Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 18:51 UTC
Internet & Networking It's official now. The signs had been there for a while now. While the west bangs on about the importance of freedom and democracy, they don't actually want anyone to have too much of it. The US, France, and the UK have jointly pretty much declared war on freedom on the web.
Order by: Score:
Well...
by Neolander on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:02 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

...guess it's time to join my communist friend and start the revolution ^^

Score: 2

RE: Well...
by ronaldst on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:26 UTC in reply to "Well..."
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

You'll do another revolution when your communist friend will want to "protect" the web, right? ;)

Score: 3

RE[2]: Well...
by Neolander on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Well..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

He'd be crazy enough to plot an international revolution with the aim of collectivizing the internet as a mean of content production, sometimes ;)

Edited 2011-06-09 21:52 UTC

Score: 1

Disgusting!
by Sauron on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:02 UTC
Sauron
Member since:
2005-08-02

This makes me ashamed to be British. I'm off to write a letter to my MP. Filthy grubs can go suck my scrotum!

Score: 5

RE: Disgusting!
by AmigaRobbo on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:29 UTC in reply to "Disgusting!"
AmigaRobbo Member since:
2005-11-15

Sucking scrotums is also banned.



:sadface:

Edited 2011-06-09 21:30 UTC

Score: 4

RE[2]: Disgusting!
by JAlexoid on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Disgusting!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Talking about MPs sucking scrotums will earn you a super injunction!

Score: 2

RE: Disgusting!
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 10th Jun 2011 05:39 UTC in reply to "Disgusting!"
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm off to write a letter to my MP.


At least you can do that, and sometimes it works.
Here in Italy it would be meaningless. MP are not elected, political parties decide who goes on a list, in a given order. So you don't vote for a person, you vote for a party. MPs don't know you and you don't know them.

Score: 2

c'est la vie
by poundsmack on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:04 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

Don't worry, they are just trying to make sure they can control it now to prevent it from pulling a SkyNet on them in the coming future.

If they want a "safe" mode that "civilizes" the net and filters out certain content (done easily on the DNS level by services like OpenDNS), it's as easy as implementing it on the DNS level. however, that should be at the choice of the user what content they don't want to see and up to them to set it to filter it out for them, it should not be the default.

Score: 1

RE: c'est la vie
by umccullough on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:08 UTC in reply to "c'est la vie"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

If they want a "safe" mode that "civilizes" the net and filters out certain content (done easily on the DNS level by services like OpenDNS), it's as easy as implementing it on the DNS level. however, that should be at the choice of the user what content they don't want to see and up to them to set it to filter it out for them, it should not be the default.


Ah, kinda like the "safe mode" that we have in public where they allow each of us to choose not to hear what certain people have to say by silencing them for us...

This doesn't bode well, and I think it's obvious to anyone who understands how the internet works at the lower levels.

Score: 5

RE[2]: c'est la vie
by poundsmack on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: c'est la vie"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

That's why I mean give the user the choice to filter what they receive, and only what they receive. No higher power choosing for them.

Score: 3

RE[3]: c'est la vie
by umccullough on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: c'est la vie"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

That's why I mean give the user the choice to filter what they receive, and only what they receive. No higher power choosing for them.


In other words: governments should simply stay the hell out of this... and let the free market provide the tools that consumer are looking for.

Score: 2

Great article Thom
by mgarba on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:12 UTC
mgarba
Member since:
2011-04-23

Congrats (and thank you) for bringing this to our attention.

Score: 6

Geezer Alarm
by fretinator on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:14 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess it's time to strap on the modems and packet-radios so we always have a backup!

The old guard never leaves without a fuss.

Score: 3

Happy to be Dutch
by Andre on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:43 UTC
Andre
Member since:
2005-07-06

I am happy to be Dutch.
It wasn't until I had an internet connection, and started talking to people in other countries, a couple of years ago, that I realised how privileged I am to live in this country.

Thank you for this article

Score: 3

v Goofy duffas.
by jefro on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:55 UTC
RE: Goofy duffas.
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:05 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What kind of a monster are you? That is not freedom. You can't take photos of children and call it a "right".


I obviously didn't argue as such. Calm down, take a deep breath, and re-read.

Score: 2

RE: Goofy duffas.
by righard on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:14 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Yes, nudity and sex are the most severe hazards of the modern world. Each hour 100.000 people die from seeing films with people without clothes on in it. You are absolutely right for calling such films unsafe. And don't get me started on sex, everybody who commits in such unnatural an act, or depicts it in a film is a pervert.

My parents wanted a civilized world, one without sex, so they never had any.

And violence should also not be allowed in films, it should only be used for bombing counties and people that are opposed to this image of freedom. Because we have the right to be free, and different opinions about the matter shall not be tolerated.

Edited 2011-06-09 20:17 UTC

Score: 25

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by umccullough on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

And don't get me started on sex, everybody who commits in such unnatural an act, or depicts it in a film is a pervert.


At least we can take solace knowing that the OP will never be reproducing - because that's an obscene act.

Score: 4

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by justanothersysadmin on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
justanothersysadmin Member since:
2011-06-09

Just so you know: I registered for an OSNews account just to say how much I freaking loved your comment!

Ah, mocking satire...

Score: 3

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by bugjacobs on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

Remember remember - the eleventh of September !

Score: 1

RE: Goofy duffas.
by Quazion on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:11 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
Quazion Member since:
2007-12-04

Ofcourse its starts off with just banning things we all morally agree on we should not do, but before you know more and more is disallowed for the control of power.

Personally I also think its wrong to try and hide the wrong doings, its better to punish people who don't follow the law. People are sick minded, but trying the hide it isn't gonna make it go away.

And if you want to spare your children the groce details of the world get a filter for your private internet connection.

Score: 3

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by justanothersysadmin on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
justanothersysadmin Member since:
2011-06-09

Ofcourse its starts off with just banning things we all morally agree on we should not do...


...and the problem starts right there. Let me know when you get consensus from every netizen about things we morally agree on we should not do.

Score: 3

RE[3]: Goofy duffas.
by JAlexoid on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Goofy duffas."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Killing other people? Cannibalism?

Score: 2

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by senshikaze on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

1) Depends on the person
2) see: argument one

:)

welcome to the internet.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by marblesbot on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

There is no consensus against killing others or cannibalism. The only consensus I've come across so far is that Mike Tyson interviews are hilarious.

Score: 3

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by umccullough on Fri 10th Jun 2011 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Killing other people? Cannibalism?


Both of which I might be inclined accept if it came down to self defense and/or survival.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by sakeniwefu on Fri 10th Jun 2011 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Bah, cannibalism is only wrong in the sense that you might get some weird prion disease from it. People against cannibalism could avoid eating you.

Just like they could avoid breaking into your personal use marihuana plantation and smoke everything away. Or marrying your wives. Or reading your The Simpsons dojinshi. You gotta love victimless crimes.

That is assuming you didn't kill your meal, which would be immoral by most standards.

That said, none of the states mentioned here seem to have any qualms about killing people if they don't belong to the right group.

Score: 2

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by Bounty on Fri 10th Jun 2011 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18

Hey, I may still want the right to not be eaten, even when I'm dead!

Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by phoudoin on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"self defense and/or survival"

Which is the same thing.

Score: 2

RE: Goofy duffas.
by marblesbot on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:25 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

There's already a law banning child pornography, idiot! If you can't keep the internet safe for yourself, you don't deserve access. Do you let one bad apple spoil the whole bunch? No, you separate the bad apple and keep the rest of the bunch fresh. Why don't we ban driving since people wreck their cars? How about we ban stairs because somebody could fall! As a matter of fact, let's make a law that says nobody can get out of bed because something they don't like might happen. Of course, you will eventually die in bed. And I'd masturbate until I die anyway!

Score: 3

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by Laurence on Fri 10th Jun 2011 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

And I'd masturbate until I die anyway!

+1 (both for lulz and because I probably would too)

You've hit the nail on the head though - the greatest threat to ourselves is ourselves. Short of locking everyone in a padded cell, the is no definitive point where "protecting us" and "censoring us" meet.

People get so hysterical about what people could do online, that they forget that punishment is supposed to be reactionary (ie you commit a crime, you get punished) not precautionary (ie everyone gets punished in case someone decides to commit a crime)

Score: 2

RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by jefro on Fri 10th Jun 2011 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
jefro Member since:
2007-04-13

So you are saying because there a law against murder, I should then be allowed to have a grenade or missile?

What exactly is wrong with setting some limits on the web? Why can't parents get a service that is free of stolen movies and porn? It is not about sex at all. I am fine with adult product offered only to adults. I am a big fan of sex.

I am totally for controls that protect copyrighted works. Sure, you guys can't believe it is theft.

Ten's of thousands of people get stolen from each day on the web. What is wrong with blocking crooks?

Various places forbid gambling. What is so wrong with a law the forces the local's to actually travel outside their home to loose money?

Your attitudes show the childish belief of many of the foolish citizens today.

Sad part is, if it were you directly being stolen from or taken advantage of you would be the first to scream to the government.

Too bad for the folks that disagree with me. You will find that the web will be limited. You will get around some of the controls, you may even be held liable for your actions in this world or the next. I will let my stance hold. I believe in a civilized world that is fair to all. Not just fair to some. It is fair to have controls. While we can't stop murders we can impose limits to many things We do that by laws.

I'd say most of you need to learn how to be an adult not a child or parent. Be a good citizen. Take all your stolen movies and music and delete them.

Take your dirty movies that may have been forced on to young girls and delete them.

Mean ain't I?

Score: 1

RE[3]: Goofy duffas.
by bugjacobs on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Goofy duffas."
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

Point is this is not a case of taking away the bad stuff, its about censoring out political and religious opinions THEY dont like, such as "Presents of God Ministries."

Who are THEY ? Your guess ..

My guess, THEY are located in Rome and wear funny hats and Crimson clothes ..

What do they say ? All roads lead to Rome ?

Score: 1

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by bugjacobs on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
bugjacobs Member since:
2009-01-03

If there was a government that could be trusted, SURE, let them censor.. But with a corrupt goverment .. NO thanks !

Score: 1

RE[3]: Goofy duffas. - put the pipe down
by jabbotts on Sat 11th Jun 2011 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Goofy duffas."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"
I'd say most of you need to learn how to be an adult not a child or parent. Be a good citizen. Take all your stolen movies and music and delete them.
"

uh.. what? being an adult is somehow more responsible than having fully dependent offspring to care for? Wow.. your dealer gets you the good stuff huh..


"
Take your dirty movies that may have been forced on to young girls and delete them.
"

And what of the films made by consenting adults? Are those one's ok to keep provided they are kept from being viewed by those under age of consent? Or are we just going to take a puritan approach and all plug our ears and sing "lalalalala" really loud while claiming that the species only procreates through immaculate conception.


Look, no one is promoting child abuse or harm to others. They are saying that there are existing laws and extensive powers granted to the police who enforce those laws. Two nations cooperating to take down a criminal organization that crosses borders does far more good than either nation arbitrarily censoring local traffic. And, I mean real criminals not citizens legally using copyright's fair-use clause.

And, if you don't think that a little censorship now for the trendy "war-on" of the day won't evolve into censorship of anything that threatens the government status quo to the determent of the citizens it claims to represent; consider moving to China, the local laws are probably more in-line with your delusions.

