Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Jan 2012 21:11 UTC
Legal "Three weeks ago the 23-year-old UK-based administrator of a TV show and movie links site was arrested by police. The site, referred to only as TVShack, could be one of three domains of which two are already controlled by the US government after their seizure as part of Operation in Our Sites. Following his detention in the UK's largest prison, the admin is now fighting his extradition to the U.S. with the help of Gary McKinnon's lawyer." His site only linked; it did not host. The most damning point is that he was found not guilty under UK law. So, does this mean The Netherlands can request extradition of, say, Rick Santorum for his blatant anti-homosexual remarks, which are illegal under Dutch law? That would be fun.
Order by: Score:
India vs. the Internet?
by umccullough on Sat 14th Jan 2012 21:18 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

I can't wait until India uses this excuse to extradite all the porn-distributors on the internet to their country...

Reply Score: 6

RE: India vs. the Internet?
by zima on Sat 14th Jan 2012 21:47 UTC in reply to "India vs. the Internet?"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't forget China.

Remember, one of the official goals of the Great Firewall is to fight pornography (including "think of the children!" I'd guess; apart from that, also "superstitious*, violence-related*, gambling and other harmful information*")


* I believe some places still ask "sir, are you or were you a member of the communist party?" (I know it's a bit illegal at mine)

PS. Quickly checking out the above list of justifications ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Firewall_of_China ), a one screenshot ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20090605dusanben.png ) and its description cracked me up:

"For reason which everyone knows, and to suppress our extremely unharmonious thoughts, this site is voluntarily closed for technical maintenance between 3 and 6 June 2009..." Dusanben.com (translation)

(alas, strangely many people have some weird idea that such top-down media control is absolute; it's often quite a bit more loose and/or complex - the most popular cabaret act from my place was of course laughing from the regime and its realities ...with most prominent Party members often sitting in front rows; most prominent ~rock/reggae/punk youth festival was essentially treated by the regime as "safety valve"; or consider this film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Iron which partly feels like some creative documentary ...but that's because it was allowed to be filmed, it was funded, while the events were taking place)

Edited 2012-01-14 22:07 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: India vs. the Internet?
by Soulbender on Sun 15th Jan 2012 02:01 UTC in reply to "India vs. the Internet?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

They should use it to have the management team of (former) Union-Carbide extradited.

Reply Score: 4

Santorum
by zima on Sat 14th Jan 2012 22:25 UTC
zima
Member since:
2005-07-06

So, does this mean The Netherlands can request extradition of, say, Rick Santorum for his blatant anti-homosexual remarks, which are illegal under Dutch law? That would be fun.

I think we both know the Netherlands is, ultimately, too level headed place to do that... but you can help (maybe you already do, NL being one of very few non-EN Wiki writings about it) in adoption of one neologism ;p

http://spreadingsantorum.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_%22santorum%22_ne...

Edited 2012-01-14 22:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 02:06 UTC in reply to "Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Ah. So you're into character assassination and publicly ridiculing others' names. How... nice.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Santorum
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 02:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Santorum"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

One who fights with the sword...

What, surely you don't think that Rick Santorum shuns character assassinations and publicly ridiculing others? (with all his populist drivel about such irrelevant "issues" & seemingly pushing to turn back the clock on civil rights & ~sexual oppression...) That's what "gay bashing" amounts to, especially in the eyes of its perpetrators.
BTW what it does, how it harms humanity: it just happens to be Alan Turing Year, maybe it's time to familiarise yourself with his life story.

Edited 2012-01-15 02:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 02:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"He started it" is a kindergartner's defense.

Calling people with whom you disagree names is just a cheap way to avoid having to address the issues they raise.

And if you're so sure of your moral superiority, why stoop to the exact same behavior for which you are criticizing them?

Sorry, not buying it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Santorum
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue here is, "he"/"them" not only don't see any problem with it - they essentially see gay bashing and such as a ~virtuous thing to do (NVM the amount of actual harm it brings)

Demanding to bring (real) moral superiority issues to the table with such people is a bit naive at this point, after the non-issues they raise have been addressed in more eloquent ways numerous times over the years - evidently it just doesn't work.
(so, let Savage & co. have his cheap shots if they want, especially since they're the ones really impacted by whole mess)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Ah, "they" are too stupid to reason with; "they" have evil motives; "they" aren't like "us", so it's OK to use immoral means such as a campaign of innuendo and character association to destroy those you fear - you know, like Mr. Turing's enemies did to him.

May I suggest that you read about Dr. Martin Luther King's approach to dealing with bigotry and injustice? His birthday is 15 January. No better time to learn that being persistently honorable and of high character is better than merely being an ugly bully.

Just a thought.

Edited 2012-01-15 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Santorum
by fran on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

The person Thom used in the irony example of a person who very publicly preach intolerance.
Politicians will just love your sense of civility. They can just say what they want but the good folk that disagree will be gagged by their sense of good civility and etiquette.
This is usually how despots come to power.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Santorum
by unclefester on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13


May I suggest that you read about Dr. Martin Luther King's approach to dealing with bigotry and injustice? His birthday is 15 January. No better time to learn that being persistently honorable and of high character is better than merely being an ugly bully.

Just a thought.


King was a drunkard, a womaniser (with a penchant for white prostitutes) and an absolute buffoon. All his foibles were fully documented by the FBI with wire taps and photographs.

King's doctoral thesis and most of his speeches were also heavily plagiarised.

The civil rights movements success is mostly due to the fact that the Democrat party in the 1960s was actively courting the minority and left wing vote. Minorities should thank JFK and Lyndon Johnston rather than King for any improvements.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Santorum
by unclefester on Sun 15th Jan 2012 05:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Santorum"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

I may also add that Mahatma Gandhi was a notorious pedophile. He also hated Black (African) people and generally supported the Indian caste system. Again this is all fully documented.

We should never make heroes of mere mortals.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Santorum
by ctl_alt_del on Sun 15th Jan 2012 05:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Santorum"
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

Actually, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Santorum
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 12:15 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah, "they" are too stupid to reason with; "they" have evil motives; "they" aren't like "us", so it's OK to use immoral means such as a campaign of innuendo and character association to destroy those you fear - you know, like Mr. Turing's enemies did to him.

"They" are reasoned with. Constantly. And for quite some time - I actually pointed this out in the post you just replied to.
...though it's really great (in context) how you sort of managed to demonstrate, in reply, smth close to the first thing you're vocally resentful about, in the very same sentence; I like that ;) - while overall making it essentially a classic straw-man:

Let me remind you (since you apparently already pushed this aside): we're talking about somebody who builds his political persona largely also around this one "issue" echoing Lavender Scare, who constantly demonstrates it (with many opposing voices, all the friggin' time), who builds important part of his identity on "immoral means such as a campaign of innuendo and character association to destroy those you fear - you know, like Mr. Turing's enemies did to him."
Who doesn't care that some people even die because of it (and plenty get hurt, are violated into living in fear), pushed by the actions of those receptive to Santorum-like rhetoric.

(which has nothing to do with who Turing was; you associating in turn, with him, the "side" & sentiments which caused what happened to him, which destroyed him, is disgusting)

So I can't really blame Savage & co. if they, apparently, got tired of being victims of such bashing (though I do understand how blaming such victims isn't at all uncommon in ~sexual matters, it's in fact quite traditional...).
I can't really fault a fairly classic case of blow-back at actions of a public figure by his own(?) choice (and those who can't deal with dirty politics shouldn't rejoice in it by themselves), one which also chooses(?) to be an ass and has mild consequences from it, in comparison to what his views inspire. Yeah, presumably "too stupid to reason with" and/or with "evil motives" ...whatever those two would mean; you said it.[1]


You're the one presenting this polarization of sorts in such general terms - oh, and it's really curious how eagerly you jump on "evil motives" / "us vs. them" ...I bet that'll cure political landscape.

"Immoral innuendo and character association" (or assassination) ...remind me, what was that deal about the birth place & religion of your current president? Such mess is all around you place, clean up; easier to start with "your" side, I'd guess.


