I've never said that freedom of expression is universal... in fact, if you read some of my other threads in previous posts, you'd see that I believe we have a much more limited set of freedoms than are commonly decried.
But we’re not talking about a website posting fire warnings to be seen in theaters. We're talking about a foreign entity who is publishing something that has already leaked. Every time a conversation turns to free-speech, someone talks about yelling fire. It’s a pointless argument often taken out of context that rarely has anything to do with the conversation other than the words “expression” are usually found in both.
Yes, there are some times that expression is not ‘free’… but just because it harms someone does not give an automatic censorship pass. If it did, the Westboro Baptist Church would have been silenced LONG ago, the KKK and other hate groups would never have a website or publication and I could have Spongebob Squarepants removed from existence. So, just because it gives our government a black-eye does not mean that it should be illegal.
I feel sure that if these documents had our detailed plans of military campaigns that weren't morally questionable, Wikileaks wouldn't have bothered posting them. These guys aren't out to sink the US, or anyone... they just want to promote transparency. I'm not sure why anyone's really defending this "you better shut up about us or we'll beat you up" mentality. What's next, call out Wikileaks momma?
no... But I can't rebuke your points if you don't make them clearly... and honestly, no offense, your opinion is not worth the headache of deciphering horrible sentence structure. Me? I just added a word to the end for emphasis.
You know... I really did mean that as a legit question. I know they're synonyms grammatically, but there is a difference legally. For instance, it's not illegal to speed in a car... but it is unlawful. Which is why I can't pull you over and make a citizen's arrest when I see you speeding.
Since that's not the distinction you were making, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a legal action having legal consequences... if you blend illegal and unlawful together, then anything that would have legal consequences would be an illegal action.
"it isn't about what the government doesn't like, it's about documents that are secret and could have significant negative effects on national security.
What would have the negative effect on national security: the documents or the actions of our government that the documents detail?
This is a very typical piece written to create a frame around someone to make them look bad, but only works when you ignore the very basics of the situation. Nobody is trying to stop Assange from his free speech rights. They are trying to stop him from violating national security.
No, they are trying to block his free speech. Although, if he's not an american citizen, I'm not really sure how much protection he has... but if america is supposed to be the paragon of freedom and democracy, then they should damned well afford him protection under our rights since we hold them to be granted to all men equally.
As it stands, with the goverment pressuring companys to stop hosting him and helping process his funding (mastercard, et al), it looks more like they know they don't have action to take so they want others to do it for them.
"Free speech isn't an absolute. Fire, anyone?"
Wow... certainly didn't take long for that tired argument to come in. Have we published a Godwins Law on fire yet? Anyone?
Yeah... remember that award Wikileaks earned for outing the Kenya assasinations? If that was us doing that (and don't be naive and say 'we'd never do that!'), those actions would be classified. So... that's the classified documents you'd want to protect?
So... what's he demanding? "Let me live"? "Don't force me out of business illegally?" Sorry... I don't see how those are 'demands' but expectations of a free state.
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
That first line is looking quite scary under these headlines, isn't it? Sounds like Jefferson would say that we need to revolt... 'cause damn are we overdue!
Truthfully, when we look at the facts (as we have them) of the Wikileaks fiasco... it sounds like the government wants to keep more people misinformed... it's almost like they WANT us to revolt.
"The people are not really understanding what's happening here. The fear should be: What will our federal government do to try to punish American citizens and corporations if those citizens or corporations do something that the government doesn't like? It doesn't make sense,"
Stock up for the coming revolution, I expect. ~shrug~
And I'd argue that since most of the noise we hear about the war on terror is that our soldiers are fighting 'for our freedom', it would be pissing on all those dead bodies NOT to argue for the freedoms they're 'fighting and dying for'.
"get over it. they can do what they like, and what you dont like.. "
Except for breaking a contract they entered in with their customer. Ask an insurance company who says "You know, I don't want to do business with you after all, so I'm not going to pay your claim". See how far that one flies.
I get what you're saying, and you're right... but you didn't factor in contractual obligations.
"As a private business MC is free to do whatever it darn well pleases consistent with the contract it has in place with its subscribers."
