Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Freedom of Speech in the USA today

  1. #11
    Well I never served... In my country of origin it was mandatory that all boys go to the army after high school. I just look for loophole after loophole till I figure a way out... So I manage to avoid it.

    I don't know what I would have done in your position... hard to say... I am not the kind of people that would have made it in the army neither...

    The whole concept sounds strange to me, they take your freedom and give you a gun, they must have know you really well... at the end it worked out just the way they wanted.

    I also have travel a lot... but in my case I am more like a donkey looking for the greener grass... mostly...

  2. #12
    Points taken. All probably true.

    my reasoning isnt about hiding my identity because the truth is that if you could be truly anonymous, then well, you prolly would be allowed to even use the net.

    Nah, Im all about interrupting the cash-flow for Googles and any other leech in-between.

    I dont want tailored ads that privilege the highest ad revenue for Gulag....when a supplier is like 4000km away. FFS

    When I visit a news site I dont even want to see the ads in the side bars. ever.

    I dont want their nasty little scripts running that refer you around a dozen different servers.

    Dont like the cookies that enable them to bullshit about hotel availability ...OMG only one room left (yeah right, fuck off)

    Besides, I want ruin the metrics the Financialisation Wizards use to broker with that create extra cost for everybody while they skim.

    I want to be absolutely useless to them

    I am not their cash-crop

    They want something from me, be it demographic data or pointed sales ...they can find another way.

    Fuck em
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Great post, really good.

    One issue which is raised but not really addressed-- certainly not in legal terms or legal precedent other than going back to traditional property rights and such, which may or may not apply in the digital world, or in certain circumstances, depending upon how services are advertised and what the understanding is when people sign up.... And that is where does the idea of "Public" start and stop. In the old world, it was pretty easy to point to and delineate "Public Spaces". Over here, over there, the public square, the public building-- whatever it is, it starts over here, continues to over there, and everything inside the box is "Public".

    Nowadays, we have shifted our mode of operation and much of our social paradigm to the "online space". The Internet, collectively, is largely considered "Public", and yet it is comprised individually of lots of little locally-owned segments. (In fact, as a topic for a separate discussion, this is really one of the chief issues surrounding the notion of "Net Neutrality") And certainly when you put up your own little web page, and maybe a discussion forum (such as the one you're reading now), it is typically owned or controlled by an individual or small entity, and used to interact with a small group of people and perhaps moderated in some tightly controlled way. The range of "freedom" is typically discussed on the way in the door, and users are generally told what the scope of their conversational freedom can be, is.

    But here's the thing. There are number of companies such as Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, Twitter (to some lesser degree), even Google, among others who have positioned themselves as "forums for all" with a generally (supposedly) liberal policy for topics as long as they aren't actually illegal-- as is *legally* defined somewhere. So when they get millions and millions of people signing up for them and using them every day in their everyday conversations and social activities-- Facebook is transitioning / transcending the model of the "small privately owned web forum" and really positioning themselves as the new age (digital age) "Public Street". In which case a whole new layer of concern and tolerance for various types of communication is required-- and legally imposed and guaranteed by the United States Constitution (for US users, and likely similar arrangements for users in other areas with laws that govern such things).

    The fact is that this concept hasn't really been tested much in the digital age, though it certainly has in the "telecommunications age". That is exactly what happened to the telephone companies-- they went from being small, privately-owned entities that had a great deal of control over what and how their users were able to interact with the system, to "Public Carriers" with specific officially-mandated requirements of what they could and could not do to facilitate and interfere with "Public" Communication. And this has been written into law for quite a few decades now-- I'm guess probably at least 40-50 years or more. So there is a lot of already established legal precedent covering the ins and outs of all that-- combined with the publishing and magazine industries which have similar issues when dealing with the editing (editorializing) and publication of their various products. All of this isn't just idle talk, it's actual legally established precedent and various legally proscribed service models that these companies *MUST* follow in order to stay in compliance with the law. And again, presumably other countries have similar rules that must be adhered to when operating there.

    So companies like Facebook started out and grew rapidly with the "small privately-owned forum / content" concept. Which is a perfectly acceptable model-- legally they were probably in the "Publisher" mode since they don't produce content of their own-- if they do, then they would straddle the "Editor" / "Publisher" models and would have appropriate delineations in their company structure to accommodate the requirements of the various models.

    But now, due to their overwhelming popularity and the sheer number of people that access the site and do so with the expectation that they are free to say whatever they want to say as long as it falls within the legal restrictions of their respective countries, one can make the legal challenge that Facebook, like the telephone companies before it, has transcended its original mode and model and is now operating as a de-facto Public Carrier. And if you can get the government to declare them as one-- they *IMMEDIATELY* must follow a whole new standard of *MUCH STRICTER* guidelines and rules governing what they can censor / delete / remove / alter / etc. and what they cannot.

    The more companies like Facebook fuck with the various groups-- particularly the marginalized groups, or groups that are not in favor with the public-- the easier it will be for one of these marginalized groups to take them to court-- and very rapidly ascend to the Supreme Court level and have this issue decided once and for all. And once the precedent is set for one, it will immediately be set for all of them. Lawsuits will quickly follow back and forth of course to hammer out the details and extents of the various rulings. But I personally do not think that Facebook is in a very good position here to argue that it has been a good steward of the public trust and is operating "fairly" to the benefit of all parties involved. But rather, an *EXCEPTIONALLY EASY* case can be made that they are NOT.

    They of course will bring legions of lawyers to bear to argue their case-- but the case that they have transcended their initial operating modes and have reached the point of being "Public Carriers" is, at this point, pretty easy to make. By practically anybody. My dog could do it-- if I had a dog...

