might have a good motive but it does not give them the legal right to forcibly hi-jack oil rigs(yes, ransacking it with choppers and boats then refusing to leave is forcibly). This is no different. ANY DOS attack is ILLEGAL. Freedom of speech or any other amendant does NOT give anyone the right to break the law. If they want to get their point across and not look like you average extremist whack-job they will do it the old fashion way.