By giving the stated reason of "illegal activity" without there actually being illegal activity, they're opening themselves up for a breach-of-contract suit by Wikileaks. Assuming, of course, you can sue a service provider in an adhesion-contract situation. I know you can sue the crap out of an insurance company for cancelling for the wrong reason (or a reason without proof). Sounds similar to me.
"Given the tone of the responses above, I suspect everyone is very much satisfied with the verdict of OJ Simpson trial (criminal, not civil). What bloody gloves? What reckless pursuit down the freeway with a bloodied SUV? Aw, thats's just circumstantial."
Your (persumptive and hostile) suspicions don't concern me. What does concern me is your willingness to assume someone's guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Yes, circumstantial evidence carries weight, but there still has to be guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt for capitol offenses. Circumstantial evidence does not do that.
Did OJ do it? Probably... was there enough evidence to prove %100 beyond reasonable doubt? Nope. That's why he was found not-guilty in the criminal court. Now put him in the civil suit where the standards of evidence are slightly relaxed and he's found guilty. Not surprised there.
"Moreover, the fact that a man, who had ties to an "alleged" terrorist recruiter, pushed a button under the assumption he would mass murder people, is not enough evidence for you."
Enough evidence to try and convict a man of terrorism and ship him down to GITMO to be denied all of his civil rights? You're damned right it's not enough. This is why terrorism is winning... because so many people are willing to give up our hard-won rights and liberties just to get the bad guys. We're all sooo willing to become the enemy to stop the enemy. Jihadists and militant religious martyrs don’t even need to do anything anymore... we've got our own terrorists.
Hey Taliban? Yeah, we’ll take it from here. KTHXBI
"Yet one point does remain, the actus reus came when this man willfully pushed a button under the assumption he was going to kill people. You can argue all you'd like about how unfair it is for him, but I don't see the ACLU jumping in anytime soon, but I'm open to be proven wrong."
Yes the actus reus came with the push of the button... but the mens rea came from the FBI's creation of the manufactured fantasy... the mens rea that may not have otherwise existed. You can argue intent all day... but what we have here is proximate cause linking the FBI's actions to this guy's actions. See? I can throw out $5 words too.
And I also love how you have your finger on the pulse of this guys thoughts... how do you know that he was doing it because he believed he would kill people and wanted to do so? Maybe he felt that he had no choice... maybe he thought that since he had started down this path, Allah would have damned him for quitting like he wanted to... maybe he felt that the alien overlords would probe him again if he didn't go through... I don't think anyone can speak with surety about his thoughts.
Your arguments about his intent and actual actions seem to ignore the FBI's culpability in this.
Normally I don't jump in on these... but are you drunk? I'm not following your argument here. AC here says that your claim of this guy being a terrorist is erroneously based on vague and circumstantial evidence at best, and your response is "by that logic, he's just as likely to be a terrorist as not a terrorist".
So a lack of evidence shows that people are just a likely to be a terrorist as not? Are you one? I don't have any evidence that you're not, so I guess it's even odds there.
That's some impressive logical twisting there. If I had a bit more time, I’d point out the logical fallacies (one of my favorite arenas of battle). I’ll leave that to AC.
"They're not shutting down torrents. They couldn't if they wanted to. They're going after particular users who are using the technology to commit crimes. Sites like torrent-finder make money while helping others infringe. I don't think that's a good thing."
They're not going after the users, they're going after the public forum where these users congregate. Which is the problem here... or at least one of them.
1) I'm not any more convinced that shutting down a forum (regardless of its "percentage of intentionality in contribution to piracy") is right than you are convinced that IP sharing is progress.
2) It's pointless to seize domain names in this manner... it runs the risk of upsetting the prior-restraint arguments and people can get past it. If you're right and torrent-finder is the pirate haven you make it to be, what's to stop those pirates from just using Google?
Summary: The government running the risk of being found to be overstepping its bounds to shut down a single method of sharing that can easily be recreated elsewhere.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
"But even lacking definitive numbers, I suspect we can agree on the argument that not all pirates find a way to compensate. So what about those people? How are their actions not worse than the actions of the labels? Labels pay something. Pirates who do not compensate... well... they don't compensate. Not at all. They just take."
But that's making the assumption that every pirated song is a missed sale, which is still under argument in my (and others) opinion. You're right thought, that we don't have the numbers to really look one way or another. All of the studies I've heard about are a bit slanted one way or another.
But my logic tells me that if 50% of pirates contribute more to the artist than their proportionate CD purchases would have netted the artists (which I think a few concert tickets and a bit of merchandise would do), that would pay the artist more than what the 100% of both contributory and non-contributory pirates' purchases of CDs would have netted.
So 1000 pirates: if 500 purchase tickets and merch, that would be more money to the artist than 1000 CD sales through legitimate channels. But that's my logic based on incomplete data, so I could be wrong.
I'm not arguing that non-contributing pirates don't help the artist, but I don't think they hurt them either. Unless you want to look at the "what they could have purchased", which I think is a bottomless argument.
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Re: Re: Re:
But we’re not talking about a website posting fire warnings to be seen in theaters. We're talking about a foreign entity who is publishing something that has already leaked. Every time a conversation turns to free-speech, someone talks about yelling fire. It’s a pointless argument often taken out of context that rarely has anything to do with the conversation other than the words “expression” are usually found in both.
Yes, there are some times that expression is not ‘free’… but just because it harms someone does not give an automatic censorship pass. If it did, the Westboro Baptist Church would have been silenced LONG ago, the KKK and other hate groups would never have a website or publication and I could have Spongebob Squarepants removed from existence. So, just because it gives our government a black-eye does not mean that it should be illegal.
I feel sure that if these documents had our detailed plans of military campaigns that weren't morally questionable, Wikileaks wouldn't have bothered posting them. These guys aren't out to sink the US, or anyone... they just want to promote transparency. I'm not sure why anyone's really defending this "you better shut up about us or we'll beat you up" mentality. What's next, call out Wikileaks momma?
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re: That seems to go a bit far...
If MC says that they are going to terminate a vendor contract on those grounds, I'd say that makes it the standard that they have to follow.
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
Since that's not the distinction you were making, I'm not sure I understand what you mean about a legal action having legal consequences... if you blend illegal and unlawful together, then anything that would have legal consequences would be an illegal action.
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Re: Re: Fire! Fire!
Now, can we PLEASE put the fire out?
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re: Re:
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Re:
What would have the negative effect on national security: the documents or the actions of our government that the documents detail?
No, they are trying to block his free speech. Although, if he's not an american citizen, I'm not really sure how much protection he has... but if america is supposed to be the paragon of freedom and democracy, then they should damned well afford him protection under our rights since we hold them to be granted to all men equally.
As it stands, with the goverment pressuring companys to stop hosting him and helping process his funding (mastercard, et al), it looks more like they know they don't have action to take so they want others to do it for them.
Wow... certainly didn't take long for that tired argument to come in. Have we published a Godwins Law on fire yet? Anyone?
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re: Where is the first amendment at here?
http://blog.marsgroupkenya.org/?p=870
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re: Re: Re: Blackmail
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re:
That first line is looking quite scary under these headlines, isn't it? Sounds like Jefferson would say that we need to revolt... 'cause damn are we overdue!
Truthfully, when we look at the facts (as we have them) of the Wikileaks fiasco... it sounds like the government wants to keep more people misinformed... it's almost like they WANT us to revolt.
On the post: Hillary Clinton: Then And Now On Internet Freedoms And Censorship
Stock up for the coming revolution, I expect. ~shrug~
On the post: Senator Lieberman Says NY Times Should Be Investigated For Publishing Wikileaks Documents
Re:
And I'd argue that since most of the noise we hear about the war on terror is that our soldiers are fighting 'for our freedom', it would be pissing on all those dead bodies NOT to argue for the freedoms they're 'fighting and dying for'.
Sorry everyone, I had a coupon for troll food.
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re: no company needs an excuse
Except for breaking a contract they entered in with their customer. Ask an insurance company who says "You know, I don't want to do business with you after all, so I'm not going to pay your claim". See how far that one flies.
I get what you're saying, and you're right... but you didn't factor in contractual obligations.