    It goes without saying that such a decision would be an *ENORMOUS* victory to both the various marginalized groups (such as the MHRM) and others, as well as a huge validation of the concept of Free Speech, Free Association, and all of the principles of liberty that this country has been founded upon.
    I don't agree...

    The owner of the website is the owner of the website... The fact that a website becomes successful does not means that the government can now seize it.

    You really want to create a public online space?

    Create a non for profit, to pay the bills, then code the software and release it as open source code...

    That is what Wikipedia, and wordpress have done.

    There is always this debate about google and facebook... I have not seeing mentions of wikipedia and wordpress... I guess because there is no problems with the freedom of speech in those websites?

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I don't agree...

    The owner of the website is the owner of the website...
    What happened to the anarchy?

    Fuck, mate you are seriously deficient in the reasoning department!
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Another thing that *CAN* work is to use some alternate provider that you assume / believe / trust / hope is not assigning super-cookies to your traffic, such as a very small local or regional provider who is not affiliated with a larger provider and some institutional integrity...
    You will no find this.

    First of all the equipment that does the networking at that scale, for instance CISCO routers, do the marking and save it inside their listings... so in reality this small local servers providers will have the options to get the equipment they need to run their service, and build the listings... or run their service on Linksys, LOL.

    Then it comes the legal problem... if the police tracks down an user, they can legally charge the last person they find in the chain... So for instance someone download illegal material, the police will track it to this theoretical alternative provider, then the provider will say they don't have any info to help them out, then the police can charge the owner of the last IP, that is the provider, with downloading the illegal material.

    This law was made exactly to prevent the scenario you describe. But they, of course, now sue it to harass people around... because some people leave wi-fi open... so they are also open to face the legal consequences of what his users do... a simple GOOGLE search give me this few results:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christ..._b_599945.html
    A German court recently fined an owner of a wireless router for not appropriately securing a device and thus allowing the device to be used by a third party to connect to the internet via the router and engage in illegal download activity. The court in Karlsruhe, Germany noted “Private users are obligated to check whether their wireless connection is adequately secured to the danger of unauthorized third parties abusing it to commit copyright violation.” The court noted that owner could be fined up to 100 Euros. Regardless of the laws in your area, legal problems are only one of many reasons to ensure your router is secure.
    https://hubpages.com/technology/6-Re...-Wi-Fi-Network
    Imagine this... Cops busting in with submachine guns, shove them in your face, tackle you to the floor, wrench your arms behind your back, and handcuff you, for something your neighbor did... "Oops! Wrong house!" The SWAT team was looking for your neighbor, who actually was downloading something VERY VERY illegal... over YOUR network.

    Don't think it can happen to you? it happened to Ted Davis of Alva, Florida on 07-OCT-2010. WINK news of Florida reports:

    Deputies arrested Candice Miller only after they raided the wrong house. Investigators busted into the neighbors' house suspecting they were sending child porn. Turns out Miller's neighbors didn't secure their wireless Internet connection. Ted Davis says he was thrown to the ground and had his home searched by deputies Tuesday morning. They were looking for his neighbor - Candice Miller.
    http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/h...87_wifi25.html
    Lying on his family-room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of "pedophile!" and "pornographer!" stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early-morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents...

    Law-enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice: Password-protect your wireless router. Plenty of others would agree.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    What happened to the anarchy?

    Fuck, mate you are seriously deficient in the reasoning department!
    I am not an anarchist...

    Anyway, there is private property in an anarchist system... why should not be?

    And how exactly state seized and owned property... is the anarchist way?

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by polite_disagreement View Post
    That includes Nazi and white supremacist speech. If I hear the vile N word, I am going away as far as I can, as fast as I can. That is my right not to hear.
    dude if you hear the N word in todays world it will be said by a nigger.
    i dont mean a black man (although he will be black 99.99% of the time if he says nigger) i mean a nigger.

    and i hate that the understood co relation is white supremacists and nazis say nigger?

    really? in what world?
    white supremacists are like 0.002% of the population.
    and nazis? even less
    whos the racist demograph of today? black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I am not an anarchist...

    Anyway, there is private property in an anarchist system... why should not be?

    And how exactly state seized and owned property... is the anarchist way?
    lol
    eh man!, you are seriously deficient in the logic department!
    Quote Originally Posted by MatrixTransform View Post
    where were you before you put yourself last?
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    Everywhere I travel, tiny life. Single-serving sugar, single-serving cream, single pat of butter. The microwave Cordon Bleu hobby kit. Shampoo-conditioner combos, sample-packaged mouthwash, tiny bars of soap. The people I meet on each flight? They're single-serving friends.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I am not an anarchist...
    Mate you are so fucking stupid that you cannot even sort out what's in yr head, let alone the incoherent drivel you spew into forums.

    Quote Originally Posted by simpleman View Post
    I think the system is overrated... This system is rather new, and I am not impressed by it.
    I don't think we need the system, in order to have order, or civilization, anyway...
    Anarchist
    1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
    2: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

    ----
    Do it Hip-Hop

    The kindergarten teacher leads a Gansta Life?
    Laughing at your gold chain and pocket-knife.

    One of these days you will work out that its the shit in yr head thats the problem.
    Today isnt that day though.
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by TheNarrator View Post
    dude if you hear the N word in todays world it will be said by a nigger.
    i dont mean a black man (although he will be black 99.99% of the time if he says nigger) i mean a nigger.

    and i hate that the understood co relation is white supremacists and nazis say nigger?

    really? in what world?
    white supremacists are like 0.002% of the population.
    and nazis? even less
    whos the racist demograph of today? black people.
    In any case, when I hear the N word, I am outa' there as fast as I can.

    Reminds me of the man I wrote about who used to take vacations, at each turn deciding which way to turn. He said one important thing he learned in his travels was: Never be on a street named after Martin Luther King after dark.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •