"Unless the archaeologists have missed something, there appear to have been precious few items available for gadget-lovers circa 5 AD."
Yeah, I remember. The iPods back then were the size of a phone booth and only held 128K worth of iTunes. Coal-fired CD burners, too. Yeah, those were the days.
"Sure they did. They declared that perfectly legal websites were havens for illegal activity without any evidence whatsoever and convinced a service provider, through lies and deceit, to deny their longtime paying customers access to the internet. Not only is that vigilantism, but the organization responsible has a high profile in performing, and profiting from, more conventional vigilante activities."
At worst, they lied (but that really depends on subjective opinion). That is simply not vigilantism. The organization has a high profile of NOT being involved in vigilantism. In fact, if you visit their web site, you will see links for "convictions". Each one of these involves someone being convicted by proper legal authorities. They also list arrests (BY ACTUAL POLICE!!!)
On their site, they do mention the effort to shut down the rape-enthusiasts gathering web site that is the subject of this news item. Likewise, not vigilantism, any more than other citizen action campaigns to pressure other ISP's to shut down spammers and others. Such citizen action campaigns are part of an open society, and are not an example of vigilantism.
"A vigilante is defined by why he acts, not the manner in which he acts. A vigilante does not have to use physical force, he doesn't have to imprison, he doesn't have to execute justice. A vigilante may only take it upon himself to participate in a vigilante activity and speech may be his only tool."
It's simply impossible to engage in vigilantism by expressing your free speech rights. That's the major mistake you are making: repeatedly asserting that. If it's just talk, it's not vigilantism. You yourself said "A vigilante is defined by why he acts..." which is perhaps a glimmer of recognition that vigilantism requires ACTS. If free speech is his only tool, he's just flapping his jaws, since there are no vigilante acts. At worst, such a person is a would-be vigilante, since they have done nothing, unlike an actual vigilante. As you yourself said of the definition of vigilante: "Taking the law into your own hands, yes". Without action, one cannot take the law into their own hands. Without action, all it is is expressing an opinion. It's not technically possible for someone to take the law into their own hands through excerise of free speech.
"The same group also conducts high profile vigilante entrapments that it televises "
I've seen those, actually. No vigilantism there, either. They leave any arrest, punishment, prosecution, or lack of such to the actual authorities. Nothing wrong with a "honeypot" that exposes (provides information on) guys attempting to rape children.
I'll let you have the last word, with satisfaction at thinking that I am a member of "the vigilantes", never mind that no vigilantes have been discussed (only people exercising their rights of free speech.).
"A *5-year long* study about the Internet? Come on, by the time the study is complete, it'll be irrelevant as peoples' internet usage habits will have changed."
That's awfully insightful. After all, the hottest "trends" in the net now are the myspace-like social sites, and amateur video (Youtube). These were hardly a blip on the radar 5 years ago. However, I don't think its scandalous, as if the government was wasting money on something like this study.
There's the rub: it can't. Speech is speech, whether you call it free or "slander". Either way, it is not an action. Whether or not libel and slander are protected or prohibited, there is nothing in any definition of "vigilantism" that broadens it to include free speech that falls on the wrong side of a censorship divide. No matter how you cut it, insulting someone outrageously is not the same as acting like "self-appointed and unofficial policeman"
"That can't possibly be interpreted as slander or hate speech"
Kind of a subjective thing, isn't it? A quality that someone assigns to speech as to whether or not it is "slanderous" or not. A distinction that is never related to the definition of "vigilantism.". Even if the terms being discussed WERE slander or hate speech (agreed to by both of us), they'd still be no closer to being anything like vigilantism.
Yes, slander may very well be the "tool of the vigilante", but it is a different tool from vigilantism: an axe-murderer may also carry a knife, but that does not mean that "axe = knife." In the case of the original article, there was no vigilantism involved. That's the real problem: the word was used for some sort of intended pejorative effect without regard its meaning.
Before you go any further, you might want to look up the definitions of both "libel" and "slander" and notice the amazing lack of any sort of wording that connects either to the idea of "taking the law into your own hands".
