"So why do all these American reporters, who know quite well that they get praise and money for doing what Assange has done, stand in a silence that can only be called cowardly, while a fellow publisher faces threats of extradition, banning, prosecution for spying - which can incur the death penalty - and calls for his assassination? [...] U.S. journalism's business model is collapsing; the people who should be out in front defending Assange are facing cut salaries or unemployment because of the medium that Assange represents. These journalists are not willing to concede that Assange is, of course, a publisher, rather than some sort of hybrid terrorist blogger, because of their self-interested prejudices against a medium in which they are not the gatekeepers." Great article - focussing on the US, but just as applicable in the rest of the world (except the great nation of Iceland, obviously). The internet could very well become the single most important 'invention' in human history. We must stand guard against our governments getting their filthy, inefficient, censoring, controlling, and damaging hands on it.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-02-23
The second amendment is actually: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It is ironic that most well organized militias are probably not that necessary to the security of the free state if not directly opposed. This amendment was of course formulated in a totally different time and context. It's funny to see you hold up unconditional gun possession as a positive thing and gun regulation as the violation of your constitutional rights.
Member since:2006-11-22
I am not holding it up as a positive thing. Your point is exactly the problem I am talking about. People determine if it is a good or bad thing and change the interpretation to support their claims rather than enforce it as it is stated. The law as stated seems rather clear to me. I make no judgment on whether this is a good or bad thing. If you wish to have meaning to your laws they should be clear and enforced. If you don't like the law change it to CLEARLY state the new desired effect. Creative interpretation is what removes the meaning to ALL laws.
Can you show me in the second amendment what exactly seems to allow for requiring permits, restricting what weapons by types or even restricting them based on criminal history. I just don't see any indication that would be allowed under that amendment as written. Mind you I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm merely stating that reading it I see no provision for these restrictions.
I hope this clarifies what I was trying to point out.
Member since:2006-01-06
The second amendment is a very positive thing. I personally know a girl who had a man sneak into the back of her truck and waited for her. She shot him dead.
Also 10's of millions of households in the US have guns and the numbers of misuse are statistically meaningless in comparison.
It is also well known that the germans and japanese were both very aware of widespread gun ownership in the US which gave them serious pause regarding invasion.
I frankly can't see any reason for gun control aside from the desire to suppress a population by direct tyranny or threat thereof.
Member since:2005-07-08
Restricting weapons possession has always been a means of governments to disempower the populace and to strengthen its own power-base. History has show this to be true in many times and countries.
The right to keep and bear arms has been put in the US constitution because this fact was recognized by the writers of the constitution.
It is no wonder that the US government is now trying to change this in their attempt to stay in power unchecked.
Member since:2005-07-07
I find it telling you left out the "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the second ammendment. Also no where is the word "gun" mentioned, only "arms" Arms can mean any number of things, including missiles, bombs, and even nuclear weapons. So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable. Regardless of what a revered 200+ year old document says that's just STUPID.
The courts have already decided that there are limitations like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. You can either choose to accept this or take a fundamental approach and live in a completely fucked up society. Your choice.
Member since:2006-11-22
Your argument seems to be that the law should not be enforced as written because it is a bad law as stated. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with this because it bears no relevance to the statement I made.
Basically what I was saying is:
if enforced laws = written laws you are a nation of law
if enforced law != written law you are not a nation of law
This is all I was trying to point out.
I'm not saying you should keep the existing laws nor commenting at all on the merit of them merely starting that they should be changed to match what is being enforced or the enforced should be changed to match what is written. That or simply remove the law completely at that level.
The only purpose I can see to have written law != enforced law is to delude the citizenry, create confusion. Either way you are no longer a nation of law at this point.
I hope this clarifies what my original point was. I'm not arguing free speech or gun control merely using these two points to show what is written is not what is enforced.
I should also mention that the constitution includes methods to amend it further so there is a clear process laid out to allow this. It has been done many times, the most recent addition (ratified) in 1992.
FYI: the reason I did not include "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" part of the second amendment is that this clause merely provides justification for the actual right granting clause of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". It is NOT a conditional clause nor limiting in any way but merely says WHY they do this which does not really concern the statement and point I was trying to make. I hope this clarifies my motives for leaving it out.
The third and final WWDC product I want to talk about is - of course - OS X 10.9 Mavericks. While iOS 7 was clearly the focus of this year's WWDC, its venerable desktop counterpart certainly wasn't left behind. Apple announced OS X 10.9 Mavericks, the first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.
We already talked about iOS 7 yesterday (after a night of sleep, it's only looking worse and worse - look at this, for Fiona's sake!), so now it's time to talk about the downright stunning and belly flutters-inducing new Mac Pro. As former owner and huge, huge, huge fan of the PowerMac G4 Cube - I haven't been this excited about an Apple product since, well, I would say the iMac G4. This is the Apple I used to love.
Apple held its big keynote event thing at WWDC earlier this evening, but since I was away with friends I've had to read up on it later in the evening. The company announced iOS 7, OS X 10.9 Mavericks, and they gave a preview of the new Mac Pro. Especially the Mac Pro impressed me, and while iOS 7's new Holo/Metro-inspired theme looks messy and garish to me, I do commend Apple for finally breaking the mold. This news item will focus on iOS 7 - I'll dive into the Mac Pro and OS X 10.9 tomorrow (it's late here now).
And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?This story is getting bigger and bigger. Even though most Americans probably already knew, it is now official: the United States government, through its National Security Agency, is collecting the communications and data of all American citizens, and of non-Americans using American services, through a wide collaboration with the large companies in technology, like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on. Interestingly enough, the NSA itself, as well as the US government, have repeatedly and firmly denied this massive spying on Americans and non-Americans took place at all.Ah, patents - the never-ending scourge of the technology industry. Whether wielded by companies who don't actually make any products, or large corporations who abuse them because they can't compete in the market place or because they're simply jerks, they do the industry a huge disservice and are simply plain dangerous. According to The Wall Street Journal (circumvention link), president Obama is about to take several executive actions to address patent trolls - which may seem like a good idea, but I am very worried that all this will do is strengthen the positions of notorious patent system abusers such as Apple and Microsoft.
With version 13.05, the developers of the Genode OS Framework take measures to ensure that Genode continues to scale well with a growing number of users and the steadily broadening platform coverage. Further highlights are the improved SoC support for Exynos 5, OMAP4, Raspberry Pi, i.MX, and new components for realizing headless systems.At the D11 conference, Apple CEO Tim Cook once again took the stage to be interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. While most of the interview can be replicated by picking and reading 10 random Apple fanblog stories - there were still a number of very interesting things that warrant some closer scrutiny.
So, the Xbox One disaster continues. Microsoft's policy for dealing with the used games market has reportedly leaked - and it's a clear and direct attack to destroy the used games market. Prices for used games will be set at the retail value of a new game, and retailers have to hook into Microsoft's computer systems and comply with Microsoft's terms and conditions.At an event earlier today, Microsoft unveiled the next Xbox - the third model, but confusingly named Xbox One. The big focus was TV, integrated Kinect, and all the other stuff we all expected to be forced down our throats. I think it took them 25 minutes to actually come to what should be the core of the story: gaming. Nothing groundbreaking in the gaming department, except for how Microsoft intends to handle the used games market and borrowing games from friends: pay up, buddy!
Member since:
2006-11-22
His true crime is going against those in power. The U.S. is not a nation of law even though most still may believe so. Suspension of habeas corpus, implementation of the Patriot Act among many other things are clear violations of the constitution. This along with gun control, ongoing spying on it's citizens communications (carnivore, illegal wiretaps, , etc) means flat out the legal system does not obey it's own laws. This means breaking the law is rather irrelevant and the real crime is offending those in power. This may be why tax protesters, peace activists, conservative rights groups (libertarians), copyright opponents and infringers are some of the most watched and persecuted groups in the U.S.
I'm sure this sounds crazy to most "typical Americans" but you might want to READ the constitution. In particular:
Gun Control:
It clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" (amendment 2). This means EVERYONE can bear arms unconditionally (hence not infringed).
Freedom of Speech:
"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech" (Amendment 1). No law meaning no secrecy laws or other means to stop the dissemination of information. That means there is NOTHING to stop spreading "classified" information, circumventing anti-copying measures and a whole bunch of other activities that we have lesser laws against.
Is that what you see being the case in the U.S.? It's not what I see and since they did not change the highest laws in the land I can only assume they are not abiding by them. Seems pretty clear and simple to me.
I should point out many (most?) other countries are no better. I was living in Germany and Canada when they in essence suspended personal freedoms for NATO and G8 summits respectively. If the law can be suspended when it's no longer convenient to those in power is it really law at all?