Score: 2

RE: Goofy duffas.
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 02:25 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Uhmm..are you really that dense or are you trolling?
If that's really how you feel maybe you should move to North Korea, there the government make sure you're not exposed to "indecent and corrupting" material.

Score: 3

v RE[2]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Goofy duffas."
RE[3]: Goofy duffas.
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Goofy duffas."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So you are arguing that child pornography is OK then?


Right, because if you don't agree with incredible draconian arguments parroted about in the name of "protecting the children" you're a pederast. Right.

Score: 4

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Right, because if you don't agree with incredible draconian arguments parroted about in the name of "protecting the children" you're a pederast. Right.


Interesting that you didn't actually address the question. I asked you if you were arguing that child pornography is OK, and you skirted around the question without actually answering it. It was a Yes or No question. You didn't give a clear answer.

Can I assume your unwillingness to answer the question directly means that you do think child porn is OK? And that's why you are unwilling to give a simple yes or no answer?

Edited 2011-06-10 15:14 UTC

Score: 1

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 16:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'm bored. As well you must know, the question isn't if he's ok with child pornography, which I very much doubt, because next to no one is. The question is what fighting child pornography justifies. Your stance appears to be "everything, and if you disagree with me, you must be for child pornography". Which is pretty much a straw man argument.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Can I assume your unwillingness to answer the question directly means that you do think child porn is OK


No I do not. Can I assume your failure to comprehend what I wrote and your pointless trolling as you being a dumbass?

Edited 2011-06-10 16:18 UTC

Score: 3

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

No I do not. Can I assume your failure to comprehend what I wrote and your pointless trolling as you being a dumbass?


Ah. So now you are resorting to name calling. I'm sorry to see you aren't capable of coming up with a better response than a personal insult. But at least you finally answered the question.

Edited 2011-06-10 17:05 UTC

Score: 2

RE[7]: Goofy duffas.
by Neolander on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Goofy duffas."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Hmmm. I see you want to end this discussion fairly quickly. I deduce from this that you are afraid of what would happen if it lasted longer.

(Your own discussion methodology applied to yourself, basically)

Score: 1

RE[3]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

You must be trolling. Nobody is arguing that child pornography is ok. But they are saying that it doesn't justify all actions. "Think of the children" or "to fight the terrorists" are used to justify taking freedoms away from all of us. How far towards a police state do you go in the name of these causes? Maybe, when everything is completely locked down you could fight the terrorists and child pornographers better. But those apparatus of state are near impossible to avoid being abused, and oh how they can/will/are be abused. Of course, none of this stuff will keep working. It would be a constant arms race with the state trying to forever lock things down as new ways pop up. It's a fool's folly with very dark political undertones. You want to force as little as possible underground (think failed alcohol prohibition experiment in the US). If not, the majority of people could end up aligned with those you are trying to fight. Fighting file sharing is the worse one because you really can't win and you just adding the resources of the massive, massive file sharing group against you. Forcing your file sharing teenagers on to darknets isn't any way of protecting them from the darker corners of the internet. After the Netherlands relatively sane drug policy, taking a relatively sane network policy doesn't surprise me.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

You must be trolling.


I'm not trolling. I just don't know why he couldn't give a straight answer to what is a very straight forward question.

Fighting file sharing is the worse one because you really can't win and you just adding the resources of the massive, massive file sharing group against you.


If we allow file sharing of copyrighted material and don't prosecute it at all, it would be disastrous. I'm both a developer, and a published author. And I would simply stop doing both if file sharing were so rampant that I could't make any money doing them anymore. I'd love to do them both for free and simply give away my work. I really would. But unfortunately, those who think all software, music, etc. should be free don't seem to realize that housing and food is not free. If housing and food were free, I'd be more than happy to simply give away all my work. But again, if file sharing of copyrighted works were legal and was not subject to prosecution, pretty soon all the file sharers would find themselves with nothing to share when the game companies and such simply stopped creating new games because it was no longer profitable to do so.

Edited 2011-06-10 15:58 UTC

Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.

You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it. Even if you deny it, I probably won't believe you. It's sometimes hard not to when the legit stuff is broken with DRM. I know very few who can who don't file-share/copy ever. Which invalidates them arguing for the current system. Copyright is a massive bag of worms that needs carefully tackling. Large sections of populations break the existing laws, and the existing laws are at least often seen not to serve their purpose, which was to encourage innovation. Copyleft however, seems to be a good model for innovation. Scrapping copyright (and thus copyleft) isn't a solution I support, but I do think the whole thing needs looking at. Perhaps the best thing to do is change the term it applies, and certainly not by making it longer. I also wonder if it's right a lone photographer has the same copyright laws as a massive transnational corporation. It's a massive can of worms, but what we have is broken and the massive transnational corporations are pushing governments to maintain it or even break it further.

Score: 2

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.


No, it was not.

You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it.


Nope. I don't. It's not my problem whether you believe me or not. All of my music is purchased from either iTunes or Amazon. All of the software I have is legitimately licensed, or is open source. And I don't download torrents of movies.

I know very few who can who don't file-share/copy ever.


Again, whether believe me or not. I'm telling you the truth. I don't file-share / copy unless it is something that I am legally entitled to copy. As an author and developer myself, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I supported copyright infringement.

There are definitely some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law. I agree. I'm a member of the Author's Guild. But I strongly opposed their attempts at forcing public libraries to pay royalties each time they loan a book. I saw that as highly destructive because it would have forced a lot of public libraries to close (many of which already operate on shoe-string budgets). And ensuring the children and the under-privileged have access to quality reading materials is more important than making a few extra bucks off royalties.

I also strongly opposed their legal action against Amazon when they claimed the text to speech capabilities of the Kindle violated copyright law, since I believed making more reading material accessible to the blind trumped any copyright concerns that might exist. And it was difficult me to see how the text to speech would have been harmful anyway. After all, it would have made books that weren't currently accessible to the blind much more easily accessible, and probably helped, rather than harmed sales.

So yes, I agree that there are some blatant attempts at abusing copyright law out there. But I do not think Copyleft is the answer. Almost everything that is licensed under a copyleft license really isn't all that innovative. Most of the time it just duplicates the functionality, often in a half baked way, of existing commercial copyrighted solutions. There are a few exceptions, sure. But there are very few actual "copylefted" products out there that support the idea that it fosters innovation.

Score: 2

RE[7]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

Right..... You know you are using god knows how much copyleft software right now right? Linux might be a copy of Unix, but there is a lot of innovation going on there all the time. It's left the other Unix kernels way behind. Right now on the desktop GUI on Linux there is a lot of innovation. I think much of it is barking mad, but it's still innovation. There is loads that started in the free software world and was only noticed when the closed world repackaged it. Apple are masters at this. There is plenty of cases where the closed world is playing catch up with the open world. There is also some great stuff happening under Creative Commons (not least Wikipedia!). Jamendo is really cool. Where copyleft can't be competed with is in incremental improvement. The freedoms it gives ensure it can't be sat on to go stale. But there is still revolutions on something instead of evolution. It could well be where I'm looking, but it's plain copyright that seams to be where the stale stuff is. This is just beginning to leak out of computers into other fields. Exciting times. :-)

Edited 2011-06-10 20:08 UTC

Score: 2

RE[6]: Goofy duffas.
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Goofy duffas."
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Sorry, but it was a troll argument.

[q]You may well be against file sharing, but I bet you have, or still do, do it.


Ok. I take that back. There is one thing that I do that is technically a copyright violation. I download SNES ROMs. But given that the game publishers don't even sell those cartridges anymore, and I *can't* buy them, that's one of those areas where I think copyright law is abused. It's not hurting the publishers if I download the ROMs because they don't even sell them anymore. So it's not even possible for me to buy them from the publishers.

Score: 2

RE[7]: Goofy duffas.
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Goofy duffas."
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

I bet if you really think about there are other things too. It's quite hard not without crippling yourself.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Goofy duffas.
by jabbotts on Sat 11th Jun 2011 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Goofy duffas."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Ah.. so it's not about child abuse, you just chose to bring that up out of the blue for laughs.

As for the use of DRM:

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/security/drm-is-counterproductive/...

Score: 2

RE: Goofy duffas.
by Fergy on Sat 11th Jun 2011 18:49 UTC in reply to "Goofy duffas."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

I have made calls to my US Senators to demand a safe internet. We have somewhat safe movies or at least a rating system and we have rules in place for public sex and nudity. We have rules for what one can say in public. What makes anyone think there is a no mans land that is free from civilized rules.

We are all for a safe internet which means protected against identity theft, spamming and spoofing. We are all for rules on where you show movies. You don't show a violent movie to kids in a school. And we are all for banning hate speech or speech that induces panic.
BUT
Changing movies and music so that people don't get offended is WRONG. Don't watch it and don't listen to it if you don't like it but don't keep it from other people. If a movie isn't meant for kids then don't show it to kids.
And your strawman of public sex and nudity? The 60s are over man.

Score: 2

Chile not west?
by JoaoC on Thu 9th Jun 2011 19:56 UTC
JoaoC
Member since:
2011-06-09

Nice post. But unfortunatelly your comment about chile as not part of the west doesn't seen logical. If you check chile is far west of the Netherland.

Score: 3

RE: Chile not west?
by ebasconp on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:32 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Agree with this...

Thom, why you are not counting Chile as a western country?

We, southamericans, are geographically in the west, our native languages are western (Spanish and Portuguese), our major religions are western; our clothes, education, music, etc. are western too.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Chile not west?
by fretinator on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Chile not west?"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

I love western chili!

Score: 5

RE[2]: Chile not west?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Chile not west?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom, why you are not counting Chile as a western country?


Because I strongly believe South American countries - and the continent as a whole - is far too different and unique (in a good way) to be counted as a traditionally western region. South America kind of does its own thing down there, has its own unique collection of cultures and characteristics that set it apart from the rest of the world - again, in a good way.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Chile not west?
by JoaoC on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chile not west?"
JoaoC Member since:
2011-06-09

So them you can say that West Europe is not west as well! Because Culturally and ideologically speaking there is minor difference, just geographical displacement. You also have to consider that French Guiana and Folkland are also European land at South America continent
Then considering that South America have Portuguese and Spanish as main languages, but also speaks French, Dutch English in small parts, all European languages. Sorry but I still lost on your explanations!

Score: 1

RE[4]: Chile not west?
by JAlexoid on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Chile not west?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Oh please! Most people don't really consider Spain and Portugal to be part of "the western world".
But it's quite interesting point you are raising. What we consider western world is very narrow in definition. US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are very much part of the western world. But somehow non former British colonies are not included. Maybe because British colonists and colonies eradicated the local culture after taking over. While Spanish and Portuguese essentially incorporated local culture into catholicism.

French Guyana is still territory of the 5th republic.

Score: 2

RE[5]: Chile not west?
by NiceGuyEddie on Fri 10th Jun 2011 01:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Chile not west?"
NiceGuyEddie Member since:
2006-03-22

Oh please! Most people don't really consider Spain and Portugal to be part of "the western world".


Since when?

Maybe because British colonists and colonies eradicated the local culture after taking over. While Spanish and Portuguese essentially incorporated local culture into catholicism.


Do you ever travel much? No. Didn't think so.

