Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the bring-your-a-game dept
Let's get right to it, with the post that easily won out for most insightful this week... and seeing as we're all (so we're told) a bunch of copyright infringing pirates, wouldn't you know it: the winning comment was "infringing." That is, the winning comment was posted by an Anonymous Coward, but it was actually a repost of a comment from back in April by Rich Fiscus. Oddly, the original comment didn't win the award that week, and got nearly four times the votes this week. Not quite sure who technically "wins" this one, but we'll give it to Fiscus, with an assist to the Anonymous Coward who reminded us all of the comment:Rich Fiscus posted a nice comment here on Techdirt a while ago that I really liked. The post explains how the courts have perverted the initial intent of the free speech/free press clause to mean "big media corporations" when nothing of the sort was originally intended. It deserves more attention and so I am going to repost it here.Coming in second was this comment from wallow-T concerning police trying (but thankfully not succeeding) to destroy a video that was recorded of them firing on (and killing) people in Miami Beach:
"The discussion about whether Wikileaks should be considered "the press" is entirely ridiculous. The press, as referenced in the US Constitution, isn't limited to 20th century media organizations. In fact, if we limit it to that definition we also have to conclude that there was no press when the Constitution was written. Since it's specifically referenced in the 1st Amendment we can safely say that's incorrect.
The same definition of the press which would exclude Wikileaks from 1st Amendment protection would likewise exclude Benjamin Franklin. His publications had more in common with blogs and issue advocacy websites than modern newspapers. That, in and of itself, tells me it's a faulty definition. What freedom of the press is supposed to mean is freedom of publication. It refers not to a privileged group of people and organizations, but literally to a printing press, which was synonymous with publication when the US Constitution was written.
By extension, any prosecution of Julian Assange for assisting in leaking secret information while allowing newspapers, television broadcasters, and the like to publish classified information they've collected by interviewing government officials without similar action amounts to granting special legal status to The Press which was never intended by the Founding Fathers.
Whether the government has the right to take action over the publication of a particular state secret is something we should certainly discuss and debate. But any answer which relies on whether it was a media outlet or journalist who did the publishing has no legitimate constitutional basis. Likewise, if it was a crime for Wikileaks to assist in leaking US government secrets, it's ridiculous to say mainstream media outlets shouldn't be prosecuted for convincing government officials to leak other secrets.
Sadly, it's primarily The Press themselves I blame for our modern misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment. More than anyone else, they are responsible for the myth that a handful of words in the middle of an amendment enumerating the rights of the people are actually meant only to apply to them, and not to the public at large. They are the first to declare that an individual who isn't part of their fraternity isn't afforded the same protection they enjoy under the 1st Amendment and the last to criticize journalist shield laws which apply only to them. The fact is, there are no rights of The Press enumerated in the Constitution. Only rights of the people which also extend to The Press."
A failure to prosecute the police for destruction of evidence is a clear sign that we are crossing over into a police state.I've got three editor's choice picks this week. First, from Marcus Carab is his response to someone asking if the activist group Demand Progress had "demanded any progress in stopping illegal behavior on the internet," to which Marcus explained:
Any video of a homicide, justified or not, is evidence.
Yup! They demand an end to the illegal abuse of copyright law by private interests.Then we've got Chris O'Donnell, responding to the news that Texas governor Rick Perry might not want to have the anti-TSA groping bill reintroduced because he believes it might hurt his Presidential contender chances. Chris found that reasoning troubling:
So standing up for Civil Rights (even if it is mostly grandstanding) is a losing position for a politician? That probably tells you everything you need to know about the sorry state of our country.And, finally, we've got E. Zachary Knight providing us with a lovely reductio ad aburdum explanation for why it's sill to focus on banning technologies instead of actions, in response to Senator Chuck Schumer declaring Bitcoin a money laundering tool that needs to be stopped:
That is the point isn't it? We should outlaw any new technology if it allows some people to use it for illegal purposes. That is the reason the US even has a gun debate today. Because some people use guns to kill people, we should not be allowed to own guns.Ok. Of course you all come for the funny, and not just the insightful, so let's switch over to that side of the ledger. Coming in first, by a wide margin, and setting a new record for actually getting enough votes to trigger the "funny icon" while still in the Techdirt Crystal Ball, was Marcus Carab's comment on that Miami Beach story about the police trying to destroy the evidence of a guy who filmed them shooting people:
Same for DVRs, VCRs, Modchips etc, because some people use them for illegal purposes we should ban the use of them for all people.
Why bother enforcing laws and punishing those who actually commit crimes when we can ban the technology that allows for crimes to take place to begin with.
We would have a whole lot fewer piracy and money laundering problems if we just banned the internet. After all, the majority of child porn is transferred over the internet. Same for piracy and money laundering. Just get rid of the internet and all these problems would simply vanish.
While we are at it, we should probably ban the private ownership of automobiles because some people use them in drive by shooting, to run people over and for quick getaways from burglaries.
We should also ban the use of motor fuels and other flammable substances because people can use them for arson.
Don't even get me started on the use of the written word. People use that all the time to communicate criminal activity. No one should be allowed to communicate through written means.
Also gatherings of people. We should ban people from gathering together in a single space because they might be colluding to commit crimes. Gatherings should be limited to 2 people max, but that should only be done with competent police supervision to prevent any kind of collusion to commit crime.
Finally, we need to ban privacy in all its forms so that people will have no avenue to hide their crimes or plans and means to commit crime. If people have no privacy they will have no time to commit crime.
Problems of the world have been solved.
Ridiculous - he wasn't even dancing!That, ladies and gentlemen, is what's known as a callback in the comedy business.
Coming in as a strong second was rubberpants, with his thoughts on Texas' anti-TSA groping bill:
I don't know why but this really rubs me the wrong way. They think they can just handle this law with the stroke of a pen? It's like they're groping in the dark for a solution. I'm touched that they would try but it just doesn't feel right. Take a peek guys, this is what naked ambition looks like.Someone apparently likes themselves some double entendres. For editor's choice, there were a lot of good ones this week and it's been difficult to narrow them down, so you get a bunch of extras. First up, we've got two response to the story of how both the LA Times and the NY Times have come out against the PROTECT IP Act, which the entertainment industry was pretty sure would breeze through Congress without much of a problem. The two comments are similar, as some of the Act's supporters in recent weeks have taken to our comments to (1) tell us anyone who doesn't like the act is a "freetard" and (2) trying to associate anyone who is against PROTECT IP as being in favor of child porn (well, that's one commenter in particular who specifically works for people trying to pass PROTECT IP, though he doesn't like to admit that). So first, we have the comment from Prisoner 201 in response to that particular commenter:
This is shocking, I never thought I would see the day when LA Times and NY Times support child pornography!!!And, similarly, from an Anonymous Coward a comment on the other bit of name calling:
So does this mean that we can call the LA Times and the NY Times freetards?Then we've got Marcus Carab (yes, again, damn him) with his response to the news that James Joyce's Ulysses will be hitting the public domain in Ireland (though not in the US) next year. It inspired Marcus to plan for his next project:
Now I can work on my homage! I'm going to re-tell Ulysses, except with an ancient Greek hero who gets lost at sea on his way home.That's not just a good joke, it's almost so obvious that I'm sorta pissed I didn't include it in the post itself...
Next up, we've got Jason's hilarious response to France's explanation for telling news media they can no longer tell people to follow them on Twitter or Facebook because that constitutes "free advertising." The official explanation noted that allowing this would be "opening a Pandora's Box -- other social networks will complain to us saying, 'why not us?'" Jason noted:
Obviously Pandora has paid the obligatory fee to stay on the air.That joke was actually copied by PrometheeFeu in his favorite posts of the week, but that's okay, because PrometheeFeu also had this comment concerning the fact that multiple people come up with the same jokes:
I have a good one for you: [This joke is no longer available due to a copyright claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Remember, copying is stealing.]Last week, I asked you all to bring your A game, and it seemed that you did that quite well, so what do we say this week? Bring your A+ game?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Comment voting
Of course a lot depends on story that the comment is posted on - and when in the sequence it is posted - so maybe the message is that if you have a good point that hasn't had "recognition" yet it may be worth reposting it in the hope of a bigger audience second time around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In my office, they call that brown nosing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know they kind of look like wangs, but Insightful badges won't make your dick any bigger dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it doesn't lower the bar, what it does is bring different view points to the discussion that follow the same path. Getting the people who are most familiar with the subject matter to comment is nothing new. This is how HuffPo got its start. It is a brilliant idea, it creates a place for those who are interested in IP, the constitution, the party of we, liberty, free speech, and an open internet to gather and discuss what interests us.
It is not meaningless. It is not a waste of time. It is not something a person whose rent is paid in fish, moss, and what ever else is beneath a bridge would understand. It is an on going debate that affects us all. The sooner you realize an open society is being built around you the better you will fare.
Oh, and ... AMEN !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fox incharge of hen house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fox incharge of hen house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fox incharge of hen house
We would never do that. If we put Fox in charge of the henhouse, Ole' Rupert would change the designation from "egg producing" to
"entertainment" and we would never know if the eggs are real or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am under the impression that Mike implemented this because a lot of people need their daily TD fix but Mike needs some time off and it was a nice compromise.
I don't know why it seems meaningless to you, I feel it is a light diversion and is sometimes quite pleasant in that you find something you missed during the week.
If it bothers you so much then skip the weekends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Abuse is down the hall, across from Getting Hit in the Head with a Mallet classes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: its like smoking pot
It's a wonder he did not just copy/paste Glyn Moody again !!! (that guy must suck really good!!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: its like smoking pot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my office it is called kissing ass - but I suppose the difference is only a matter of depth perception.
I personally doubt Marcus has an in with Mike - after all it is a rather objective criteria of clicking on buttons. Perhaps one should hire a few staffers in the far east to click away :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography
Our discrete Fig-Leaf shield sends a 1st Amendment message only visible under AIT.
Radiation Opaque shield over privates truly preserves 4th amendment.
Shields for children protects and obscures preventing Porn.
True Image security at the source for adults.
Preserves dignity of the Public.
Protects sensitive tissues from cancer causing radiation.
We live in a inverted world say NO to scanning and YES to privacy and health. Jeff Rocky Flats Gear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Solutions 1st 4th amendment and child Pornography
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listening Licence
Listening licences are for individual listeners and cannot be transferred or sold. Listening licences will be required at bars, nightclubs, theaters that show movies with soundtracks, elevators, dances, social clubs, and for home or car listening. Business will be required to collect fees for listening licence from anyone who is in earshot of the music throughout the entire sound perimeter which includes people who may be outside of the building but may still be exposed to errant music that they are not licensed to hear. Each listener who has purchased a listening Licence must carry it prominently on their persons to show they are authorized to hear the music. Anyone listening without a listening licence will be subject to lawsuits as well as criminal prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listening Licence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Listening Licence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Listening Licence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listening Licence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Listening Licence
On the up side, the pro-lifers out there would snag a big ally for changing the legal definition of the beginning of life to the instant the egg gets pierced by the sperm. That way, their license fee would add a few more months of billing for them to hit you with. And as for the rest of us, we can just figure on going to the poor-house since those same actuaries should be able to tell all of us how evil we've been our entire lives without paying our fair share and just assess us for all of our back listening/pirating.
If we're lucky, they'll have payment plans that will appropriately carry us to the grave penniless and knowing that we did everything we could to make things right along the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
Let me explain it to you. All those other things listed, parta from guns, actually have a constructive use. But guns are only good for one thing: blowing holes in things. If I want to make a hole in something, I can use a drill. The difference with a gun is that it makes the hole violently.
So holes and violence�that�s basically what you do with guns. To try to conflate a right to own weaponry with a right to own things with non-violent uses is, quite simply, incomprehensible to people in most of the civilized world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
Violence has nothing to do with it. They are both seen as tools that cause harm, but one is given a pass because it also useful in non-harmful ways. This attitude woefully misses reality though. The tool is not the problem. It's how they are used that is the issue that needs to be dealt with, but it's easier to take away the tools than to modify behavior, regardless of whether it's right to do so. Nevertheless, people are trying anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
well, that and a major cost cutting measure so the federal and state governments could call up the militia's rather than maintaining a large standing army....
both ideas which seem to have been abandoned...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
Bear = to carry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, we have the right to keep and bear arms so that when a government turns tyrannical, we can overthrow it.
And another more recent armed rebellion, in 1993 in Waco, Texas, was easily suppressed with nary a murmur of dissent from the general public.
And what about when Obama was elected�didn�t a number of people say he was going to �destroy America�? So what have they done about it? Nothing but talk.
It seems like this whole �guns to protect against the Government� thing is bullshit. Empty chest-thumping posturing, nothing more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
I think the largest reason we have guns is because the gun lobby lobbies for it, since it's good for their big business.
But since I agree with the right to bear arms I really don't have much of a problem with this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
There really weren't any lobbyists when the constitution was written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
Lets face it, that is not going to happen.
The only reason you have guns in 2011, is because your idiots!!!.. sorry but anything who thinks an armed population is a good thing has rocks in their head.
If you cannot work out that guns have ONLY ONE PURPOSE, and see that that purpose is STUPID, then I guess you deserve to be allowed to have guns.
Help's evolution..(survival of the smartest NON gun owners and everyone not in the US) and population control.
(not to mention medical insurance companies LOVE IT).. funeral parlors, undertakers, police, and anyone else that profits from death and injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
> idiots!!!.. sorry but anything who thinks an armed population
> is a good thing has rocks in their head.