The idea that libel and slander (as a subset of free speech) is in any way connected to vigilantism is a "no show" no matter how you look at it. Here's another angle. The definitions of vigilante have to do with acting like a policeman, or taking the law into your own hands, right? Now, while cops sometimes do this, using strongly insulting language (slander) is typically not part of a cop's law enforcement arsenal. So much for your idea that "the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures" (definition of libel) or speaking with "falsity and malice" (definition of slander) makes someone a fake cop or judge.
"That's right, because I've never claimed that free speech is vigilantism"
Do you want me to quote where you did? A hint: you were referring to the subset of free speech known as "slander."
"No they aren't because they aren't claiming that crimes are being committed in the column"
Would that matter to this? No. Claiming this or that is merely speech. It is not action. It is not vigilantism. In fact, there is nothing those animal rights activists can possible say (short of threatening some sort of action, such as assault) that can remotely be called vigilantism. Certainly, no description, pejorative, or anything which might in someone's opinion be "slanderous" can ever be vigilantism.
If there was some definition by which the mere act of free speech (including "slander") could count as "vigilantism", you'd have found it by now and presented it. You haven't. I even looked for one myself. Slander is something you say, vigilantism is something you do. It is very "ill-informed" to confuse the two.
The original author, like you, used vigilantism without regard to its meaning. There is no evidence that any vigilantism occured. Yes, I am close-minded enough to want to use words within, or even close to, established meaning. My close-mindedness is based on the facts of the definitions of these terms, not my "opinion." That is why I refuse to acknowledge the repeated false claim that free speech can be vigilantism. A search on the words "slander" and "vigilantism" find precious to imply that anyone else has the false idea that speech can be vigilantism. I do, however, find references to groups accused of both, but the mentions very typically accuse certain groups of two different and distinct bad activities (slander and vigilantism).
Back on topic. Do I think Verizon should have blocked the rapists' gathering site? Actually, probably not, regardless of the anti-rapist group's proper exercise of its free speech to pressure Verizon to get rid of the pages.
"Since you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of "vigilante" there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it."
I've been referring to its actual definition and use. You sometimes repeat the actual definition, but then you chuck it out the window when you call non-vigilante activity "vigilantism". Yes, you are right, however, that there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it. It can't: free speech can't be vigilantism. (made in bold, because you keep forgetting it)
"Vigilantism does not require violence."
I agree. Never said it did. Nor can the free exercise of free speech or the press in all of its varieties (whether or not you choose to label it as "hate speech" or "libel" or "slander") ever meet the definition of vigilantism.
"If I were referring to "hate speech" I would have said so. I am referring to slander/libel however"
None of which have anything to do with vigilantism. I've already grokked "Vigilantism" completely. Anyone who knows that the term means would not connect it to the original subject.
Now, I'm going to say that I don't like your message. Some could interpret that as slander or hate speech. Next, I'm going to go ask the Slashdot mods to mod you down. There, I've completely met your imaginary definition of "vigilante"! You can't be a vigilante just by saying something, even if someone chooses to label your free exercise of free speech as "hate speech" or "slander". Slander, while it may be real bad, is not an exercise in vigilantism. Just like it is not an exercise in arson. Arson is as relevant to the subject as vigilantism is.
"Historically, the American's Freedom in Speech in rooted in a concept of citizenship: the right of every responsible adult to participate in open political debate"
Whatever that concept might have been (if it ever was) it was discarded when it came time to come up with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There, no special status is given to political speech, as opposed to, say, talking about food or "Star Trek."
"restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech."
Yes, it is a violation if the government gets involved in any way whatsoever. We can argue whether or not this censorship of free speech is justified, but that does not change it from being a censorship/free-speech issue at all.
"Oh yes they are. These vigilantes are creating their own "law" by condemning lawful free speech and are actively pursuing punishment by working to deny the "perpetrators" with access to the internet"
The exercise of free speech is not vigilantism. It is merely exercise of free speech. Animal rights activists who write to a newspaper to ask it to remove a sportsman column are doing the same sort of thing. They are "condemning lawful speech" (which is never the creation of a law, and is ALWAYS a part of free speech: the freedom to criticize others' speech).
The original article used the word "vigilante" without any regard to its meaning. So are you. I don't care about who the "burden" is on, but it is clear that you are way out on a limb by choosing to use the vigilante/vigilante term for a subject to which it never applied.
Hey, I wasn't the one who used the FDA as an example of a non-government agency. Hello? knock knock. Does the top-level domain.gov mean anything to you?
The article did not use the term "vigilante" correctly. The people involved were merely expressing their own free speech rights. They did not define their own law.
"Are you kidding me? Even if you're a hardcore gamer, games should be the LAST thing you consider as you vote for someone for public office. This article is ridiculous."
The First Amendment is more important than you think.
Readily admitted: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime."
""law" here is figurative"
Nice way out. You strip the word "law" of meaning. Since the term "vigilante" depends on the word "law", you are now totally free to use "vigilante" to describe anything you want to, including the mere exercise of free speech.
For one who is so particular, you mispelled "Myanmar". Burma is actually a legitimate name to call the nation, even if it is not the single "official" name.
Slashdot Mirror
"Unless the archaeologists have missed something, there appear to have been precious few items available for gadget-lovers circa 5 AD."
Yeah, I remember. The iPods back then were the size of a phone booth and only held 128K worth of iTunes. Coal-fired CD burners, too. Yeah, those were the days.
"...what ever happened to pets?"
Wha.... OH GOD!!! I'd forgotten! Fluffy! Sure enough, I found that skeleton behind the couch. Thanks a lot, way to make my day!
"Sure they did. They declared that perfectly legal websites were havens for illegal activity without any evidence whatsoever and convinced a service provider, through lies and deceit, to deny their longtime paying customers access to the internet. Not only is that vigilantism, but the organization responsible has a high profile in performing, and profiting from, more conventional vigilante activities."
At worst, they lied (but that really depends on subjective opinion). That is simply not vigilantism. The organization has a high profile of NOT being involved in vigilantism. In fact, if you visit their web site, you will see links for "convictions". Each one of these involves someone being convicted by proper legal authorities. They also list arrests (BY ACTUAL POLICE!!!)
On their site, they do mention the effort to shut down the rape-enthusiasts gathering web site that is the subject of this news item. Likewise, not vigilantism, any more than other citizen action campaigns to pressure other ISP's to shut down spammers and others. Such citizen action campaigns are part of an open society, and are not an example of vigilantism.
"A vigilante is defined by why he acts, not the manner in which he acts. A vigilante does not have to use physical force, he doesn't have to imprison, he doesn't have to execute justice. A vigilante may only take it upon himself to participate in a vigilante activity and speech may be his only tool."
It's simply impossible to engage in vigilantism by expressing your free speech rights. That's the major mistake you are making: repeatedly asserting that. If it's just talk, it's not vigilantism. You yourself said "A vigilante is defined by why he acts..." which is perhaps a glimmer of recognition that vigilantism requires ACTS. If free speech is his only tool, he's just flapping his jaws, since there are no vigilante acts. At worst, such a person is a would-be vigilante, since they have done nothing, unlike an actual vigilante. As you yourself said of the definition of vigilante: "Taking the law into your own hands, yes". Without action, one cannot take the law into their own hands. Without action, all it is is expressing an opinion. It's not technically possible for someone to take the law into their own hands through excerise of free speech.
"The same group also conducts high profile vigilante entrapments that it televises "
I've seen those, actually. No vigilantism there, either. They leave any arrest, punishment, prosecution, or lack of such to the actual authorities. Nothing wrong with a "honeypot" that exposes (provides information on) guys attempting to rape children.
"You must actually be a member of the vigilantes"
I'll let you have the last word, with satisfaction at thinking that I am a member of "the vigilantes", never mind that no vigilantes have been discussed (only people exercising their rights of free speech.).
"A *5-year long* study about the Internet? Come on, by the time the study is complete, it'll be irrelevant as peoples' internet usage habits will have changed."
That's awfully insightful. After all, the hottest "trends" in the net now are the myspace-like social sites, and amateur video (Youtube). These were hardly a blip on the radar 5 years ago. However, I don't think its scandalous, as if the government was wasting money on something like this study.
"Vigilantism can involve speech"
There's the rub: it can't. Speech is speech, whether you call it free or "slander". Either way, it is not an action. Whether or not libel and slander are protected or prohibited, there is nothing in any definition of "vigilantism" that broadens it to include free speech that falls on the wrong side of a censorship divide. No matter how you cut it, insulting someone outrageously is not the same as acting like "self-appointed and unofficial policeman"
"That can't possibly be interpreted as slander or hate speech"
Kind of a subjective thing, isn't it? A quality that someone assigns to speech as to whether or not it is "slanderous" or not. A distinction that is never related to the definition of "vigilantism.". Even if the terms being discussed WERE slander or hate speech (agreed to by both of us), they'd still be no closer to being anything like vigilantism.
Yes, slander may very well be the "tool of the vigilante", but it is a different tool from vigilantism: an axe-murderer may also carry a knife, but that does not mean that "axe = knife." In the case of the original article, there was no vigilantism involved. That's the real problem: the word was used for some sort of intended pejorative effect without regard its meaning.
Before you go any further, you might want to look up the definitions of both "libel" and "slander" and notice the amazing lack of any sort of wording that connects either to the idea of "taking the law into your own hands".
The idea that libel and slander (as a subset of free speech) is in any way connected to vigilantism is a "no show" no matter how you look at it. Here's another angle. The definitions of vigilante have to do with acting like a policeman, or taking the law into your own hands, right? Now, while cops sometimes do this, using strongly insulting language (slander) is typically not part of a cop's law enforcement arsenal. So much for your idea that "the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures" (definition of libel) or speaking with "falsity and malice" (definition of slander) makes someone a fake cop or judge.
"That's right, because I've never claimed that free speech is vigilantism"
Do you want me to quote where you did? A hint: you were referring to the subset of free speech known as "slander."
"No they aren't because they aren't claiming that crimes are being committed in the column"
Would that matter to this? No. Claiming this or that is merely speech. It is not action. It is not vigilantism. In fact, there is nothing those animal rights activists can possible say (short of threatening some sort of action, such as assault) that can remotely be called vigilantism. Certainly, no description, pejorative, or anything which might in someone's opinion be "slanderous" can ever be vigilantism.
If there was some definition by which the mere act of free speech (including "slander") could count as "vigilantism", you'd have found it by now and presented it. You haven't. I even looked for one myself. Slander is something you say, vigilantism is something you do. It is very "ill-informed" to confuse the two.
The original author, like you, used vigilantism without regard to its meaning. There is no evidence that any vigilantism occured. Yes, I am close-minded enough to want to use words within, or even close to, established meaning. My close-mindedness is based on the facts of the definitions of these terms, not my "opinion." That is why I refuse to acknowledge the repeated false claim that free speech can be vigilantism. A search on the words "slander" and "vigilantism" find precious to imply that anyone else has the false idea that speech can be vigilantism. I do, however, find references to groups accused of both, but the mentions very typically accuse certain groups of two different and distinct bad activities (slander and vigilantism).
Back on topic. Do I think Verizon should have blocked the rapists' gathering site? Actually, probably not, regardless of the anti-rapist group's proper exercise of its free speech to pressure Verizon to get rid of the pages.
...but Youtube would easily survive if it had to be Flash-free for some reason.
"Without flash, there would be no Youtube. Without youtube, the internets would be quite a bit more boring."
Without Flash, Youtube content could easily be as MOV or other formats.
"My fellow Americans, our only option is clear: We need to preemptively invade the sun."
Preemptive? It's just striking back, is all. How much longer do we have to go on with them bombarding us with deadly radiation and killing us??!?!
He arranged it to distract voters, and to also at the same time energize the "Keep us safe from space aliens" vote.
"Since you refuse to acknowledge the meaning of "vigilante" there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it."
I've been referring to its actual definition and use. You sometimes repeat the actual definition, but then you chuck it out the window when you call non-vigilante activity "vigilantism". Yes, you are right, however, that there is no point in arguing how speech might relate to it. It can't: free speech can't be vigilantism. (made in bold, because you keep forgetting it)
"Vigilantism does not require violence."
I agree. Never said it did. Nor can the free exercise of free speech or the press in all of its varieties (whether or not you choose to label it as "hate speech" or "libel" or "slander") ever meet the definition of vigilantism.
"If I were referring to "hate speech" I would have said so. I am referring to slander/libel however"
None of which have anything to do with vigilantism. I've already grokked "Vigilantism" completely. Anyone who knows that the term means would not connect it to the original subject.
Now, I'm going to say that I don't like your message. Some could interpret that as slander or hate speech. Next, I'm going to go ask the Slashdot mods to mod you down. There, I've completely met your imaginary definition of "vigilante"! You can't be a vigilante just by saying something, even if someone chooses to label your free exercise of free speech as "hate speech" or "slander". Slander, while it may be real bad, is not an exercise in vigilantism. Just like it is not an exercise in arson. Arson is as relevant to the subject as vigilantism is.
"Historically, the American's Freedom in Speech in rooted in a concept of citizenship: the right of every responsible adult to participate in open political debate"
Whatever that concept might have been (if it ever was) it was discarded when it came time to come up with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. There, no special status is given to political speech, as opposed to, say, talking about food or "Star Trek."
"restricting the sale of adult themed games to adults is not a violation of free speech."
Yes, it is a violation if the government gets involved in any way whatsoever. We can argue whether or not this censorship of free speech is justified, but that does not change it from being a censorship/free-speech issue at all.
You have entirely failed to make a case:
"Oh yes they are. These vigilantes are creating their own "law" by condemning lawful free speech and are actively pursuing punishment by working to deny the "perpetrators" with access to the internet"
The exercise of free speech is not vigilantism. It is merely exercise of free speech. Animal rights activists who write to a newspaper to ask it to remove a sportsman column are doing the same sort of thing. They are "condemning lawful speech" (which is never the creation of a law, and is ALWAYS a part of free speech: the freedom to criticize others' speech).
The original article used the word "vigilante" without any regard to its meaning. So are you. I don't care about who the "burden" is on, but it is clear that you are way out on a limb by choosing to use the vigilante/vigilante term for a subject to which it never applied.
"Then so is the FDA.....You're a friggin idiot"
.gov mean anything to you?
Hey, I wasn't the one who used the FDA as an example of a non-government agency. Hello? knock knock. Does the top-level domain
The article did not use the term "vigilante" correctly. The people involved were merely expressing their own free speech rights. They did not define their own law.
"Belarus? Egypt? Tunisia? Cuba? ... Go, buy a new globe!"
I'm almost willing to spot him Egypt. The Sinai is sometimes, but not usually, considered to be part of Asia, since it is at the continental split.
"Vigilantes are the sheriffs, judges, juries, and executioners. They don't respect the rule of law, they ARE the rule of law."
That's the definition I go by. Clearly, these are not involved in this issue.
"One who decides to stop crime or punish criminals independently of the law."
That's a great one too. Again, not related to the issue. You really do not know what you are talking about. You have yet to connect
"Are you kidding me? Even if you're a hardcore gamer, games should be the LAST thing you consider as you vote for someone for public office. This article is ridiculous."
The First Amendment is more important than you think.
The ESRB is a government and censorship matter when its ratings are used as part of censorship laws.
"You'll never admit what "vigilante" means"
Readily admitted: "any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime."
""law" here is figurative"
Nice way out. You strip the word "law" of meaning. Since the term "vigilante" depends on the word "law", you are now totally free to use "vigilante" to describe anything you want to, including the mere exercise of free speech.
"Judgement of yours that I quoted."
Yeah, you quoted it in an admitted fake quote.
"I went to Antarctica for vacation. I couldn't find a single cybercafe there either. They should be on the list too."
Not surprising, really. The tubes are all frozen solid.
"First of all, it's Myannmar, not Burma"
For one who is so particular, you mispelled "Myanmar". Burma is actually a legitimate name to call the nation, even if it is not the single "official" name.