Score: 2

RE[6]: Chile not west?
by Carewolf on Fri 10th Jun 2011 10:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Chile not west?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Since Franco, and whoever messed up Portugal. They are often included since they became democratic again and joined the EU, but I guess traditionally here is (1940-1980), which about the same age as the divide between east and west europe (1940-1990).

Score: 3

RE[6]: Chile not west?
by JAlexoid on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Chile not west?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Do you ever travel much? No. Didn't think so.

I've gone trough 4 passports in the last year alone! You probably don't know that Visas take space in the passport. And don't even talk about how much I travel within Europe. I essentially in my home country only on Saturday and Sunday. I don't think you hold top tiers of customer loyalty programmes in 4 worlds biggest hotel chains and a few airlines'.

Score: 2

RE[4]: Chile not west?
by l3v1 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 07:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Chile not west?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

So them you can say that West Europe is not west as well!


Oh, come on. You all know what is generally meant by western countries, and you all know that for a really long while now it has almost nothing to do with your relative location on the globe, but more with history, culture, religion, society, economy and generic values. Everyone knows what you mean when you say the west/western world/western countries or near/middle/far east, it's not funny or interesting to play ignorant on this issue.

Edited 2011-06-10 07:44 UTC

Score: 2

RE[3]: Chile not west?
by PrimalDK on Thu 9th Jun 2011 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chile not west?"
PrimalDK Member since:
2005-07-12

It also counts about 125 million catholics, which means a decidedly western -- as in "European" -- culture. Portugese and Spanish (their languages) seem less than indigenous as well. C# (the programming language, not the musical note) is apparently South American, but its originator seems to adapt quite smoothly to Redmond culture.

Western it may not be, but different it is not.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Chile not west?
by pantheraleo on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Chile not west?"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Because I strongly believe South American countries - and the continent as a whole - is far too different and unique (in a good way)


We all know you hate the West Thom. You hate America, you hate the UK, you hate France. Get over it.

Score: 0

RE[2]: Chile not west?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 10th Jun 2011 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Chile not west?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Plus, South America is awesome. That should get you double points.

Score: 3

RE: Chile not west?
by cfgr on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:34 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Nice post. But unfortunatelly your comment about chile as not part of the west doesn't seen logical. If you check chile is far west of the Netherland.


So is the east if you keep walking far enough. Perhaps Thom could've spelt it with a capital, but it's just nitpicking anyway ;)

More on topic, I always wonder why some (sadly most) people feel the need to tell others what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot say. If you don't want to hear me, then simply don't listen. If you don't want to watch a certain site, then simply don't visit it. Or do they want these bans in place because they can't control themselves to watch it anyway?

I'm not really talking about politicians and companies here, we know those have other motives. I just wonder about all the common folk who tolerate this. Sadly, I think they either believe those restrictions are necessary or they feel powerless to do something about it. Parties that care about internet freedom may have a very shitty opinion on economical and social issues, and basically ruin the country in other ways. It's hard to pick your evils.

Anyway, currently it's an non-issue for me as I live in Belgium and in a few days we'll be a full year without government. At least they can't screw this up.

Score: 1

RE: Chile not west?
by poundsmack on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:36 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

Or really far east (the earth being a giant sphere and all)
;)

Score: 2

RE: Chile not west?
by senshikaze on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:20 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
senshikaze Member since:
2011-03-08

You're south!

http://xkcd.com/503/

Score: 2

RE[2]: Chile not west?
by ARUmar on Fri 10th Jun 2011 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Chile not west?"
ARUmar Member since:
2009-10-08

raising the question , if its about gegraphy then the world mus be flat.otherwise "west" has a s much meaning as a quatloo.(it will mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean)

Score: 1

RE: Chile not west?
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 02:25 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Japan is west of the U.S....

Score: 2

RE: Chile not west?
by Laurence on Fri 10th Jun 2011 11:41 UTC in reply to "Chile not west?"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Nice post. But unfortunatelly your comment about chile as not part of the west doesn't seen logical. If you check chile is far west of the Netherland.

It's also far east of Netherlands - albeit much further east.

Score: 2

Comment by AaronMiller
by AaronMiller on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:38 UTC
AaronMiller
Member since:
2011-05-23

"Those who sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither, and will lose both." ~Benjamin Franklin (paraphrased).

Score: 7

RE: Comment by AaronMiller
by PrimalDK on Thu 9th Jun 2011 22:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by AaronMiller"
PrimalDK Member since:
2005-07-12

Here's someone who agrees with Benjamin (and Thom):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by AaronMiller
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 9th Jun 2011 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by AaronMiller"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I know that Carlin bit by heart, almost. Visionary.

Score: 2

(south-)america is also west...
by slipwalker on Thu 9th Jun 2011 20:56 UTC
slipwalker
Member since:
2011-05-17

just my 2cents:
as an American ( from Brazil, yes, America is the name of the continent ! America is *not* that country between Canada and Mexico... please, do not help them to hijack the name of my continent... their country is named "United States", even in their constitution they knew that and it states "we the people of the United States", not "people of America" ) this segregation between north/south, and south not been a (worthy ?!) part of the western world, is just another shape of good'n'old 19th century's imperialist mindset...

Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Considering what a bunch of dumbasses us westerners are why would you even want to be considered part of it?

Score: 3

Out of ignorance
by runjorel on Thu 9th Jun 2011 21:31 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

As I read the governments' statements about all this, the more I think that this is their way of saying, we are being pwnd and we don't know how to stop it. I definitely agree with policing child porn, malware, etc. but I think that's more of a 'cutting-some-red-tape' issue than it is governing the net in general. I think these governments just need to get more creative and better at handling cyber attacks if that is really the issue at hand.

What scares me more though is the fact that Google and Facebook do a lot of censoring on their own. Well you can call it censoring or you can call it 'tailoring/personalizing results' or you can call it marketing, but either way if I am only being shown what someone else thinks I want to see, I call that censoring. I believe that the majority of people don't realize this happening and if they do, a lot of them don't care. In my opinion the war isn't brewing, the war has already started. I think people are just becoming more apathetic to censorship and privacy. Privacy gives way to the convenience of a cloud, censorship gives way to the convenience of personalization and free services.

I know that's probably a bit extreme, but what worries me more than privacy and censorship is, so far, the overall feeling of apathy towards it all.

Score: 1

Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

This article made me think of this quote from John Barlow's "A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace"

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace.


https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

Amazing that he published this on February 8, 1996!

Edited 2011-06-09 22:07 UTC

Score: 3

shinkou Member since:
2011-03-24

Thanks for sharing! ;) It's a great piece of wisdom.

Score: 1

Public Tor
by sagum on Thu 9th Jun 2011 22:41 UTC
sagum
Member since:
2006-01-23

If this gets passed, it won't take long before the TOR Browser gets uplifted into a "freedom browser".

Unfortunatly with all the bad stuff that goes on with TOR, what the governments is going to do more harm then good.

Right now we have an open web where the vast majority of people go about visible to government or ISPs if they want to monitor. Push people away from what they want to do, take away their freedom of speach (not that we actually have that in the UK, super injunctions/contempt of court online!) then we'll be faced with people going underground and even tho they just want the right to say what the heck they want.

People will find the underground a lot more messy, filled with pedo and all the stuff the governments are trying to stop right by censorship of the web.

It just doesn't make sense to stop people from doing something normal such as talking to people online, gossip, or share music with (anyone remember mix tapes?) there by resulting in being pretty much pushed into a corner with pedo, scat, illegal drug ordering, hitman and other crazy underground stuff.

Edited 2011-06-09 22:43 UTC

Score: 2

RE: Public Tor
by M.Onty on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:46 UTC in reply to "Public Tor"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

If this gets passed, it won't take long before the TOR Browser gets uplifted into a "freedom browser".

Unfortunatly with all the bad stuff that goes on with TOR, what the governments is going to do more harm then good.

Right now we have an open web where the vast majority of people go about visible to government or ISPs if they want to monitor ... We'll be faced with people going underground and even tho they just want the right to say what the heck they want.


A good point. There's no point in driving everything underground, and that is the only possible outcome for the most extreme scenario of Western governmental interference.

Push people away from what they want to do, take away their freedom of speach (not that we actually have that in the UK, super injunctions/contempt of court online!)


A less considered point, and one which demonstrates the lack of rounded thinking in not only in your comment but articles such as Thom's above.

The super injunctions/contempt of court online issue in the UK is the perfect example of the-powers-that-be trying to regulate the new, refreshing and free platform. Except it ain't that simple.

On the side of the super injunctions---the establishment control, as it were---are various judges who have interperated some rather vague EU laws about privacy as a Right to Privacy, in a manner which has embarrested HMGoverment.

On the other side, the side of free speach, is the British Press, famously amongst the most bawdy and occassionally vile in the world. After 150 years they are pretty 'establishment' by now, and it is their money---Mr. Murdock's money, the same money that pays for Fox News and strongly backs and helps finance the Republicans in the USA and the Torys in the UK---which is funding this vast campaign against the super injunctions in favour of free speech on the Internet. They aren't doing it for public good, its just good for their business model to be able to talk about scandals and dirty politicians.

Lets put that another way. These far from squeaky clean people; the strongest, richest and most powerful backers of the Conservative UK Government, are currently leading the charge to secure free speech online. The waters are very muddied.

Governments around the world are not in cahoots to supress all web freedom. Some of them, three of them in particular, are just doing some rather stupid things to try and win political points by being tough on supposed paedophiles. Even if they were in cahoots to supress all web freedom, they'll either fail to succeed or lose an election in the next decade and their sucessors will more than likely cancel the scheme to raise cash for their own 'grand plans'. In the UK it will probably be something about wheely bins.

It just doesn't make sense to stop people from doing something normal such as talking to people online, gossip, or share music with (anyone remember mix tapes?) there by resulting in being pretty much pushed into a corner with pedo, scat, illegal drug ordering, hitman and other crazy underground stuff.


Very true. But for the love of the gods lets not spin some mighty yarn about a war between the Governments and the People, the Establishment and the Internet. Its seductively, misleadingly, over-simple.

Score: 3

RE: Public Tor
by Neolander on Fri 10th Jun 2011 07:12 UTC in reply to "Public Tor"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I think it's the same problem as with prostitution.

There's such a demand for it that when governments make it illegal, it only make the situation of prostitutes significantly worse.

Oh, crap, at this rate I'm going to become an Amsterdam advocate ;)

Score: 2

RE[2]: Public Tor
by WereCatf on Fri 10th Jun 2011 07:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Public Tor"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Damn those prostitutes! They get laid AND get money for it when I can't get laid even for free!

..oh, wait.

Score: 2

RE[3]: Public Tor
by KLU9 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 21:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Public Tor"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

Then maybe you should try this "internet" thing they're talking about in the article. Apparently it leads to all sorts of sexy activity.

Score: 2

Let's all panic!!!
by tensigh on Thu 9th Jun 2011 22:46 UTC
tensigh
Member since:
2011-06-01

...or maybe not. I read both articles and there are very few specifics. The US law would only block countries that have blatantly violated IP violations (read: software and entertainment piracy). Other than that, there are few details on what laws would be passed if any.

Let's also not forget that in the US in particular free speech advocates have a pretty loud voice so the idea that the US, the UK and France will "declare war" on free speech on the Internet is a stretch on par with the Beijing gymnastics team.