On the post: Freedom Of Expression Is Priceless... For Everything Else, There's Mastercard
Re:
By giving the stated reason of "illegal activity" without there actually being illegal activity, they're opening themselves up for a breach-of-contract suit by Wikileaks. Assuming, of course, you can sue a service provider in an adhesion-contract situation. I know you can sue the crap out of an insurance company for cancelling for the wrong reason (or a reason without proof). Sounds similar to me.
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your (persumptive and hostile) suspicions don't concern me. What does concern me is your willingness to assume someone's guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Yes, circumstantial evidence carries weight, but there still has to be guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt for capitol offenses. Circumstantial evidence does not do that.
Did OJ do it? Probably... was there enough evidence to prove %100 beyond reasonable doubt? Nope. That's why he was found not-guilty in the criminal court. Now put him in the civil suit where the standards of evidence are slightly relaxed and he's found guilty. Not surprised there.
Enough evidence to try and convict a man of terrorism and ship him down to GITMO to be denied all of his civil rights? You're damned right it's not enough. This is why terrorism is winning... because so many people are willing to give up our hard-won rights and liberties just to get the bad guys. We're all sooo willing to become the enemy to stop the enemy. Jihadists and militant religious martyrs don’t even need to do anything anymore... we've got our own terrorists.
Hey Taliban? Yeah, we’ll take it from here. KTHXBI
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re: Re: Re:
Yes the actus reus came with the push of the button... but the mens rea came from the FBI's creation of the manufactured fantasy... the mens rea that may not have otherwise existed. You can argue intent all day... but what we have here is proximate cause linking the FBI's actions to this guy's actions. See? I can throw out $5 words too.
And I also love how you have your finger on the pulse of this guys thoughts... how do you know that he was doing it because he believed he would kill people and wanted to do so? Maybe he felt that he had no choice... maybe he thought that since he had started down this path, Allah would have damned him for quitting like he wanted to... maybe he felt that the alien overlords would probe him again if he didn't go through... I don't think anyone can speak with surety about his thoughts.
Your arguments about his intent and actual actions seem to ignore the FBI's culpability in this.
On the post: FBI Sent Informant Into Mosque To Find Terrorists... Mosque Gets Restraining Order And Reports Him To The FBI
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Normally I don't jump in on these... but are you drunk? I'm not following your argument here. AC here says that your claim of this guy being a terrorist is erroneously based on vague and circumstantial evidence at best, and your response is "by that logic, he's just as likely to be a terrorist as not a terrorist".
So a lack of evidence shows that people are just a likely to be a terrorist as not? Are you one? I don't have any evidence that you're not, so I guess it's even odds there.
That's some impressive logical twisting there. If I had a bit more time, I’d point out the logical fallacies (one of my favorite arenas of battle). I’ll leave that to AC.
On the post: Homeland Security Admits That It's The Private Police Force Of The Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're not going after the users, they're going after the public forum where these users congregate. Which is the problem here... or at least one of them.
1) I'm not any more convinced that shutting down a forum (regardless of its "percentage of intentionality in contribution to piracy") is right than you are convinced that IP sharing is progress.
2) It's pointless to seize domain names in this manner... it runs the risk of upsetting the prior-restraint arguments and people can get past it. If you're right and torrent-finder is the pirate haven you make it to be, what's to stop those pirates from just using Google?
Summary: The government running the risk of being found to be overstepping its bounds to shut down a single method of sharing that can easily be recreated elsewhere.
On the post: Piracy Is Over Like The Web Is Dead
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You are both right on the cheap argument...
But that's making the assumption that every pirated song is a missed sale, which is still under argument in my (and others) opinion. You're right thought, that we don't have the numbers to really look one way or another. All of the studies I've heard about are a bit slanted one way or another.
But my logic tells me that if 50% of pirates contribute more to the artist than their proportionate CD purchases would have netted the artists (which I think a few concert tickets and a bit of merchandise would do), that would pay the artist more than what the 100% of both contributory and non-contributory pirates' purchases of CDs would have netted.
So 1000 pirates: if 500 purchase tickets and merch, that would be more money to the artist than 1000 CD sales through legitimate channels. But that's my logic based on incomplete data, so I could be wrong.
I'm not arguing that non-contributing pirates don't help the artist, but I don't think they hurt them either. Unless you want to look at the "what they could have purchased", which I think is a bottomless argument.
Next >>