And you know, this could even be seen as bringing some... balance.
I mean, remind me again - what are the chances of a homosexual or atheist becoming the president of the US? (lets assume she/he is somehow verifiably at least 2x better in every way which makes a politician good in real qualifications)
...
Don't you think that is a major distortion?[2]
Well, then no wonder you're bound to see similar mechanisms making things harder for somebody who goes "too far" the other way... (I certainly don't see it as surprising, or as intrinsically bad given the circumstances)


Who knows, perhaps tangling people like Santorum into game of polarized views is the primary way to mostly contain them - I know it largely worked with ~such parties at my place, after they fully revealed themselves and subsequently mostly sank into irrelevance.
They made themselves into clowns (or inviting clowns, same effect) who mostly just make their opponents look better, in grander scale.


Dr. Martin Luther King's approach to dealing with bigotry and injustice? [...] being persistently honorable and of high character is better than merely being an ugly bully.
Just a thought.

Second section of your post, second major logical fallacy - this time false dichotomy (though, again, I understand this is quite popular in ~traditionalist arguments)

But it's even better, how you thought bringing Dr Martin Luther King into the mix is a good idea ...unless, of course, you forgot what happened to him in the end.


(and FYI, I had my formative decades utterly squashed by persistently striving for what you present as the King Way(tm); for different - but also somewhat related at least to overall message from Santorum - petty reasons, by "good people & place, heavy on traditional values" which gave me hell; your "just a thought" is a worthless feel-good myth, the threat of social disorder & disobedience - political violence, essentially - brings changes)


1. I'd just say it's his "position" and that's it, he won't change his mind no matter what, I guarantee you that (OK, more accurately: there's an exceedingly low probability of Rick Santorum being open to any kind of possibility of him changing mind on the issue - so it's better to dedicate energy on things with higher return/effort ratio, better benefit to society ...like, say, beer party).
In this case it's even mostly irrelevant "why?" - NVM if, say, he was just formed like that, or if he's a hypocrite of the highest order, just fishing for awkward voter demographic (hm, though we do know he spreads scientific conspiracy theories; or prefers populist rhetoric - one held dear by that awkward voter demographic - over solid scientific conclusions ...even if his particular (extra-major) religious sect is one of the relatively few with no problems whatsoever in accepting vast majority of those conclusions)

2. What, can't happen anywhere? Let me give you an example of Icelandic PM, or my inside experience from one 90+% Catholic place, the homeland of John Paul II ...and able to be level-headed enough about such things to choose an openly atheist president, for two terms.
That is reasonable (or "not stupid", whatever) - trying to make choices of such importance (NVM when we're talking about a nuclear superpower meddling around the world, like all such tend to do...) on the basis of qualifications.
(FYI, I voted in most elections in ways which I didn't consider most "mine" but most optimal; even on "opponents" - in such extreme example, wishing to influence a particular parliamentary coalition or parliament-president balance of power)

Edited 2012-01-15 12:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Santorum
by ricegf on Sun 15th Jan 2012 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

That's a much longer elaboration on your thesis that it's OK to abuse people with whom you disagree, but I'm afraid I didn't find it any more convincing than the short version. Sorry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Santorum
by tylerdurden on Mon 16th Jan 2012 00:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Using the memory of Martin Luther King to concern troll for Rick Santorum. Niiiiiice!

Reply Score: 2

The 'He Started it' excuse
by shotsman on Sun 15th Jan 2012 07:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

This is how bullies get away with their campaign of hate for so long.

The person being bullied tells the truth. 'He/She Started it'.
The Bully is alibied by his/her mates/Friends/Fellow Gang members who all say 'No he didn't'.

The victim is then punished for telling the truth. The bully wins twice.

Sorry, the 'he started it' excuse is very lame and does not cut any mustard with me. (yeah, I was the victim for many years at school)

Back on topic, I think it would be kinda nice for the Dutch to issue an international arrest warrant for Mr Santorum for his comments that are bordering on a 'hate crime'.
Then we would at least get to see how the US Acts with the extradition request. His crime is equally as bad as someone having some links on his web site.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The 'He Started it' excuse
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 12:21 UTC in reply to "The 'He Started it' excuse"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And it seems the guy is quite quick to go towards the "blame the victim" kind of stuff, of fairly low calibre... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Catholic_Online_article_... (and Godwined the Senate? Hm, that's actually also kinda cool ;) )

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Santorum
by kaiwai on Mon 16th Jan 2012 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Santorum"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"He started it" is a kindergartner's defense.

Calling people with whom you disagree names is just a cheap way to avoid having to address the issues they raise.

And if you're so sure of your moral superiority, why stoop to the exact same behavior for which you are criticizing them?

Sorry, not buying it.


I know this is going way off from the original topic of the article which Thom posted but lets get one thing straight - Rick Santorum is a guy who compares a same homosexual relationships and homosexual sexual acts between consenting adults as being morally equivalent to beastiality, incest and paedophilia. I'm sorry but such views have gone well beyond a matter of two people disagreeing, given that both sides can be understood as reasoned arguments with different conclusions, to point where Rick Santorum's arguments are so lacking in structure it is entering face palm territory. We're talking about self evident statements that incriminate oneself as a moron and do not require any sort of retort given that the original statement lacked any intellectual rigour in the first place.

What Dan Savage did was childish but lets keep one thing in mind, Dan Savage isn't a senator he is an entertainer. The fact that a state would vote in Rick Santorum tells me more about the state whom he was voted to represent more than it says anything about the American system over all.

I know what I've said will fall on deaf ears given that ricegf is a Christian fundamentalist and God forbid him speaking against a 'like minded believer' whom he finds affinity with Rick Santorum.

Edited 2012-01-16 01:53 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Santorum
by ricegf on Mon 16th Jan 2012 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Santorum"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

So you're volunteering to lead the pogrom?

And seriously, "Christian Fundamentalist" is the best slur you can think of? I realize it invokes "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist", i.e., someone who can be incarcerated for life without trial (or so I hear). Bur surely you can think of some disgusting bodily fluid to label "ricegf" and recruit for an on-line campaign to promote, similar to the post that started this thread?

In any event, try to understand that I would have precisely the same reaction to a recruiting campaign to desecrate the name of Milk or Kameny. I don't give a flip who sleeps with whom or who marries whom, but I care very much that filthy campaigns of slurs and innuendo (for good examples, look at the posts that follow my mention of the name "Dr. Martin Luther King" elsewhere in this thread) be jettisoned from the arena of online discussion.

It's the best hope I can find toward the end of the extreme polarization infesting American, and perhaps world, politics these days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Santorum
by JAlexoid on Mon 16th Jan 2012 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

When you get enough of your fellow countrymen to vote based on actual issues, rather than the "poo flinging" campaign effectiveness then you can start thinking about polarisation.
Till then, I doubt that you could have raised awareness how much Santorum stereotypes people.

(Why do I care about US politics? He's running for the seat of the president of the US. And my country tends to be dominated by pro-US policies.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Santorum
by zima on Sat 21st Jan 2012 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Santorum"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

So you're volunteering to lead the pogrom?

And another basic logical fallacy (are you able to post on such matters without them?). Not far from another http://www.osnews.com/permalink?503548 :
That's a much longer elaboration on your thesis that it's OK to abuse people with whom you disagree, but I'm afraid I didn't find it any more convincing than the short version. Sorry.

Splendid one, really ;) ...just a post after I pointed out your previous one was built on two logical fallacies, you again respond with a clear logical fallacy, one of those two (too bad they work so good on too many - but hey, otherwise people wouldn't use them), possibly without even blinking.

No, maybe you hinted correctly, maybe there's no point in reasoning...


"I still reject what I misrepresent as your position" - this is what you basically wrote, another classic straw man (not much of a surprise it's unconvincing). Goes into red herring at this point ...or even proof by assertion; or framing (of yourself, really) / loaded language / labelling (yeah, funny that, how you meander in the vicinity of name calling... but TBH all those are rampant in US politics); heck, even slight newspeak - unless you also petition for, say, Ministry of Abuse / Attack name change.



This is closer to what I'm actually saying few times already: a limited defence from those abusing you is fairly understandable (limited particularly in comparison to what's promulgated and inspired by the abusers)
Or: responding in kind / in fairly ~proportional, but still comparatively limited way, can be justifiable if the offender fails to moderate his abusive behaviour despite constant (and continuing) more "civilised" attempts (indeed, it can be the only thing left to do, assuming an issue is of enough severity - and that's the case when we can easily pinpoint to it inspiring many youth-destroying, well, persecutions; even some deaths)


His words, his stances (and on homosexuality, he made one of his most notable ones) do actual harm (not imaginary one, such as kids easily realising what few % of humanity always were, what few % of them also are).
This isn't about simple disagreeing (NVM strong hints he's a hypocrite, so "disagreeing" is a bit beyond such case - not like that's unusual among politicians, they even tend to lie also simply because society can't handle the truth, and wrap it up in local neologisms such as "social conservatism"), this is what actually happens.
Newsflash: not all opinions warrant respect. One can pretty easily recognize those which don't by seeing the harm they fuel. I don't really particularly care about what Santaro says, more what kind of actions rhetoric such as his tends to inspire.


Oh, and not "people" but vocal and abusive public figures (what, they didn't know - when they were getting into it - they can't expect the same amount of protection as common folks, from the fallout of their freedom to say stupid things?) with dirty (ultimately, also pro-bullying) political rhetoric as a defining characteristic of their public persona.



While you framed it in a way which absolves the bully and won't let it go (how else to call somebody who very much inspires bullying, goes against so many so diverse people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project ...many celebs of higher standing than Santorum / in many places throughout the world / also businesses, some of which you surely love, which would be embarrassed by somebody like Santorum / oh, and that's from the very same Savage - who also seemed to offer Santorum a way to somewhat repair the harm, to support a foundation fighting with ~gay bullying)...

...congratulations, your approach enables them, this is what bullies sustain on (and so, I was bullied / beaten / stolen from - nobody really cared, there was no reason since obviously there can't be anything wrong happening to a kid with consistently top academic results (NVM how he can't use them) - but I couldn't defend against it, that would make me baaad in some way which I'm sure makes sense to you)


Well, "good" thing is - by participating you essentially contribute to a Streisand effect of sorts.

Edited 2012-01-22 00:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

No Rock rolling
by Soulbender on Sun 15th Jan 2012 01:58 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

So, does this mean The Netherlands can request extradition of, say, Rick Santorum for his blatant anti-homosexual remarks, which are illegal under Dutch law?


Dude, of course not. Don't you know the world police is special and has self-appointed, world-reaching powers? Does not apply to anyone else.

Also, you have to remember that this is about more important issues than gay rights, opression and civil liberties. It's about PROFIT!

Edited 2012-01-15 02:05 UTC

Reply Score: 9

Wait ...
by WorknMan on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:18 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

The article mentions that this guy ran some of the 'movies.cc' domains. That being the case, *IF* this is the nimrod that's responsible for the ton of'.cc' comment spam on Youtube, then yeah... bring him over here, and I'll beat his ass personally.

BTW: Can they get away with extraditing him here? Apparently, they can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

Edited 2012-01-15 03:19 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wait ...
by umccullough on Sun 15th Jan 2012 03:51 UTC in reply to "Wait ..."
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

BTW: Can they get away with extraditing him here? Apparently, they can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003


Aha, apparently this was a deal struck specifically with the UK ;)

Guess the porn industry is still safe then.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wait ...
by zima on Sun 15th Jan 2012 11:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait ..."
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe Russia, as a rule, doesn't extradite its citizens, ever. I guess only that should keep the porn going, in worst case scenarios...

Reply Score: 3

Prison overcrowding
by Adurbe on Mon 16th Jan 2012 08:41 UTC
Adurbe
Member since:
2005-07-06

If the US wants to extradite people, we have plenty of people in our prisons we think Are guilty. Maybe this is the solution to prison overcrowding we have been looking for! :-p

Reply Score: 3