Let's save the alarm bells for when they're really warranted.

Score: 1

RE: Let's all panic!!!
by David on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:05 UTC in reply to "Let's all panic!!!"
David Member since:
1997-10-01

Let's save the alarm bells for when they're really warranted.


I'm all for keeping a cool head, but sometimes if you wait too long to right the alarm bell, it's too late. With politics, it's a lot easier to pass a law than repeal one. Politicians are cowards, and if there's an early outcry they'll lose their confidence and disastrous legislation can be prevented.

Score: 3

RE: Let's all panic!!!
by umccullough on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:07 UTC in reply to "Let's all panic!!!"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The US law would only block countries that have blatantly violated IP violations (read: software and entertainment piracy). Other than that, there are few details on what laws would be passed if any.


I'm not sure if you noticed, but these violations are becoming increasingly ridiculous. To make it worse, "fair use" is slowly becoming non-existent, with DMCA takedowns being issued in order to censor free speech.

It's just a matter of time...

Score: 3

RE: Let's all panic!!!
by marblesbot on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:10 UTC in reply to "Let's all panic!!!"
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

You're the idiot that doesn't do anything in a neighborhood on fire because your house hasn't caught fire yet.

Score: 0

RE[2]: Let's all panic!!!
by tensigh on Fri 10th Jun 2011 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Let's all panic!!!"
tensigh Member since:
2011-06-01

No, I don't believe in calling the fire department when one kid lights off a firecracker.

Score: 1

RE[3]: Let's all panic!!!
by marblesbot on Fri 10th Jun 2011 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Let's all panic!!!"
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

I like that analogy, but still... I think you are focusing on one dot and not seeing a bigger picture. Government doesn't just come up with one isolated event after another. This is not one sole moment that is going to do everything that is said it will do. Even if everything happening is just one random, isolated coincidence right after another, each and every little thing adds up to one big thing. In a free world, the government doesn't have control. The law serves the people. So what role does any government in the free world have in "policing" and "civilising" the internet? I don't even know what that means! There are already laws that people can be arrested for that, even on the internet. This amounts to nothing more than control. Who's controling everything, though? There's no government scheming amongst itself to control "the people". There is a much smaller group who has control over even the governments. Conspiracy theorize much?

Score: 1

RE: Let's all panic!!!
by saynte on Fri 10th Jun 2011 01:19 UTC in reply to "Let's all panic!!!"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

Thanks, I agree with you. Some countries declare that they're going to cooperate to police the web and suddenly the sky is falling. I don't understand.

I found many of the opinions in the article unrelated to the inciting event. It made it seem like the recent news limits freedom, which I can't see any facts to support.

Score: 1

RE[2]: Let's all panic!!!
by marblesbot on Fri 10th Jun 2011 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Let's all panic!!!"
marblesbot Member since:
2009-12-25

The need for governments to act proportionately in cyberspace and in accordance with national and international law

Why should the government have any role on the internet and the free speech on the internet?

The need for users of cyberspace to show tolerance and respect for diversity of language, culture and ideas

Oh, this one is always a good one. In the name of "fairness" to everybody, governments ALWAYS pick a favorite.

The need to respect individual rights of privacy and to provide proper protection to intellectual property

Providing protection ti IP should say it all, but I'll also add that when a government starts talking about rights of privacy, they're scheming.

The need for us all to work collectively to tackle the threat from criminals acting online

Really? This one's not self explanatory?

The promotion of a competitive environment which ensures a fair return on investment in network, services, and content

They want a fair return on their investment. That's called taxes. Tax the people who's money they spent making their investment. That's paying for the same thing twice. You're also paying a service provider for access, so that's really paying for it three times. And what services and content? I think that relates to the intellectual property.

Edited 2011-06-10 04:56 UTC

Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I'm going to have to side with Mr Schneier about the criminals online issue.


The need for us all to work collectively to tackle the threat from criminals acting online


If they actually want to curtail crime online; fix the low product quality delivered to end users with config settings based on "allow all" approach to security for benefit of the product vendors.

I mean RSA was broken into because of crap product quality in Flash and the business decision that html is an appropriate format for email. The PDF format intentionally includes executable code. For what? It's a document format. It has no justification for including executable code in the document. Canwest this year had fully patched Internet Explorer and Safari exploited and yet still. Speaking of IE; WTF is a web browser doing embedded deeply into kernel space?

Nah.. the laws being written are to benefit politicians and big business lobby groups. If it was really about "protecting the children" they'd focus on the crap quality of what's delivered to consumers.

Score: 2

RE: Let's all panic!!!
by olefiver on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:04 UTC in reply to "Let's all panic!!!"
olefiver Member since:
2008-04-04

The US law would only block countries that have blatantly violated IP violations (read: software and entertainment piracy).
Block countries?
You mean that if the US can confirm that norwegians pirate Hollywood movies, the US will block Norwegian internet?
In that case considering how much piracy originates from Russia and Brazil I smell a major international situation...

Please elaborate if I'm misunderstanding you.

Let's also not forget that in the US in particular free speech advocates have a pretty loud voice so the idea that the US, the UK and France will "declare war" on free speech on the Internet is a stretch on par with the Beijing gymnastics team.
Sure USA has many loud voiced free speech advocates, but both MPAA and RIAA got loud money.
Also consider the "Think of the children!" effect.

Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It gets even more interesting; US networks are in the top five for originating spam and malware.

Score: 2

Build another dike!
by JAlexoid on Thu 9th Jun 2011 23:40 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Build another dike, because I'm moving to The Netherlands!

Score: 2

RE: Build another dike!
by WereCatf on Fri 10th Jun 2011 06:37 UTC in reply to "Build another dike!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Build another dike, because I'm moving to The Netherlands!


At this point I'm also considering that; I'm really, really concerned that Finland will also jump on the screw-citizens-and-their-rights bandwagon soon and I honestly don't want to support such behaviour in any way or form. I wish it doesn't come to that, but, well, there's been a lot of really bad decisions going around lately and the omens don't look too promising.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Build another dike!
by Neolander on Fri 10th Jun 2011 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Build another dike!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

You know, the Netherlands probably have their nasty side too. You just won't know it until you've stayed here for some time, or someone living there has explained it to you.

As an example, I know that at the time, they were one of the strongest supporters of "mosquito" devices that (inefficiently) attempted to prevent young people from going to certain places (see e.g. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,621025,00.html , the issue was widely covered at the time). Maybe this lampshades some deeper extremist attitude towards youth. I can't tell without more research.

Knowing that it took me almost one month before I recently learned about *one* big issue of Sweden for researchers, while doing an internship there... I'd say that learning about a country's problems certainly does take some time.

Edited 2011-06-10 07:31 UTC

Score: 1

RE[3]: Build another dike!
by werterr on Sat 11th Jun 2011 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Build another dike!"
werterr Member since:
2006-10-03

There still couple of those in my neighbourhood. I'm not a teen any more, but here hear these damned things just fine and I can tell you that sound is terrible...

It's like having a headache...

Score: 1

@Thom - Core freedom???
by allanregistos on Fri 10th Jun 2011 00:15 UTC
allanregistos
Member since:
2011-02-10

@Thom:
"The Netherlands is often seen as somewhat of a guiding light when it comes to matters that touch the very core of freedom and human rights (same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and so on), and I am hoping that like with those matters, other countries will soon follow in our footsteps. "

First:
You include same-sex marriage a core of human freedom? That is highly subjective and often based on the background of who shouted it. You can't claim same sex marriage as "core" as it will ultimately destroy a society where people only chooses their marriage partner of the same sex thus defeating the very core of human freedom = procreation. And don't tell me that their might be technology in the future to overcome same-marriage limitations. I can claim the same basic right not to pollute my family from same sex marriage, for that is my basic _right_ as a human.

Second:
You did not mention that lately U.N. declares that internet access is a basic human right, how does it affect the war promulgated by the countries you mentioned against the web?

Score: 0

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by edgeofsanity on Fri 10th Jun 2011 04:14 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
edgeofsanity Member since:
2011-06-10

I don't think a country (you know I'm talking about NL) with active discrimination against middle eastern people or for what Thom calls "non-western" is not a guiding light for freedom.

Would it make a very conservative country heaven for freedom if they allows same sex marriage?

I honestly, don't get these so called westerns need to distinguish themselves. I'm not from Chile but that comment has no place in this article. Any country that passes a law in favor of its people, is clearly a country with working democracy (a democracy not bought by big companies). In my point of view.

On the subject, Google always shows it self as the bringer of free web to countries. I wonder what it will do if this thing becomes a reality.

Score: 1

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by r_a_trip on Fri 10th Jun 2011 09:54 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

@AllanRegistos.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the social construct of marriage is completely unnecessary for procreation. Procreation just requires two fertile and aroused humans with the appropriate sexual equipment.

Married or not, if a fertile spermatozoid meets a fertile ovum, we'll have a party for the newcomer 9 months later. If the child is a "bastard", I'll love it as much as any other kid. Will you do the same?

When it comes to homosexuals, they won't procreate together no matter if marriage is involved or not. So being married is immaterial to procreation. Humans procreated even before we invented marriage.

My hunch here is that this is just male religious machismo. Men who feel threatened by males who do not share their tastes for the opposite sex. Or women who forego their "irresistable" charms.

If our God is really so appalled by men on men and female on female relationships, why hasn't it rained fire and brimstone already to purge the earth from this "evil"?

My guess is that God loves all her children, warts and all. It's just insecure men who project their own evil smallmindedness on the devine. I wonder how many times God has cried over atrocities justified as "the will of God" and committed "in the name of God".

Furthermore, your marriage or anyone elses for that matter isn't threatened by same sex marriages. Every marriage is threatened by only one thing; taking your spouse for granted.

Score: 3

RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Neolander on Fri 10th Jun 2011 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Big +1 to this. Marriage is for putting an administrative, official status, on a couple. Procreation is only about biology. I couldn't care less if people of the same sex marry as long as I've still got the right to marry people of the opposite sex on my side, in fact I think such an equal footing would be much more healthy than the current situation.

Score: 2

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by allanregistos on Fri 10th Jun 2011 23:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Big +1 to this. Marriage is for putting an administrative, official status, on a couple. Procreation is only about biology. I couldn't care less if people of the same sex marry as long as I've still got the right to marry people of the opposite sex on my side, in fact I think such an equal footing would be much more healthy than the current situation.

@Neolander. Thanks, but you did not address the argument=(same sex marriage is not a "core" basic human right), you only justify yourself if you ever come in that situation, for justifying oneself doesn't change any facts.

Score: 1

RE[4]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by jabbotts on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Perhaps the basic human right of freedom to love whom one loves without prosecution by the state or citizens uninvolved in the relationship? Specific to your question though; freedom from discrimination.

Should one be discriminated against because they happen to prefer the same gender at age of maturity rather than adopting the societal bias towards preference for the opposite gender? Should a couple be discriminated against having the state recognized benefits and obligations of a marriage contract withheld because they happen to be of the same gender? Alice and Bob are recognized as legally bound, are raising two kids and among other things, are granted a tax break and child related bursaries. Why should Bob and Bruce who happen to be great care givers, be barred from being legally recognized as husband and husband, excluded from tax breaks and bursaries and ridiculed for raising two healthy children?

(Please don't tell me you believe ignorant claims that a same sex couple is somehow incapable of raising healthy heterosexual children.)


Or people who talk about it like it's a social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show and says, "how do I explain to my child that two men are getting married?" I don't know, it's your shitty kid, you fucking tell 'em! Why is that anyone else's problem? Two guys are in love but they can't get married because you don't want to talk to your ugly child for fucking five minutes?!

-Louis C.K.

Score: 2

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by zimbatm on Fri 10th Jun 2011 10:03 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
zimbatm Member since:
2005-08-22

You include same-sex marriage a core of human freedom? That is highly subjective and often based on the background of who shouted it. You can't claim same sex marriage as "core" as it will ultimately destroy a society where people only chooses their marriage partner of the same sex thus defeating the very core of human freedom = procreation. And don't tell me that their might be technology in the future to overcome same-marriage limitations. I can claim the same basic right not to pollute my family from same sex marriage, for that is my basic _right_ as a human.


Going from "same-sex marriage" to "it will destroy society" is really a far-fetched argument. Research has shown that there has always been around 10% of the population that is gay. Now it's up to you to choose if you want to criminalize them or let them live a normal life.

Score: 2

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by WereCatf on Fri 10th Jun 2011 12:13 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

You can't claim same sex marriage as "core" as it will ultimately destroy a society where people only chooses their marriage partner of the same sex


I'm sorry, but.. your argument is BS: even if something is a core freedom it doesn't mean everyone chooses to utilize that said freedom. For example everyone has the freedom to be straight, yet not everyone is that. Similarly, everyone has the right and freedom to be gay, yet still not everyone is that.

You include same-sex marriage a core of human freedom? That is highly subjective and often based on the background of who shouted it.


Ask yourself, what IS marriage anyways? Isn't it an event where people proclaim their affection to eachothers and their wish to try to uphold that affection and everything it entails until the end of their lives? Thus, doesn't EVERYONE have the right to proclaim their affection toward another person, to promise to care for and look after them?

Either you claim that no, people do NOT have the right to publicly reveal their feelings to others and to care for them unless they fit your definition of what human beings should be, or that everyone has that right.

thus defeating the very core of human freedom = procreation.


Freedom is exactly that: a choice to do or not to do. Trying to limit marriage to only heterosexual couples that want to have children is not freedom for anyone, it's religious racism.

Edited 2011-06-10 12:20 UTC

Score: 3

RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by allanregistos on Sat 11th Jun 2011 00:20 UTC in reply to "RE: @Thom - Core freedom???"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

I'm sorry, but.. your argument is BS: even if something is a core freedom it doesn't mean everyone chooses to utilize that said freedom. For example everyone has the freedom to be straight, yet not everyone is that. Similarly, everyone has the right and freedom to be gay, yet still not everyone is that.

Without law, there is chaos. It is about choices(to gay or not), but you cannot abuse the freedom because you choose to be a homo and want to have a marriage of the same sex.


Ask yourself, what IS marriage anyways? Isn't it an event where people proclaim their affection to each others and their wish to try to uphold that affection and everything it entails until the end of their lives? Thus, doesn't EVERYONE have the right to proclaim their affection toward another person, to promise to care for and look after them?

Yes we do have that rights, but marriage can only be done between a man and a woman. Do that with same sex marriages, and we have a corrupt society. Most STDs comes from these abuses.

Yes, I know, western people are liberated and consider my argument to be so conservative and obsolete and BS, but in the end, we will see which of our societies will flourish. A society where everything was permitted for the sake of _freedom_ and a society where it upholds the integrity of the family including marriage.


Freedom is exactly that: a choice to do or not to do. Trying to limit marriage to only heterosexual couples that want to have children is not freedom for anyone, it's religious racism.

That is why we have laws. You cannot exercise your freedom for the sake of freedom but in respect to what the law permits in a given society. Not to limit the freedom of man but to save man from corruption. Religious racism holds only to those people who try to get rid of religious views.

Edited 2011-06-11 00:23 UTC

Score: 1

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Liskat on Sat 11th Jun 2011 02:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Liskat Member since:
2011-06-11

@ Werecatf

Both of you are right, but seeing it from a different point of view.

From a religious standpoint gay marriage can't be done because in almost all religions homosexuality is prohibited (Think: procreation, a new set of rules as husband and wife and the vow of faithfulness and respect towards each other). You shouldn't want to change a specific religion.

So you see, this marriage concept came together to bond a man and female in front of God to take their blessings from God. These religions have greatly influenced our laws through history. While some of you aren't religious (or won't admit), you can't ignore that most of today's culture derives from those views.

I don't even know why you would want to marry if you're gay except for...

In the world we live in these days we don't have to love each other to marry, we don't even have to know each other. Some marry strippers they know 1 night. Some marriages last 2 weeks. We can choose whether we want to do it in a church, mosque, at a beach, at home with or without a priest or whatever.

For the law it's more a administration kinda deal, a contract between two partners if you will. Build your party or event around it.

Should gay people allowed to get married? By law I think so. Being gay isn't illegal. Should gays allowed to get married by a priest or in a religious setting? I think not.

Peace.

Edited 2011-06-11 02:16 UTC

Score: 1

RE[4]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Neolander on Sat 11th Jun 2011 08:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Your intentions are good, and I fully respect them. But I think that in some areas, your post takes some logical shortcuts, which harms its credibility.

From a religious standpoint gay marriage can't be done because in almost all religions homosexuality is prohibited (Think: procreation, a new set of rules as husband and wife

Alright...

and the vow of faithfulness and respect towards each other).

...but why is the last one incompatible with homosexuality ? You can be faithful with someone of the same sex and respect it, isn't it ?

You shouldn't want to change a specific religion.

Have to give you that, as it's one of my core gripes with most religions. I only have respect for religious structures which encourage criticizing the dogma, interpreting texts differently, and as a whole bringing new fresh ideas into the mix. But it is irrelevant to this discussion.

These religions have greatly influenced our laws through history. While some of you aren't religious (or won't admit), you can't ignore that most of today's culture derives from those views.

The word "derives" is important. Culture has taken lessons from the traditional religious society, but since then it has moved on and gone a separate path. Conversely, religions have adapted themselves to the culture before them when building up, as an example many work-free days of the Christian religion are designed to match those of the European societies before them.

Culture is constantly in flow, you can't take it at a specific point of the past and say that it was the right way. The only relevant point in the flow of culture is the present, because it is what people care about here and now. The opinion of dead people on cultural questions shouldn't matter more than the opinion of living ones.

I don't even know why you would want to marry if you're gay except for...

...telling yourselves that you love each other ? It is one popular reason for marrying nowadays, and one that is independent on the couple members' sex.

Should gay people allowed to get married? By law I think so. Being gay isn't illegal. Should gays allowed to get married by a priest or in a religious setting? I think not.

And this I almost agree with, save for one problem again : culture is in flow. You don't know what tomorrow's religions will look like. Maybe some existing religions will mutate to allow gay people to marry. In that case, if both the couple and the priest want it, why should it be forbidden ?

What we agree with, I think, is that priests shouldn't be forced to marry homosexual people if they don't want to. That's basic freedom of religion. But if they want, why should the law prevent them ? What the law should do is to allow religious homosexual marriage, but not force it on priests, in my opinion.

Edited 2011-06-11 08:11 UTC

Score: 1

RE[4]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 11th Jun 2011 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Should gay people allowed to get married? By law I think so. Being gay isn't illegal. Should gays allowed to get married by a priest or in a religious setting? I think not.


In The Netherlands, the first country to legalise same-sex marriage, we have the sane structure: you actually marry twice. There's the legal wedding, which is done at city hall by a government representative. This is the only marriage that counts as far as the law is concerned. Since our entire constitution is built around the concept of unconditional equality (article 1), this legal marriage cannot exclude same-sex marriage without violating your constitutional rights.

You can then choose to have this followed up by a ceremonial wedding. In a church, mosque, synagogue, or even on the beach, in the forest, or at home with friends and family. It's entirely optional, and has no legal basis whatsoever. If you only get married in a church - then there is no marriage as far as the law is concerned.

The interesting bit though is that while you would expect churches to not accept same-sex marriages - a lot of them actually do. Many churches welcome same-sex marriage with the same open arms as 'regular' marriages. The reason for that is simple: anyone who has ever truly read the bible and who truly considers himself a christian (i.e., following the teachings *of Jesus Christ*) understands full well that Jesus would actually wholeheartedly approve of same-sex marriage, sex out of wedlock, divorce, and all these things.

You cannot call yourself a christian and then not follow the teachings of christ. The new testament should always overrule the old testament, and many churches in The Netherlands understand that. Most christians in the world are actually not christians at all; they're... old testamentians (or whatever).

World of difference.

Moral of the story: it is not up to the state to decide who is allowed to get married. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal construct, nothing more, nothing less. Churches are free to colour in marriage as they deem fit, and if that excludes same-sex marriage, then fine - no matter how retarded and anti-christian I personally find that.

In fact - I have no problems with polygamy either, for instance. It's not for me, but if fully consenting adults want to have such a life? It's none of my - or the state's - goddamn business.

Score: 1

RE[4]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by WereCatf on Sat 11th Jun 2011 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

From a religious standpoint gay marriage can't be done because in almost all religions homosexuality is prohibited


I doubt it's "in almost all" as there's plenty of religions that actually do not prohibit such. One of the larger, popular religions is hinduism, for example.

You shouldn't want to change a specific religion.


Indeed, I am not even wanting to change religious behaviour in this case.

I don't even know why you would want to marry if you're gay except for...


As I explained, marriage can be seen in two different ways: one is the religious bind, and the other is where the bind is between the people themselves.

Now ask yourself, why would people wish to declare their affection and love to another person publicly and you should already have the answer to your question.

For the law it's more a administration kinda deal, a contract between two partners if you will. Build your party or event around it.


Indeed, but there's plenty of countries where only heterosexual couples are given special treatment by the law, homosexual people are excluded.

Should gays allowed to get married by a priest or in a religious setting?


Of course they should be allowed to do it, if they find a priest or similar representative of the religion who is willing to do it. The law shouldn't force those aforementioned representatives to do it, that I agree with, but they shouldn't be denied either.

Score: 2

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Neolander on Sat 11th Jun 2011 07:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Wow...

Yes we do have that rights, but marriage can only be done between a man and a woman. Do that with same sex marriages, and we have a corrupt society.

How is same sex marriage any related to corruption ?

Most STDs comes from these abuses.

Wot ? What is true is that STDs are more easily transmitted between people of the same sex, but...
1/If you have unprotected sex on a regulary basis with someone who has not been screened for them, you get what you deserve, no matter whas is the sex of each member of the couple.
2/If anything, encouraging stable relationships by introducing same sex marriage and as such recognizing the status of homosexual couples can only help limiting the spread of STDs.

Yes, I know, western people are liberated and consider my argument to be so conservative and obsolete and BS, but in the end, we will see which of our societies will flourish. A society where everything was permitted for the sake of _freedom_ and a society where it upholds the integrity of the family including marriage.

Well, I think it's possible to see it already. Look at the most developed and happy countries of the world, and measure the proportion of religious states within them. You'll find it to be pretty low, I'm afraid, and even in those that officially are, the church tends not to have a very strong power in practice.

Religious racism holds only to those people who try to get rid of religious views.

And why, exactly, aren't religious people subject to accusations of religious racism ? Because they are protected from them by God ? How would you call the Inquisition, then ? Or the concept of Jihad ? Religious tolerance ? A racist is a racist, no matter what his beliefs are.

Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06


choices(to gay or not), but you cannot abuse the freedom because you choose to be a homo


Really.. incredibly astounding the amount of ignorance and bigotry you manage to infuse in that one sentence. Preferring the same sex over the opposite sex is a simple choice is it? All those folks whom you refer to as "homo" simply decided they'd go against the established norm for the fun of ridicule and abuse ignorance like yours directs at them? Wow.. just.. wow.

Score: 2

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by phoudoin on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:33 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"... ultimately destroy a society where people only chooses their marriage partner of the same sex thus defeating the very core of human freedom = procreation"

Polygamy will be a better solution, then.
What? It's forbidden too!?
You're kidding? No?!
I don't get it.

Oh, BTW, how procreation saved humanity before societies's invent the marriage concept?

Score: 3

RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by allanregistos on Sat 11th Jun 2011 00:27 UTC in reply to "RE: @Thom - Core freedom???"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10



Oh, BTW, how procreation saved humanity before societies's invent the marriage concept?

Do I have to tell you sir that it preserves human from extinction?
And that children will be perfectly healthy given if they have both a mother and a father caring for them from 0 year old to age of maturity and become responsible parents themselves?

Do I need to spoon feed you with evidence?

Score: 1

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Neolander on Sat 11th Jun 2011 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And that children will be perfectly healthy given if they have both a mother and a father caring for them from 0 year old to age of maturity and become responsible parents themselves?

What you fail to address in your posts is this core point : whether the parent or parents are good parents is totally unrelated to their marital status. If anything, there was a lot more child abuse in traditional religious societies where members of the couple couldn't get apart even if they were totally tired of each other, and blew off steam by having mistresses (thus bringing diseases at home), yelling at each other, and molesting the child.

Edited 2011-06-11 07:39 UTC

Score: 1

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by werterr on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
werterr Member since:
2006-10-03

I do need to be spoon fed proof... your just making wild claims without any evidence to back things up.

A little thought experiment shows that there many ways where you could have very healthy societies where children are raised explicitly not by there parents.

As seen in adoption cases there is little (physical) need for a child to have there biological parents. It's far more about the environment that your raised in.

Score: 1

RE: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 16:34 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You do know it's perfectly possible to procreate without marriage, right?

Score: 2

RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by allanregistos on Sat 11th Jun 2011 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE: @Thom - Core freedom???"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

You do know it's perfectly possible to procreate without marriage, right?


Yes I know, I know. It is possible, but children needs caring parents. But as someone posted, that if a bastard child shows up, we need also to care to them. But do you think all illegitimate children ends up of being good citizens? And all illegitimate children ends up in a healthy environment?
So preserving the integrity of marriage is to preserve a healthy society.

BttT.

Score: 1

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Soulbender on Sat 11th Jun 2011 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

but children needs caring parents


There's no good reason why a gay couple could not be as caring as a straight one. Heck, judging from how many fscked up straight homes there are maybe they'll even be more caring.

But do you think all illegitimate children ends up of being good citizens?

And all illegitimate children ends up in a healthy environment?


No, but neither does all legitimate children.

So preserving the integrity of marriage is to preserve a healthy society


That's just a cultural preference. There are cultures where this is not how things are.
ANd what about diverce and separation? That sure does not "preserve the integrity of marriage".

Score: 2

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by Neolander on Sat 11th Jun 2011 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Yes I know, I know. It is possible, but children needs caring parents. But as someone posted, that if a bastard child shows up, we need also to care to them. But do you think all illegitimate children ends up of being good citizens? And all illegitimate children ends up in a healthy environment?
So preserving the integrity of marriage is to preserve a healthy society.

I don't see how what you say above supports your conclusion. Why should marriage (which is a religious or civil contract) influence the conditions in which children are raised (which depends on the conditions in which parents are living, on the quality of the relationship between them, on the individual quirks of the parents...)

If anything, I'd tend to say that people marrying "because they socially must" has resulted in a huge lots of divorces (33% in my home country), whose complexity and duration makes parent separation even harder for children. To the contrary, I think that in Sweden, the proportion of couples who don't feel the need to marry is around 25%, yet this country manages to reach the highest level of human development, happiness, etc.

Edited 2011-06-11 07:18 UTC

Score: 1

RE[3]: @Thom - Core freedom???
by werterr on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: @Thom - Core freedom???"
werterr Member since:
2006-10-03

Wow... So you really believe that ?

Marriage is inconsequential for that. It's only when you create a situation where everything is bad unless your married when this would apply.

It sounds like same kind of reasoning done by people that where pro-slavery and against women’s rights.

You could so easily that saying; 'Slavery saves society because otherwise all current-slaves would only be thief’s and murderers.'

This is not true, just like marriage has little to do with the kind of environment that children grow up in.

A good house with loving parents can be just as easily be in a married or non-married settings. Heck even the number of parents is not really that important... I mean 2, 3, 4 maybe 5 adults in a parent role ? why not ?

Many family have there grand-parents live with them... when they are active in a parent-role for the children you now have 3 or 4 parents... maybe there is a much older sibbling or other family living in your house helping out with parenting... that gives you 5 parents... maybe there was a divorce and now you have 2 mommies or 2 daddies.. all these variations can just as well yield a loving caring home as much as they can lead to a disfunctional family.

Knowing people that are scared for life growing up in a 'normal' married-coupled family with abusive parents and people that had a perfect childhood with there lesbian aunts, I get a little irritating when I read that marriage 'saves the planet' or is the only road to a good childhood.

Score: 1

RE: @Thom - Core freedom??? - procreation?
by jabbotts on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "@Thom - Core freedom???"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

What exactly do you believe would stop a same sex marriage couple from procreating? And if your going to talk about it being unnatural they you really haven't ever looked at human history or the rest of the animal kingdom.

Besides, one would think it'd make the puritans happy as all get out; they only need endure the shame of what other consenting adults do behind closed doors for a generation before it all magically ends itself. (cause gender preference surely must be hereditary)

Score: 2

But it's "For Your Own Protection!"
by benali72 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 01:26 UTC
benali72
Member since:
2008-05-03

It's too early to know what these net controls would entail. But here in the U.S., recent governmental actions would indicate the worst --

1. DHS seizes domains without due process

2. FCC specifically exempted wireless connections from net neutrality

I agree with Thom that an agenda oriented towards state power -- and corporate power -- and against individual freedom is likely.

One can be sure that supporters will trot out the standard red herrings of "child pornography" and "terrorism" as the justifications for this vital reduction in your freedoms.

Edited 2011-06-10 01:45 UTC

Score: 3

Impossible task
by Hypnos on Fri 10th Jun 2011 03:02 UTC
Hypnos
Member since:
2008-11-19

"Policing the Internet" will be at least as expensive and destructive as the Drug War.

Score: 3

RE: Impossible task
by bitwelder on Fri 10th Jun 2011 06:20 UTC in reply to "Impossible task"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Good point. But do you think it is a sufficient argument to deter politicians to go on that path?
(Before answering, check recent history of calls for "War on x", for several values of x)

Score: 2

RE: Impossible task
by KLU9 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 21:46 UTC in reply to "Impossible task"
KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

The Great Firewall of China doesn't seem to have led to internet smuggling gangs in neighboring countries slaughtering each other, poor migrants, journalists, rehab patients, the few honest police and judges left, anyone who just happens to be in the area... and friends and relatives attending the funerals of any of the above.

As someone living in Mexico as it goes through these very real consequences of the war on drugs, I'm afraid I find your analogy facile in the extreme.

Score: 2

RE[2]: Impossible task
by Hypnos on Sat 11th Jun 2011 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Impossible task"
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

You're assuming that the Great Firewall actually does something and increases the cost of obtaining information. Piracy, for example, is rampant. Dissident speech is restricted, but not effectively, which is why the party is going after people like Ai WeiWei offline.

Score: 1

Comment by marcp
by marcp on Fri 10th Jun 2011 04:00 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

What we all need is the alternative internet, which is completely independent from the known infrastructure.
Would it be wireless or wired, it would make the final step toward total freedom.
Might I say that wireless seems to me the best option, 'cause it takes almost no time to setup and maintain.
There are plenty of unused WiFi frequencies that could be used for simple devices that connects to each other wirelessly and creates the big net, which is control-resistant.

Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by l3v1 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 07:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

What we all need is the alternative internet, which is completely independent from the known infrastructure.


Good idea except that at the very first steps of creating such an infrastructure there would be a happy bunch of politicians who would work their asses off to make such an abomination illegal at its inception. These people are afraid beyond reason of anything out of their regulatory/controllability reach.

Score: 3

RE: Comment by marcp
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 10:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

You mean the FreedomBox.

Score: 2

RE: Comment by marcp
by Neolander on Fri 10th Jun 2011 11:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by marcp"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Might I say that wireless seems to me the best option, 'cause it takes almost no time to setup and maintain.
There are plenty of unused WiFi frequencies that could be used for simple devices that connects to each other wirelessly and creates the big net, which is control-resistant.

Hmm... That would only work in big cities where there's almost a continuous stream of wifi networks, and would require either servers or significant router modifications to work.

In more rural areas or for inter-city connectivity, you'd need more expensive infrastructure in order to keep a working "wi-fi path" for information to transit.

Score: 2

obsidian
Member since:
2007-05-12

When it comes to defending internet freedom (which I'm very strongly in favour of), I think it'll be pretty hard to get the non-geek masses stirred-up enough to want to become involved.

A lot of non-geeks are of the mind that the 'net is "that "pain-in-the-ass" Facebook thing that the kids are always on", and that's about it.

Suggestion - One possibility could be to focus the campaign of FREE SPEECH in general - *not* just on the net, but in "meatspace" as well. For example, I would say that the ability to criticise certain *religions* has now almost disappeared in Europe (and having the freedom to criticise religion is of course behind the trial of Geert Wilders). Yet, the massive slashing of this freedom of speech has barely raised a whimper. That is very bad news.

If FREE SPEECH - whatever the medium it is expressed in - were enshrined in law in all Western countries, and was **forbidden** to be eroded - this problem would surely not be able to exist. The laws would forbid it.

It should be possible for a few clever people to draw up a campaign using the travails of Wilders as an example of freedom that has been STOLEN from us NOW, and what may very soon await everyone else - on the 'net and off it.

Edited 2011-06-10 07:37 UTC

Score: 3

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed, there's not much anyone can do against them if the crowds aren't opposed in large numbers. There's only one thing which these politicians are afraid of more than loss of control, the fear of not getting re-elected.

There should be someone (by that I mean some organization, etc.) doing similar PR as these guys do, and start a preaching campaign for everyday average internet users about how such regulatory power would mean governments intruding into their privacy, from their browsing habits to their facebook chats and their downloads, and making a case about how this would mean total control and censorship - and of course everything should be over-emphasized to catch the masses' attention, just as these fellows do with the "protect the children" speeches and the "if you have nothing to hide" lines.

Score: 3

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me donate a slogan:

If you have nothing to hide, you have been robbed of your right to privacy!

Score: 3

King Canute
by jabjoe on Fri 10th Jun 2011 10:00 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

Fight their actions, but don't get to upset, they can't win, only delay losing. They only think they can win because they don't understand, which is the same reason they think they are right to fight. They might manage to convince some impressionable members of newer generations, but only to the extent that they think what they are still doing is wrong. If everyone is doing it, it makes the law an ass to make it illegal. Best legalize as best as possible and move on as soon as possible. Pointless to fight the tide.

Score: 2

My MP
by PhilPotter on Fri 10th Jun 2011 12:30 UTC
PhilPotter
Member since:
2011-06-10

I have contacted my MP regarding this shambles - I have very low self esteem in UK democracy (especially considering my MP is a member of the 'main' ruling party), but if people don't stand up and get counted, our views will be steam-rolled over regardless. This has gone far enough - child pornography or incitement to violence are crimes that should be dealt with using the existing laws of each nation state, which are more than strict enough - not by destroying the freedom and openness of the greatest tool of our times. This is just an excuse used by politicians and lobbyists to further their own goals and it disgusts me.

Score: 1

pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Don't you think you are trying a little too hard to be the Glenn Beck of the IT world Thom? This is just another sensationalist headline on your part that is heavily biased towards your own view of things, makes claims that are far from the reality of what is being discussed, and runs around like chicken little claiming the sky is falling.

Lets take a look at many of the principles that the UK wants to use as the basis of the new rules, shall we?

The need for everyone to have the ability—in terms of skills, technology, confidence and opportunity—to access cyberspace


I don't see any problems with that. Do you? Sounds like something the majority of us would support actually.

The need for users of cyberspace to show tolerance and respect for diversity of language, culture and ideas


Where's the problem with this? Is it so much to ask really for people to be civil too each other?

Ensuring that cyberspace remains open to innovation and the free flow of ideas, information, and expression


You should love this one. I know I do. Again, what's the problem with this?

The need to respect individual rights of privacy and to provide proper protection to intellectual property


Ok, I know you and all the other people out there who think you should be able to just take whatever you want and not have to pay the author / artist / developer for their work will not like this one. But theft is a major problem online that needs to be dealt with.

The promotion of a competitive environment which ensures a fair return on investment in network, services, and content


I don't see a problem with this one either. In fact, maybe it will help break up some of the mobile monopolies that currently make it so that there really isn't a competitive environment. At least in the United States.

So where's this fire you are yelling about Thom? Again, Glenn Beck would be proud of you.

Score: 1

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

pantheraleo,

"Ok, I know you and all the other people out there who think you should be able to just take whatever you want and not have to pay the author / artist / developer for their work will not like this one. But theft is a major problem online that needs to be dealt with."

Pedantic: copyright infringement != theft
Theft occurs when one deprives the owner of the original.

Taking a picture of art in a museum can be considered copyright infringement, but it is certainly not the same thing as thieving the original.

Score: 3

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Pedantic: copyright infringement != theft
Theft occurs when one deprives the owner of the original.


It is effectively the same thing. If I am selling software, you have two options. You can buy it from me legitimately and pay me for it. Or you can obtain an illegal copy of it and not pay me for it. If you go that route, it's effectively no different than driving off from a gas pump without paying for the gas you pumped.

Taking a picture of art in a museum can be considered copyright infringement


The copyright has long since expired on a lot of art in museums. The reason they don't want you to take pictures of the art is because flash photography damages the art and causes it to fade over time, just as if you were to leave it in the sun.

Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If you go that route, it's effectively no different than driving off from a gas pump without paying for the gas you pumped.


http://www.zocors-web.nl/images/stories/Piracy_is_not_theft.jpg

Now you again.

Score: 2

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07



The FBI routinely uses the terms "Intellectual Property Theft", and "Creativity Theft". Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Justice officially recognizes a crime called "electronic theft". The No Electronic Theft act (NET) was passed in 1997 and is part of 17 U.S.C and 18 U.S.C ( http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/17-18red.htm ). This act recognizes copyright infringement specifically as a form of theft.

So both the FBI, and the U.S. Department of Justice recognize copyright infringement, as a form of "theft". The relevant U.S.C. section is even named "No Electronic Theft Act".

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `No Electronic Theft (NET) Act'.

SEC. 2. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.

(a) DEFINITION OF FINANCIAL GAIN- Section 101 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the undesignated paragraph relating to the term `display', the following new paragraph:
`The term `financial gain' includes receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.'.


Bottom line: Copyright infringement is legally recognized under 17 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C. as a form of theft.

Your turn again.

Edited 2011-06-10 14:58 UTC

Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Look up theft in the dictionary.

Score: 2

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I looked it up in the law dictionary, which is what counts when discussing legal definitions of crimes. See my other post:

"a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent."

Again, it does not require actual physical property to be stolen. Taking services without consent is also theft. And it is well established in the U.S.C that copyright infringement is a form of theft.

Next please?

Score: 1

KLU9 Member since:
2006-12-06

Did your extensive research of legal references find even ONE case of someone who infringed copyright being charged with *theft*? Let alone being convicted of it?

Did it also reveal some immutable law of nature that rendered it impossible for grandstanding politicians to give a law whatever name they felt like? Just because a politician could name a law "Copying is Theft Law 2005" or "Internet Users Are All Paedophiles Whose Every Instance of Masturbation Kills Kittens Act 2011" doesn't make the words in the title a reality.

Score: 2

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Btw, if you want be pedantic, piracy is "an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery". Only recently has the definition been expanded to include copyright infringement. So the initial definition of piracy also requried that you steal "the original".

The Law dictionary defines "theft" as "a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"

In other words, the legal definition of theft does not require that any "original item" be stolen. It can also be stealing of a service. Which is why modifying your cable box to receive premium channels you have not paid for is legally a form of theft.

The definitions of words change as technology and culture evolves. The word "piracy" is proof of that. So is the word "theft".

Again, your turn. I hope you can do better than some stupid little cartoon this time that has no authoritative reference to be defining what theft is and is not.

Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It is effectively the same thing. If I am selling software, you have two options. You can buy it from me legitimately and pay me for it. Or you can obtain an illegal copy of it and not pay me for it. If you go that route, it's effectively no different than driving off from a gas pump without paying for the gas you pumped.

Okay, let's assume for a second that you made shirts instead, which are physical objects that can actually be stolen.

Theft : Someone comes in the factory at night, and comes back with the shirts. You can't sell them anymore, since you don't have them anymore.

Counterfeiting : Someone makes a factory next to yours that manufactures the same shirts for a lower price. You can still sell your shirts, but people won't buy them anymore because it's cheaper next door.

Which one is closer to piracy ? Theft, according to you ?

Score: 1

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Counterfeiting : Someone makes a factory next to yours that manufactures the same shirts for a lower price. You can still sell your shirts, but people won't buy them anymore because it's cheaper next door. Which one is closer to piracy ? Theft, according to you ?


For legal purposes, I don't think the words "theft" and the word "piracy" have much difference. Again, the original definition of the word "piracy" referred specifically to theft carried out on the seas. To the best of my knowledge, this is still the only legal definition of the word "piracy" that is codified in the United Stated Code. It took on a secondary meaning with changing technology and culture.

I would also point out, that neither 17 U.S.C or 18 U.S.C, which are the sections of the United States Code dealing with copyright law, and copyright infringement, ever use the word "piracy" when referring to this crime. But they do use the word "theft".

So from a legal standpoint, if, they were manufacturing the exact same shirts I was, I would call it IP theft, or creativity theft, which are both terms used by the DOJ and the FBI to describe this type of crime.

Edited 2011-06-10 15:57 UTC

Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Alright, so what is stolen is not a product but an intellectual property. We're getting there.

The authority argument "the DOJ and FBI use this naming convention" won't work here, since what I'm trying to show there is precisely that naming IP infringement theft is a big semantic mistake.

Intellectual property gives you some exclusive rights over a number of products, as an example the right to produce the aforementioned shirts. Do you agree that since your intellectual property is what gives you legitimity when producing the shirts, if your IP was stolen from you in the correct sense of the word (the robber gets it, and you don't have it anymore), you would lose the right to produce your shirts, while the robber would win the right to produce them ?

Edited 2011-06-10 16:43 UTC

Score: 1

pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Alright, so what is stolen is not a product but an intellectual property. We're getting there.


What is stolen is something of value to me. Because you are depriving me of the ability to make money off of my own creations.

The authority argument "the DOJ and FBI use this naming convention" won't work here, since what I'm trying to show there is precisely that naming IP infringement theft is a big semantic mistake.


Ah. So now you are the expert on law and legal terminology? I'm sorry, but the DOJ disagrees with you. The FBI disagrees with you. Harvard Law School disagrees with you. The law dictionary disagrees with you. I really think that now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing because you don't want to admit that you were wrong about "theft" encompassing more than just the taking of a physical possession without consent.

Btw, what would you call illegally downloading copyrighted content then? Surely you would not call it "piracy", since the definition piracy is theft on the high seas. So if you call it piracy, you've not only engaged in another semantic error by your own logic. But you've also created a circular definition. So if it's not theft, and it's not piracy, what would you call it?

I'm really not going to continue this semantic argument with you. The law clearly states that copyright infringement is a form of theft. So quite frankly, you are the one that is semantically wrong here.

The legal definition of theft does NOT require that original physical property be taken. It really is that simple.

Edited 2011-06-10 17:14 UTC

Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

What is stolen is something of value to me. Because you are depriving me of the ability to make money off of my own creations.

But someone who does IP infringement is not depriving you from the ability to make money off your creations. You can still make them, people can still buy them.

What that someone is doing is acting as if he had, like you, the right to distribute copies of your product, and thus to distribute copies of your product too. Which is the very definition of counterfeiting, at least where I live.

Btw, what would you call illegally downloading copyrighted content then?

Counterfeiting. You make a copy of the protected content, as if you were its owner, except you're not.

Surely you would not call it "piracy", since the definition piracy is theft on the high seas. So if you call it piracy, you've not only engaged in another semantic error by your own logic. But you've also created a circular definition. So if it's not theft, and it's not piracy, what would you call it?

Counterfeiting, or IP infringement. You're right that piracy is a terrible word for this, using it in the context of intellectual property violation is stupid and confusing. Thanks for pointing it out, I really have to use it less.

I'm really not going to continue this semantic argument with you. The law clearly states that copyright infringement is a form of theft. So quite frankly, you are the one that is semantically wrong here.

Where I live, law describes it as a form of counterfeiting, which is different from theft, is treated by different laws, and is subject to different punishments. That could be where the confusion comes from. In that case, it seems we've reached a dead-end, since what each of us calls "the law" is a different object which handles the same matters in different ways.

The legal definition of theft does NOT require that original physical property be taken. It really is that simple.

Again, here the definition of theft is... "Taking, appropriating itself something that is someone else's property through tricks or force"

EDIT : For the legalese version, I'll try to translate it roughly...

"Any publication of written, musical, sketched, painted, or otherwise partly or fully printed or etched document, in violation of laws and regulations concerning the authors' property, is counterfeiting, and counterfeiting is a misdemeanour.

