Wikileaks

[trevor]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian having TSA close down (by confiscating their domain names) at least four web sites at the behest of Disney

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian You can bet now that TSA will come up with something horrible as a response, not that they're likely to win against a bevy of angry hackers

I don't understand what the TSA has to do with WikiLeaks. Can you explain? Are you confusing Amazon's claim that WikiLeaks was in violation of their Terms of Service Agreement? The TSA is the Transportation Security Administration, and although they've been in the news a bunch lately for their 'frisking' practices, I don't know of any connection between them and WikiLeaks.

Trevor

[roncross@cox.net]

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian The only constitutional right that seems inviolate is the right to bear arms. It's out of control.

I was taught in school that if all our rights were taken away except one, then which one would you keep? The answer was free speech. The argument went that you can gain all your rights back with just this one right. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I would take the right to bear arms because maybe this is what we'll need to regain all of our rights or at least the ones we want.

Quote: Originally Posted by NovaScotian When the US, thought to be responsible for the DDos of Wikileaks, started that war, they didn't know what they were getting into. You can bet now that TSA will come up with something horrible as a response, not that they're likely to win against a bevy of angry hackers -- it'll just be a PITA for the rest of us.

It has been said that the next revolution will not be televised. Is this the revolution that they were talking about? This was my earlier point about leaks, hacks and stuff starting to get out of control. The government may be doing itself more harm than good to national security by pursuing this with such avenges.

We are so caught up in this war on terror that we're losing out on rebuilding infrastructure of road, bridges, rail road which are sorely needed in this country. The country appears to be moving away from democracy and capitalism.

On NPR, the NY Times is now under the gun trying to defend why it released Wikileaks documents.

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/08/131884...es?ft=1&f=1004

[NovaScotian]

Quote: Originally Posted by trevor I don't understand what the TSA has to do with WikiLeaks. Can you explain? Are you confusing Amazon's claim that WikiLeaks was in violation of their Terms of Service Agreement? The TSA is the Transportation Security Administration, and although they've been in the news a bunch lately for their 'frisking' practices, I don't know of any connection between them and WikiLeaks. Trevor

I was conflating TSA with Homeland Security. Sorry.

See: Who Needs COICA when Homeland Security Gets to Seize Domain Names

Referring to this: U.S. seizes sites linked to copyright infringement

Bear in mind that these seizures were on suspicion of infringement, not proof and that the takedown was announced at Disney. Where does it say this has anything to do with Homeland Security?

[benwiggy]

Quote: Originally Posted by roncross@cox.net I was taught in school that if all our rights were taken away except one, then which one would you keep? The answer was free speech. The argument went that you can gain all your rights back with just this one right. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I would take the right to bear arms because maybe this is what we'll need to regain all of our rights or at least the ones we want.

If you're at the point where you are fighting for your freedom, the last thing you need to worry about is whether the government allows you to have a weapon.

I find the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment hysterical. The idea that American democracy is such a fragile little flower, which will fall into tyranny but for the presence of an armed electorate, is an anachronistic ideal from the late 18th century, when all of Europe was discussing the philosophy of liberty, and despots abounded.

I await with interest the attempt by any armed militia to wrest control from the US Government.

[renaultssoftware]

Is "free speech" a right…

…or a privilege?

[tw]

eh, don't diss the second amendment that much: it was very appropriate to its time. The context in Europe was that (outside of actual war zones), only the aristocracy and military officers had access to weapons, and they had pretty much of a free pass to use them on regular people since law was applied differently to the different classes. The second amendment (along with the section against quartering soldiers and the convention against deploying them on US soil) was designed to tip the balance away from the aristocracy in favor of commoners. Obviously it doesn't apply in the same way today (average people would need access to military-grade weapons to be effective, but that would have tremendously bad side effects - who wants to see a domestic dispute where the family had access to a tank? - but it had a meaningful place in the 17th century.

Renault: if free speech is a privilege... shut up.

[aehurst]

TW supporting the 2nd amendment. Wow! Glad to see you moving to the red neck side of the debate.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst TW supporting the 2nd amendment. Wow! Glad to see you moving to the red neck side of the debate.

lol - don't mistake a historical appreciation for blanket endorsement. If I were to actually support the second amendment in modern times it would be along the lines of turning the National Guard into a fully equipped volunteer militia, detaching it from the federal government entirely, and then banning the sale of handguns and other small arms to the general public unless they've gone through military service. that is more in line with the intentions of the constitution. If some redneck wants to shoot moose out of a helicopter, let her spend a couple of years as a volunteer soldier so she learns a little discipline and a little respect for the weapon first.

[aehurst]

Uncompromising opposition to any interference at any level for any reason on First Amendment Rights. At the same time, completely comfortable with massive interference on Second Amendment Rights. Hmmmm.

@tw

Quote: .....then banning the sale of handguns and other small arms to the general public unless they've gone through military service. that is more in line with the intentions of the constitution.

I'd go one step further... mandatory military service for all citizens, male and female. Certainly anyone seeking public office should be required to have military service, even the President. Citizen soldiers are the final safeguard against the military attacking US citizens.

[wendell]

Well, here I go again, drifting off-topic!
aehurst " Citizen soldiers are the final safeguard against the military attacking US citizens." This is exactly why the context of the Second Amendment continues to be up-front in the news. A disarmed citizenry is a helpless citizenry. As we say out here in "redneck country:" "Better to have a loaded weapon and never need it than to need a loaded weapon and not have it."

