WikiLeaks, Revolution, and the Lost Cojones of American Journalism
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Feb 2011 23:11 UTC
In the News "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.
E-mail Print r 8   87 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/itb
Thread beginning with comment 461743
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

Your argument seems to be that the law should not be enforced as written because it is a bad law as stated.


Then you misunderstood. Language is imperfect. The same words can be interpreted differently based on context and intention.

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.


If the cluase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely a justification then why do all the other ammendments lack any such construction? It seems pretty odd to include the justification for an ammendment in the ammendment itself. It would be the one and only time and quite extraneous as far as law goes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

trev 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.


Then you misunderstood. Language is imperfect. The same words can be interpreted differently based on context and intention. "

Your quote "So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable" seems to indicate that you had a similar understanding as I did of the meaning as stated but felt you must limit it to keep it to keep it from being "STUPID". If that was not your intended meaning, please clarify.

If the cluase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is merely a justification then why do all the other ammendments lack any such construction? It seems pretty odd to include the justification for an ammendment in the ammendment itself. It would be the one and only time and quite extraneous as far as law goes.


I agree none of the other amendments include a justification clause but I also can read and this seems to do just that. What is your impression of the purpose of that clause? Do you think it somehow limits the following clause? If so, how?

Reply Parent Score: 1

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Your quote "So we either accept that their are limitations to the second ammendment or we have to allow ANYONE access to any weapon imaginable" seems to indicate that you had a similar understanding as I did of the meaning as stated but felt you must limit it to keep it to keep it from being "STUPID". If that was not your intended meaning, please clarify.


No I did not have a similar understanding. My point is that if you accept the idea that the 2nd amendment allows for unfettered access to "arms" then you must allow the ownership of all forms of weapons to anyone. I do not think that is the intent of the second amendment and neither did the men who wrote it. That's why they included the "militia" clause because they were NOT stupid.

The Bill of Rights wasn't just a first draft. The second amendment itself was rewritten several times. Every word in it has meaning and intent. The men who wrote and re-wrote it slaved over the right choice of words. It seems quite improbable that they just left in extraneous information. All of the amendments are quite short and to the point. The 2nd amendment would be an anomoly if the "militia" clause was merely a justification for the amendment itself. It's also telling that not only does the 2nd amendment refer to a militia, but a "well regulated" one. What is the point of these words if it is merely a justification?

I agree none of the other amendments include a justification clause but I also can read and this seems to do just that. What is your impression of the purpose of that clause? Do you think it somehow limits the following clause? If so, how?


It sure does limit the right to ownership of guns as well as other arms. It limits them to a "well regulated militia". This isn't to say that no one can own a gun except someone who belongs to a "well regulated militia". It just means that state and federal laws that limit or ban ownership of certain weapons are constitutionally legal.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >