FYI: They did go through with it, but I think less than a dozen truckers actually showed up, probably because the people organizing and advertising the event had absolutely zero contact with actual truckers. IIRC it was some Koch-funded astroturf organization or something, and they couldn't get any truckers organizations on-board.
Are you seriously implying that you cannot understand the difference between a right to speak and a right to force others to listen?
You are implying that everybody within earshot has a right to tell me what I can and cannot say. That is not free speech in any sense of the words.
You are also implying that it's legal for the government to arrest you for writing a letter complaining about some policy -- because by mailing that letter you are "forcing" them to handle it.
You are indeed everything that is wrong with this country -- as you seem to think that you alone should have a right to compel everybody around you to do anything you want. Hate to break it to you, but the universe does not revolve around you man.
I am not particularly fond of the extent of the punishment, but I am certainly in favor of your idea about limiting protests to areas where they do not disturbing people that are not interested in hearing them. Free speech is the right to say stuff, not the right to make people listen to you by force.
Nobody is forcing you to listen to it. If you don't want to hear it you're perfectly free to walk away or put in earplugs.
Free speech is the right to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Once you start restricting it then by definition it is no longer free speech -- it's restricted speech.
I really don't get this mentality on slashdot that DDoS is civil disobedience. It isn't. It's censorship. A sit in allows the speaker to still be able to speak, a DDoS on the other hand is like the gestapo coming in and taking you away because you said something they didn't like.
Wrong and wrong. The entire point of sit-ins is to be a denial of service attack. Look at the lunch counter sit-ins of the US civil rights movements. Yes, the point was just to sit there until they were served -- but in doing so they were preventing other customers from being served as well. Two people at a sit-in is not a DoS; twenty people is. Same here. A dozen Anon members could hammer the site all day long and nothing would happen -- the DoS only comes with a large mass of people. Even a public march is a DoS attack if you have enough people -- as they've gotta block off the streets.
And the difference between a protest and censorship is that a protest requires constant, mass participation. You can't just DDoS any website you want at any time all by yourself. Gestapo censorship would be one guy showing up with a gun and saying "don't print this" and if you do print it you end up in a labor camp. In this case it was not one guy, they were not armed, they were not subverting the normal system in any way, and they have no power to throw you in a freakin gulag. And the duration of their attack is, at best, as long as the shortest attention span in the group.
Why is it insane that it is illegal? This isn't just boycotting and picketing, it is intentionally and forcefully preventing others from doing business. Protesting is fine, but when you stop a business from doing any business by shutting down their website, that isn't just protesting. It would be like standing outside a store you don't like and stopping anyone that wants to go inside to shop. That, too, is illegal.
Not always. Depends on how exactly you do it. Sure, you can't physically prevent people from entering the store. But that's not like a DDoS, that's like cutting the network cable. A DDoS is like asking a ton of people to go to the store and not buy anything. Maybe fill up carts and abandon them at the register. Which is completely legal -- at least until they ask you to leave. But even then you'd get arrested to trespassing, NOT for disrupting business.
For an even better analogy, this is literally the exact same tactic, using almost identical technology, as a "phone bomb" -- i.e., getting a bunch of people to call the customer service number to complain all at the same time. Which is also completely legal.
...this assumes that the "Western liberal democracy" remains as it is. Which is clearly not the case. Although many (myself included) would argue that it never truly existed in the first place.
For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels.
If you're actually a physicist I'd expect you to comprehend the fact that there are different definitions of "harmful". Most people would not consider the radiation your body naturally produces or the radiation from a TV to be "harmful". According to the US government, 5,000 millirems/yr is safe -- i.e., "not harmful".
Also, that blog doesn't seem to actually says that low levels are not harmful. It says they are "essentially safe". Those are somewhat distinct concepts.
They could very well be. It's the "Interstate and defense *network*". The individual highways can be either, so long as the entire network contains both:)
I'd rather companies didn't discriminate, but it's hard to come up with a compelling argument for why they should be legally forbidden from doing so. As long as it's out in the open, take your pick and sign up.
How about the fact that, in much of the US, "take your pick" would mean "sign up for the only option available and deal with it"?
Shit I still know people whose *only* option is a single, *dial-up* ISP. And if that ISP decides to start blocking shit, what's your solution? Tell them to go buy a new house somewhere else?
How many innocents are you willing to kill in the name of your revolution? At what pre-determined point does the blood flow stop? And is there forgiveness for your enemies, and leniency available? Or are you simply going to kill anyone who is the enemy, extend that to any who don't agree with you, and stop only when there's no one left to shoot at?
The Constitution outlines your rights. If anybody tries to violate those rights, you may do whatever is necessary to stop them. So, you shoot people who try to take your rights by force.
Now, you'll probably end up dead, and if it went to court you'd probably lose...but if, for example, a government agent tries to enter your home by force with no warrant, it is legal and moral to defend yourself with violent force if necessary. Otherwise being "free from unreasonable search and seizure" is no longer a right, it is merely a promise.
That's because they're not interstate highways. They're "Interstate AND DEFENSE" highways. People just skip the "and defense" part because they're lazy. The original Interstate highway system was pretty much entirely planned by the US Army for moving troops and supplies.
Actually, "Interstate Highway" is shorthand for "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". It's not just the commerce clause that was used to authorize it, but also the preamble which permits them to "provide for the common defense" -- it was initially a military network, almost entirely planned by General John J. Pershing.
Remember what happened the last time the Judicial Branch tried to tell the Executive Branch it couldn't do something? The Trail of Tears was the result.
Next time spend two seconds on Google before you start spewing such crap. You're off by a few orders of magnitude. The last time the Judicial branch told the Executive it couldn't do something was most certainly NOT the Trail of Tears. That was almost 200 years ago. Here's one case that was less than six months ago:
Where? In many states it's actually illegal for the police to issue a citation if you're within 5MPH of the speed limit. My former home state of Pennsylvania being one of them.
In most of the US, above 70MPH is illegal on absolutely any road, by state or federal law. Some states go up to 80, but most set the limit at 65 (which I believe is due to federal "incentives", though I could be very wrong there). Also, most of our cars are electronically limited far below 155MPH. My Pontiac is limited to 105...
...so for just one example: you think anyone opposed to hydrofracking for any reason (ie, including "nuclear is more efficient") is a legitimate terrorist? Because the DHS does:
There are also plenty of cases where the labels force websites to take down copyrights and the artists response is "We wish they hadn't done that, but we have absolutely no control over it" -- the band Jucifer is one such example.
Sorry, that clearly should have been "take down LYRICS", not copyrights...
Slashdot really needs to get with the times and add an 'edit' button...I'm getting dependent on having one these days....
The artists may provide lyrics, but they are the ones who put the songs under copyright via ASCAP or BMI, not the labels
In most cases the artists are required by the contract to transfer the copyright to the labels. So the artists are technically infringing copyright when they post lyrics to the songs that they themselves have written.
There are also plenty of cases where the labels force websites to take down copyrights and the artists response is "We wish they hadn't done that, but we have absolutely no control over it" -- the band Jucifer is one such example.
In most music publishing agreements, there is a requirement that the songwriter assign the copyright of the written song to the publisher. This is known as a "transfer of copyright," or simply "assignment." This, in effect, transfers ownership of the song to the publisher in exchange for the payment to the songwriter of royalties in amounts and time intervals agreed upon in the publishing contract. Typically, song copyrights are held by the music publishers, while sound recordings are controlled by the record companies.
I don't think we have the same idea here. We don't keep our government "in check". Instead, we populate the government with people representative to some degree of the population at large. When the richest 1% are not the ruling class, you get wonderful benefits like a taxation of not only the poor, but also the rich. And that there provides a fantastic boost to the national economy.
That *is* keeping the government "in check". That's what the USA used to have too -- at least more like that than what we have now. Look into Abe Lincoln's early life for example. The reason we're so fucked now is that we failed to prevent them from continuing to amass more and more power over the years to the point where now they're a whole different class.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI: They did go through with it, but I think less than a dozen truckers actually showed up, probably because the people organizing and advertising the event had absolutely zero contact with actual truckers. IIRC it was some Koch-funded astroturf organization or something, and they couldn't get any truckers organizations on-board.
Hey, I'd take a fine over the current policy of pepper spraying people in the face, breaking bones, and dragging them off the prison.
Are you seriously implying that you cannot understand the difference between a right to speak and a right to force others to listen?
You are implying that everybody within earshot has a right to tell me what I can and cannot say. That is not free speech in any sense of the words.
You are also implying that it's legal for the government to arrest you for writing a letter complaining about some policy -- because by mailing that letter you are "forcing" them to handle it.
You are indeed everything that is wrong with this country -- as you seem to think that you alone should have a right to compel everybody around you to do anything you want. Hate to break it to you, but the universe does not revolve around you man.
I am not particularly fond of the extent of the punishment, but I am certainly in favor of your idea about limiting protests to areas where they do not disturbing people that are not interested in hearing them. Free speech is the right to say stuff, not the right to make people listen to you by force.
Nobody is forcing you to listen to it. If you don't want to hear it you're perfectly free to walk away or put in earplugs.
Free speech is the right to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Once you start restricting it then by definition it is no longer free speech -- it's restricted speech.
If safety is what makes it reasonable, then the fact that it's been proven entirely ineffective numerous times makes it once again unreasonable.
I really don't get this mentality on slashdot that DDoS is civil disobedience. It isn't. It's censorship. A sit in allows the speaker to still be able to speak, a DDoS on the other hand is like the gestapo coming in and taking you away because you said something they didn't like.
Wrong and wrong. The entire point of sit-ins is to be a denial of service attack. Look at the lunch counter sit-ins of the US civil rights movements. Yes, the point was just to sit there until they were served -- but in doing so they were preventing other customers from being served as well. Two people at a sit-in is not a DoS; twenty people is. Same here. A dozen Anon members could hammer the site all day long and nothing would happen -- the DoS only comes with a large mass of people. Even a public march is a DoS attack if you have enough people -- as they've gotta block off the streets.
And the difference between a protest and censorship is that a protest requires constant, mass participation. You can't just DDoS any website you want at any time all by yourself. Gestapo censorship would be one guy showing up with a gun and saying "don't print this" and if you do print it you end up in a labor camp. In this case it was not one guy, they were not armed, they were not subverting the normal system in any way, and they have no power to throw you in a freakin gulag. And the duration of their attack is, at best, as long as the shortest attention span in the group.
...which nobody directly did in this case either. What's your point?
Why is it insane that it is illegal? This isn't just boycotting and picketing, it is intentionally and forcefully preventing others from doing business. Protesting is fine, but when you stop a business from doing any business by shutting down their website, that isn't just protesting. It would be like standing outside a store you don't like and stopping anyone that wants to go inside to shop. That, too, is illegal.
Not always. Depends on how exactly you do it. Sure, you can't physically prevent people from entering the store. But that's not like a DDoS, that's like cutting the network cable. A DDoS is like asking a ton of people to go to the store and not buy anything. Maybe fill up carts and abandon them at the register. Which is completely legal -- at least until they ask you to leave. But even then you'd get arrested to trespassing, NOT for disrupting business.
For an even better analogy, this is literally the exact same tactic, using almost identical technology, as a "phone bomb" -- i.e., getting a bunch of people to call the customer service number to complain all at the same time. Which is also completely legal.
...this assumes that the "Western liberal democracy" remains as it is. Which is clearly not the case. Although many (myself included) would argue that it never truly existed in the first place.
For exampe, it is the predominant scientific opinion that radiation is harmful at all levels.
If you're actually a physicist I'd expect you to comprehend the fact that there are different definitions of "harmful". Most people would not consider the radiation your body naturally produces or the radiation from a TV to be "harmful". According to the US government, 5,000 millirems/yr is safe -- i.e., "not harmful".
Also, that blog doesn't seem to actually says that low levels are not harmful. It says they are "essentially safe". Those are somewhat distinct concepts.
They could very well be. It's the "Interstate and defense *network*". The individual highways can be either, so long as the entire network contains both :)
Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids says it does.
I'd rather companies didn't discriminate, but it's hard to come up with a compelling argument for why they should be legally forbidden from doing so. As long as it's out in the open, take your pick and sign up.
How about the fact that, in much of the US, "take your pick" would mean "sign up for the only option available and deal with it"?
Shit I still know people whose *only* option is a single, *dial-up* ISP. And if that ISP decides to start blocking shit, what's your solution? Tell them to go buy a new house somewhere else?
How many innocents are you willing to kill in the name of your revolution? At what pre-determined point does the blood flow stop? And is there forgiveness for your enemies, and leniency available? Or are you simply going to kill anyone who is the enemy, extend that to any who don't agree with you, and stop only when there's no one left to shoot at?
The Constitution outlines your rights. If anybody tries to violate those rights, you may do whatever is necessary to stop them. So, you shoot people who try to take your rights by force.
Now, you'll probably end up dead, and if it went to court you'd probably lose...but if, for example, a government agent tries to enter your home by force with no warrant, it is legal and moral to defend yourself with violent force if necessary. Otherwise being "free from unreasonable search and seizure" is no longer a right, it is merely a promise.
That's because they're not interstate highways. They're "Interstate AND DEFENSE" highways. People just skip the "and defense" part because they're lazy. The original Interstate highway system was pretty much entirely planned by the US Army for moving troops and supplies.
*WOOOOOOOOOOSH*
RTFS. She was travelling from MALAYSIA. Her only other option is a freakin' boat.
Actually, "Interstate Highway" is shorthand for "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". It's not just the commerce clause that was used to authorize it, but also the preamble which permits them to "provide for the common defense" -- it was initially a military network, almost entirely planned by General John J. Pershing.
Remember what happened the last time the Judicial Branch tried to tell the Executive Branch it couldn't do something? The Trail of Tears was the result.
Next time spend two seconds on Google before you start spewing such crap. You're off by a few orders of magnitude. The last time the Judicial branch told the Executive it couldn't do something was most certainly NOT the Trail of Tears. That was almost 200 years ago. Here's one case that was less than six months ago:
http://executivebranchproject.com/supreme-court-once-again-unanimously-rules-against-the-obama-administration-in-property-rights-case/
Where? In many states it's actually illegal for the police to issue a citation if you're within 5MPH of the speed limit. My former home state of Pennsylvania being one of them.
So "maximum" is not "high"?
Most people would consider freeways to be "high speed".
In most of the US, above 70MPH is illegal on absolutely any road, by state or federal law. Some states go up to 80, but most set the limit at 65 (which I believe is due to federal "incentives", though I could be very wrong there). Also, most of our cars are electronically limited far below 155MPH. My Pontiac is limited to 105...
...so for just one example: you think anyone opposed to hydrofracking for any reason (ie, including "nuclear is more efficient") is a legitimate terrorist? Because the DHS does:
http://www.post-gazette.com/legal/2012/04/30/Anti-fracking-group-adds-claims-to-surveillance-suit/stories/201204300191
There are also plenty of cases where the labels force websites to take down copyrights and the artists response is "We wish they hadn't done that, but we have absolutely no control over it" -- the band Jucifer is one such example.
Sorry, that clearly should have been "take down LYRICS", not copyrights...
Slashdot really needs to get with the times and add an 'edit' button...I'm getting dependent on having one these days....
The artists may provide lyrics, but they are the ones who put the songs under copyright via ASCAP or BMI, not the labels
In most cases the artists are required by the contract to transfer the copyright to the labels. So the artists are technically infringing copyright when they post lyrics to the songs that they themselves have written.
There are also plenty of cases where the labels force websites to take down copyrights and the artists response is "We wish they hadn't done that, but we have absolutely no control over it" -- the band Jucifer is one such example.
See also:
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/music-royalties2.htm
In most music publishing agreements, there is a requirement that the songwriter assign the copyright of the written song to the publisher. This is known as a "transfer of copyright," or simply "assignment." This, in effect, transfers ownership of the song to the publisher in exchange for the payment to the songwriter of royalties in amounts and time intervals agreed upon in the publishing contract. Typically, song copyrights are held by the music publishers, while sound recordings are controlled by the record companies.
I don't think we have the same idea here. We don't keep our government "in check". Instead, we populate the government with people representative to some degree of the population at large. When the richest 1% are not the ruling class, you get wonderful benefits like a taxation of not only the poor, but also the rich. And that there provides a fantastic boost to the national economy.
That *is* keeping the government "in check". That's what the USA used to have too -- at least more like that than what we have now. Look into Abe Lincoln's early life for example. The reason we're so fucked now is that we failed to prevent them from continuing to amass more and more power over the years to the point where now they're a whole different class.