Counterfeiting in France such matters, be they edited in France or abroad, is punished by a three years jail sentence and a fine of 300 000 euros.
[...]
Is also counterfeiting any reproduction or diffusion, by any mean, of a creation of the spirit in violation of the author's rights as defined and regulated by the law."

(Some specifics about software and cinema follow)

Edited 2011-06-10 17:58 UTC

Score: 1

Here we go...
by Drunkula on Fri 10th Jun 2011 13:51 UTC
Drunkula
Member since:
2009-09-03

Instead of enacting new laws, why don't these idiot governments try enforcing the laws we already have? Ridiculous!

Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Fri 10th Jun 2011 14:23 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

The "Free Internet" you all want also has its collateral damages like child pornography, frauds, recist, hate spread, bulling and more, so ignoring these social problems just "To have the right to pirate music" is sick and yes, uncivilized, I'm in pro of an internet that doesn't violate free speach but it makes it harder for those predators to exploit it.

Score: 1

Chile not part of the west?
by bsdero on Fri 10th Jun 2011 15:08 UTC
bsdero
Member since:
2005-08-29

I know that wikipedia it's not a reliable or stickler information source. However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

It reads:
"In the contemporary political and cultural context, the Western World generally refers to the nations of North America, Western and Central Europe, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand."

I think Thom wanted to say that Chile is not a fully developed country.

Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29



I think Thom wanted to say that Chile is not a fully developed country.


Thought is free, of course.

But no, that's not what I wanted to say. The western world, in my eyes, refers to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe. It is not a designation indicating developedness or wealth - it's a cultural designation. I think South America has long since reached a point where it does not make sense to lump it together with its former colonisers.

It's its own, distinct part of the world, and lumping it together with the above mentioned areas would do a great disservice to the uniqueness of the continent, its cultures, and its peoples.

Score: 1

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

But no, that's not what I wanted to say. The western world, in my eyes, refers to the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and most of Europe.


I know where you're coming from, because that tends to be how I view 'The West', but I'm not sure about it now you've put it into a list. That is basically the anglophere plus Europe. You've listed former white British colonies, but excluded former white Portugese, Spanish and Dutch colonies---all places where the original cultures were stamped all over and replaced with European ones almost as much as in the British ones.

I suppose the best definition of East/West would be places with a population of primarily European descent/primarily Asian descent. It used to be neat---Roughly west/East of Constantinople, but everyone went and moved about.

This is getting pedantic, but its interesting, I reckon.

Score: 1

Wolf@Larsen Member since:
2011-06-10

And I suppose the best definition of the West would be: cultural area sharing both Christian moral values and Roman legal rules.

Chile is encluded, no doubt! (by the way, there was more freedom in Chile than in some European conutries in the past; some politician refugees like Domeyko found there their second homeplace).

Someone mentioned "Spain and Portugal are not considred to be part of the West".

?????!!!!

I always thought them to bethe Westernmost Europeans, except of Irish, maybe.... hehe. Seriously, are not we proud of Columbus or da Ghama, as Europeans?

Score: 1

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

... and Roman legal rules.


... Thereby exluding England from 'The West'.

Score: 1

allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

I know that wikipedia it's not a reliable or stickler information source. However:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

It reads:
"In the contemporary political and cultural context, the Western World generally refers to the nations of North America, Western and Central Europe, Latin America, Australia, New Zealand."

I think Thom wanted to say that Chile is not a fully developed country.

I think we can use wikipedia as a source of information since it is the only one I think is the easiest way to access information. Then we can search for additional sources to confirm if the wiki was really stating the truth.

Score: 1

Wolf@Larsen Member since:
2011-06-10

yes we can.
to my eyes: when you make any statement, none can deny its validity just becouse of the source. He must make a counter-proof. It is called: logic.
Regards

Score: 1

M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

I've always found that Wikipaedia is a very useful source of information, until I'm looking up an article about which I already know a fair amount. Then I inevitably find the article to be frequently wrong or misleading. Makes me wonder about all the other articles ...

My guess is its the same with all Encyclopaedias though.

Score: 1

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

Thom, although you are often wrong regarding IP (intellectual property), I am with you on this one. The internet will soon turned out to be a place where the average Joe cannot say his opinion, unless it is positive for the current establishment.

Can't we just build a peer-to-peer network with wifi boxes that communicate over the air and placed outside of our homes? it would be slower than the internet we know, but at least it would be free.

Score: 2

ARUmar Member since:
2009-10-08

See Eb Moglen's freedombox , hopefully once abd if it can be fully buildt and cheap enough to ensure mass adoption the balance can shift back to the users.as it stands its their network[physical] youre just leasing it

Score: 1

Please stop
by Soulbender on Fri 10th Jun 2011 16:36 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

referring to the Internet as "Cyberspace". There's nothing cyber about it.

Score: 2

freeaks
Member since:
2010-10-28

i hope french president nicolas sarkozy gets jailed,
or serves yearS of cummunity service cleanning toilets and streets for repeatedly trying to introduce unconstitutional laws that harm french people's liberties and civic rights.
for example: hadopi law was rejected few times, but he still continue to put all his weight to pass this law -no matter what- despite strong public and political rejection.

and also he and his governement deported french gipsy communities in 2009.
it is not normal to pick an ethnic group and kick them out of a country.

he continually makes bad decisions.
when the terrible events of march 11 unfolded in Japan,
this clown was downplaying it all on TV and still trying to sell french nuclear technology.
he is the WORST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_EbrOjIGkQ
(Jeremy Rifkin Nucléaire France, very interesting video)

also well known for manipulating french mass media as to what should they say, so he always gets to looks good in the press.

think about it, you think it's a coincidence that french press largely ignored what happened in Fukushima (Japan) ? or rather as it was bad publicity for nuclear energy (which french governement pro-actively support) it was suggested the japan news be kept low.

current french governement is taking bad descisions about internet but not only..
continue with nuclear energy, trying to lower/supressing social help, more police, more laws to bully ppl, controling media, ........ the list goes on.

nicolas sarkozy you should get kicked out for constantly making bad and harmful descisions for the country and you should pay back for what you did.

what happen to those who cannot pay enough for access to culture ? they should be denied access to music and book and movie because they don't have enough money?
so culture is only for the rich ?
what happened to liberty egality fraternity ? huh ?
you're killing france's ideals.

Edited 2011-06-10 17:38 UTC

Score: 2

Plus ca change...
by KLU9 on Fri 10th Jun 2011 22:56 UTC
KLU9
Member since:
2006-12-06

The Kingdoms of England and France (and the colonies of their most magnificent realms) today declared war on the so-called freedom of the "pryntinge presse".

Ministers for Their Royal Majesties, by means of their respective town criers, made clear they would brook no resistance to their efforts to defend the souls of their subjects.

"No soul in Christendom shall be lost to the machinations of Satan as expressed by this infernal device."

Principal among the concerns of Their Most Gracious Majesties for their loyal and adoring subjects was protecting them from damaging exposure to unapproved knowledge.

"No mere mortal stands a chance of avoiding hell if they can read anything they want. Their lesser minds are not capable of discerning the good from the bad. Heavens, imagine if they actually got their hands on a Bible in a language they could understand!" quoth one member of the Court, who argued for the benefits of all scriptures, scrolls and books being transcribed solely by a few monks and officially licensed scribes.

Another sign of Their Majesties' love for their faithful subjects is their most sincere wishes to protect them from smut and degradation.

"The pryntynge presse must be controlled by His Majesty's Government so as to defend the juvenile sector of His subjects from being inspired to think of marital activities before their parents have betrothed them to whomsoever offered the most favourable pecuniary prospects," stated His Majesty's Most Honorable Master of the Revels for London and the Home Counties, Sir Fyffe Fyffe-Fythingham-Fyffe.

"Already, we have received word of striplings poring over filth in epistles and engravings such as 'Ye Penthoose Correspondenses' and 'Bairely Dowry-Worthy'. If His Highest Majesty does not act to bring the presses under His Most Gracious control, all our young ones will know the ways of the bedchamber at ages far too advanced for their moral development, such as five or six years instead of the normal eleven or twelve years suitable for matrimony and being bedded", quoth Sir Fyffe.

Sir Fyffe had but strong words for prynters who might flee His Majesty's Grace. "And lest ye think of decamping to the Low Countries whither to traffick your contraband into His Most Gracious Majesty's Realm, His Most Loyal Men of Revenue and Customs shall, by grace of God and His Majesty, endeavour without ceasing to protect His most loyal subjects from your vain attempts to trick them into the ways of Satan."

When asked whether the Office of the Revels would also prevent the copying and prynted reproduction therewith of the works of bookwrights and playwrights (such as Master Shakespeere of Blackfriars, London), Sir Fyffe was perplexed, perhaps because it would another pair of centuries before someone would invent 'copyright'. "What a capital idea, another monopoly and license to grant at His Majesty's Grace and contribute to His Treasury. Wait till I tell the Chancellor!"

Score: 2

Wolf@Larsen
Member since:
2011-06-10

Hurray for either the Netherlands and Chile!!!
Best respect from Poland!
Dead to the tyrrans, brothers, we will have to keep that battle and never let then see us retreat!!!

Score: 1

returning to the point
by Wolf@Larsen on Sat 11th Jun 2011 02:00 UTC
Wolf@Larsen
Member since:
2011-06-10

Let's jump to the first link given by Thom and here we are:

"The UK wants to begin the discussion with seven principles that will serve as the basis for these new international rules:

•The need for governments to act proportionately in cyberspace and in accordance with national and international law
•The need for everyone to have the ability—in terms of skills, technology, confidence and opportunity—to access cyberspace
•The need for users of cyberspace to show tolerance and respect for diversity of language, culture and ideas
•Ensuring that cyberspace remains open to innovation and the free flow of ideas, information, and expression
•The need to respect individual rights of privacy and to provide proper protection to intellectual property
•The need for us all to work collectively to tackle the threat from criminals acting online
•The promotion of a competitive environment which ensures a fair return on investment in network, services, and content".

I dont like it. I really dont like it.

Score: 1

RE: returning to the point
by Wolf@Larsen on Sat 11th Jun 2011 11:05 UTC in reply to "returning to the point"
Wolf@Larsen Member since:
2011-06-10

One important question seems to be: why there is not a single word on the censorship?

These two points of the programme give a particular kick:

"The need for users of cyberspace to show tolerance and respect for diversity of language, culture and ideas"


"The need for us all to work collectively to tackle the threat from criminals acting online"

Score: 1

Fight for freedom abroad ...
by gehersh on Sat 11th Jun 2011 02:48 UTC
gehersh
Member since:
2006-01-03

while restricting it at home. Same old, same old. Hard to disagree with your post, even if you're Fiona Apple's fan. :-)

Score: 1

debt ceiling anyone?
by bnolsen on Sat 11th Jun 2011 13:15 UTC
bnolsen
Member since:
2006-01-06

don't allow the govt access to infinite resources and stupid stuff like this won't happen. An easy one here is to cut the life blood of government: access to the funding of beauracracy which sucks the life blood out of it citizens. Forcefully limit government's resources and then they get to spend more time figuring out how to best allocate what little they get instead of stealing more from the people who are trying to be legitimately productive.

Score: 2

Hey look, a pretty sparkly line!
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 11th Jun 2011 19:50 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah... No. Time to draw the line here, guys.

Score: 1