And yet every American city with strict gun control is a violent war zone with a sky-rocketing murder rate. And states/cities with liberal ownership and carry laws have the lowest crime rates. It's the one fact that you gun grabbers can't spin away and it drives you nuts.
> If you cannot work out that guns have ONLY ONE PURPOSE,
> and see that that purpose is STUPID
Yes, they have one purpose but there's nothing stupid about defending yourself, your family and your property. It's a basic human right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gun Control vs Gun Crime
I wouldn�t be so sanguine about gun crime in the US. It�s a fact that the US has a much higher rate of gun-related violence going on than most other places in the world�certainly most civilized places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gun Control vs Gun Crime
> violence going on than most other places in the world�
> certainly most civilized places.
Yep. And most of it occurs in cities where liberal do-gooders have stripped the law-abiding citizens of their right to defend themselves and turned them into defenseless sheep to be preyed on by the animals who have no intention of obeying any law, let alone the one which bans possession of a firearm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
Nope, that's completely totally wrong. The right to bear arms was added to the Bill of Rights to give citizens to power to overthrow the government if it ever became as tyrannical as the British government. They were also, not an American invention. Firearms have been around since the middle ages in one form or another.
"The only reason you have guns in 2011, is because your idiots!!!.."
We're idiots because we want to be able to defend ourselves if another government or our own decides to attack us on our own soil? The right to bears arms is a civil defense tool. Idiot.
"If you cannot work out that guns have ONLY ONE PURPOSE, and see that that purpose is STUPID"
Guns have more than one purpose and it's not stupid. Only an ignorant fool that doesn't understand them would make such a statement.
"Help's evolution.."
Oh, right. Evolution, the theory of "survival of the fittest" would argue that people without guns would be the most fit for survival? Idiot.
"(not to mention medical insurance companies LOVE IT)"
Wow, you are a fool aren't you? Health insurance wants nothing more for you to pay your bills and not get injured or sick. If they have to pay for your health care, the lose idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
What purpose ? oh yea, killing things.
Simple "point and click" interface, point at what you want to kill and 'click'.
Then again, you never know when mother England might finally invade you're 'new lands' !!
I guess the ligitamite use for Guns in the US is to keep your population in check !!!.. smart move !
How many guns helped you on 9/11 ?
but it still comes down to the fact that you are willing to live with a list of things you are allowed to do, and another list of things you are NOT allowed to do. It is amusing that you think that system is better somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
"How many guns helped on 9/11?"
That's a disingenuous question at it's face. There were no guns on the planes that crashed into the WTC you pompous ass. Had there been guns on board and in the hands of people trained to use them properly, 9/11 might not have been what it was.
What's the purpose of a gun? To serve as a warning to those that might try to cause harm. Try to commit a crime and someone may point a gun at you. A deterrent to violence. The best weapon is one you don't have to fire. A marksman's tool. They are used in competitions. They are used by ordinary citizens when the police can't be relied on. They are used for hunting to protect wildlife from overpopulating and wiping out other wildlife and feed people who rely on hunting for their way of life (yes people do hunt for a living still).
"but it still comes down to the fact that you are willing to live with a list of things you are allowed to do, and another list of things you are NOT allowed to do."
Wow, that's just full of stupid! Of course there's a list of things we allow and a list of things we don't. It's called the law. It lists what we are not allowed to do and, by elimination, lists what we can do.
The fact remains that criminals have guns and they will still have guns if they are banned. The only difference is that you've just disarmed the public and left them open to whatever the criminals think they can get away with before the cops show up.
The same goes for infringement. If you ban torrents, peer to peer, and other such tools, the "criminals" will still have them. Except, the criminals will be everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
In my office it is called kissing ass - but I suppose the difference is only a matter of depth perception.
I personally doubt Marcus has an in with Mike - after all it is a rather objective criteria of clicking on buttons. Perhaps one should hire a few staffers in the far east to click away :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
We in the U.S. still have people who will break into our houses at night to harm us or take our stuff. We have a few who will attack people just because they are different, or because they might have money, or just to rape or injure them for sheer enjoyment.
Our police are so inneffective that they only respond to crime AFTER it has been committed. But, we have found that citizens armed with guns are somewhat of a deterrent, especially to the dead criminals.
Also we have millions of acres of land without a lot of people, and have found that hunting provides an excellent way to control animal populations while providing an opportunity to enjoy the wilderness and use some of those animals as food. (I know that's a difficult concept, but we understand it even if you don't)
We even have a few people who think shooting holes in targets is just good fun, or possibly a valuable skill for a nation that prizes its freedoms. - An old saying here goes something like, "A gun defends the freedom of the press better than a printing press defends guns". A trip to most any country where the media and the guns are all controlled by the same group would help you understand this concept, espescially if you protest against that group.
In the US we still consider blowing holes in things a constructive use of a tool. If that makes us "backward" then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
> crime AFTER it has been committed.
Since our police are so terrible that they can't psychically predict when, where, and how a crime is going to take place, and get there to stop it before it occurs, perhaps you can point out a country whose police force *can* do those things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Else Would Lump Guns Together With DVRs, VCRs, Modchips And Automobiles, Motor Fuels, The Written Word And BitCoin?
> from guns, actually have a constructive use. But guns are
> only good for one thing: blowing holes in things. If I want t
> make a hole in something, I can use a drill. The difference
> with a gun is that it makes the hole violently.
Sometimes violently blowing a hole in something is not only constructive but the only tool for the job. When you hear the glass window break downstairs in the middle of the night, Black & Decker just isn't gonna cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Darn, I hope I don't get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, my lawyer is calling me. Give me a second...
Boy was I wrong... Let me try again: Jason you thief! You stole my joke! You obviously hacked into my computer as I was taking notes for my favorites post! I was going to make exactly 3.14 billion dollars. I'm DMCAing Techdirt and suing you Jason for your reckless disrespect for copyright law. As for the rest of you who laughed at my stolen joke just remember that because laughter is inspired by the joke, you are technically performing the joke and owe me royalties. Gimme!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm honored that someone is copying me. It tells me that I'm likely doing something right.
Wait wait ... my lawyer is calling me.
Copying me is infringement! ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Free copying for Everyone! Wait, hang on a sec-
"Oh, hello Mr Geffen! You'd like to take me to dinner? Okay, see you on that yacht you bought me! BYE!"
"Copying is bad, and you should feel bad!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US Constitution not International law.
(which states that CITIZENTS have a right to free speech against the GOVERNMENT)..
(I assume you did not know that either).
The rest of the world are far more fortunate that those in the US or A, as we do not have a list of "things we can do" as well as a list of "things we cannot do".
And you think your free LOL..
US Constitution = "the things your Government has 'allowed' you to do".
US LAW = "the list of things you are not allowed to do"
Great system that !!!!!!!!
Thank goodness it does not apply to Australians working and living (at the time) in Sweden.
To be considered "press" you have to abide by a set out and specific "code of ethics" it has nothing to do with the constitution or 'free speech' or freedom of press.
That code of ethics is there for a reason, and if you do not apply that code you are not 'press'.
You also must understand that wikileaks employes far more censorship than that of any other 'news' agency, if you can call them that.
The only person assange is interested in is himself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution not International law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution not International law.
On the subject of US Law, that is meant to uphold those measures the Constitution protects. Simply because the government has decided it does not like its little box, and the people through their general apathy allows, does not change that fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US Constitution not International law.
>> Sweden, that the US CONSTITUTION NOT being an international law or
>> constitution (I bet you didn't know that), therefore who gives a flying rates
>> ass about the US constitution or the first amendment.
I would hope the US courts do. And since most of the legal issues surrounding Assange involve whether he should be charged and tried in the US that seems completely relevant.
>> (which states that CITIZENTS have a right to free speech against the
>> GOVERNMENT)..
>>
>> (I assume you did not know that either).
That's not what it says at all. It only relates to the government insofar as it forbids them from making laws restricting free speech. Nowhere does it say "free speech" only refers to speech against the government.
>> US Constitution = "the things your Government has 'allowed' you to do".
You really should read a document before you lecture others on what it says. The US Constitution lays out what the government is allowed to do, not the people. The first ten amendments, aka The Bill of Rights, were added to be more specific about things the government can't do because they are assumed to automatically violate rights of the people. They were added because some of the Founding Fathers didn't feel the original document went far enough in laying out the boundaries of government authority. In fact, the Tenth Amendment specifically states that anything not mentioned in the Constitution is outside the Federal Government's authority.
>> To be considered "press" you have to abide by a set out and specific "code of ethics" it has nothing
>> to do with the constitution or 'free speech' or freedom of press.
-snip-
>> The only person assange is interested in is himself...
Fortunately in the US we make no legal distinction based on prejudging someone's motives. The First Amendment isn't about protecting the pure of mind and heart. It's about preventing the government from interfering in something that we, the people, deem to be none of their business. What you're describing is a privilege. According to the US Constitution free speech, and the publication of that speech, is a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]