[aehurst]

Quote: Originally Posted by wendell Well, here I go again, drifting off-topic! aehurst " Citizen soldiers are the final safeguard against the military attacking US citizens." This is exactly why the context of the Second Amendment continues to be up-front in the news. A disarmed citizenry is a helpless citizenry. As we say out here in "redneck country:" "Better to have a loaded weapon and never need it than to need a loaded weapon and not have it."

You misinterpret my intent.... I own 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, 3 handguns and I have a concealed carry permit. The red neck reference alluded to another thread last year on gun control where it was implied that only red necks have guns... and they also have Dodge Ram 1500s parked in the drive way (which I do).

My intended point was why is most everybody on this forum so intent on defending any limit whatsoever on freedom of speech/press, but most all support killing the right to bear arms. That's an inconsistent liberal view.... at least to us red necks.

[NovaScotian]

The New York Times has an interesting article on free speech: Hackers Give Web Companies a Test of Free Speech {I think registration is required, but they don't hassle you}

In particular I quote these two paragraphs:

Quote: Some internet experts say the situation highlights the complexities of free speech issues on the Internet, as grassroots Web companies evolve and take central control over what their users can make public. Clay Shirky, who studies the Internet and teaches at New York University, said that although the Web is the new public sphere, it is actually “a corporate sphere that tolerates public speech.” Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “Any Internet user who cares about free speech or has a controversial or unpopular message should be concerned about the fact that intermediaries might not let them express it.”

Good points. As a member of this forum, for example, my speech is mildly curtailed by the rules I've agreed to in order to be granted access to it, and if I overstep these, CraigArco or ArticStones will stomp on the thread.

The point is a good one. We all communicate on the Internet via channels that belong to a private corporation and free speech applies to the actual transmission of our message, but if our intention is to reach the general public we need a place to post (and host) our remarks, so our communications are ultimately subject to whatever rules they maintain in their terms of service for the site. It's been thus for a long time too -- newspapers are not required to publish your letters to the editor and quite definitely will refuse to do so if you bad mouth one of their major advertisers. So you have the right to express your opinion as per free speech, but you do not have the right to have a site owner post it.

[benwiggy]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst My intended point was why is most everybody on this forum so intent on defending any limit whatsoever on freedom of speech/press, but most all support killing the right to bear arms. That's an inconsistent liberal view.... at least to us red necks.

There are limits on all freedoms, in all countries, and they are mostly necessary. Whenever people live together, they trade rights and responsibilities. (Rousseau's Social Contract.)

I accept that I am not free to rob, murder, slander; and I expect others to afford me the same deal. I put money into the kitty for general use by the community as a whole (taxes); and I expect the right to benefit from that (sewerage, refuse collection, police, street lighting, schools), even if I don't actually use it all to the same degree as I chipped in.

Here in the UK, when people talk of their "rights", they usually mean what they can demand from the state. Very few speak of their responsibilities that they owe to society at large. You can't have one without the other.

But as I pointed out and tw affirmed: No one is going to take on the US military to stamp out tyranny, so the whole notion of the 2nd amendment is out-dated. But it would be great sport to watch (from a distance).

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by aehurst You misinterpret my intent.... I own 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, 3 handguns and I have a concealed carry permit. The red neck reference alluded to another thread last year on gun control where it was implied that only red necks have guns... and they also have Dodge Ram 1500s parked in the drive way (which I do). My intended point was why is most everybody on this forum so intent on defending any limit whatsoever on freedom of speech/press, but most all support killing the right to bear arms. That's an inconsistent liberal view.... at least to us red necks.

I agree, and I am also a gun owner myself. Not much of a hunter, more of a target shooter, and well I gotta be prepared for when the zombies rise right?

Freedoms do not come with out their limits and with out perhaps some messiness. Freedom isn't absolute and it also isn't clean and dandy. It reminds me of the phrase, "My freedom stops where yours begins.."

I am not really fond of authoritarian governments where the citizen gets micro managed for really no good reason. Does the 1st Amendment cover the act of leaking government documents? Do the people have a right to know? It would be a really interesting argument to bring to the Supreme Court.

Where does security and 1A come into play, and what about privacy? If we the citizens are subjected to all the privacy violations our government does, shouldn't the government be subjected to it as well? FBI as of recent isn't doing very well with their wire tapping and tracking devices. Some illegal activity going on, and they don't handle those situations well. Who is accountable for that?

I am totally against censorship too, so really part of me wants to really support wikileaks. On the other hand, my logic tells me that there are some egos at play here and that wikielaks may not accomplish what people think it will. If wikileaks wants to release information responsibly and professionally (to add credit to the validity of what they release) I think they need to build cases, investigate an blow the whistle with conclusive evidence.

I think certain materials they released did nothing but smear mud on people's names and throw back some progress already being made. I mean is it not hypocritical of them to take the moral high road of freedom of information as a human right, but then do things to hurt progress? Sounds like someone wants to boost an ego to me.

The reference I am talking about is the one where some political leaders and ambassadors were joking around about alcohol consumption, or so they claim. Over in the middle east alcohol is illegal, and things like this fuel the fundamentalist Islamic groups to gain support as their government is not following the Sharia. Given the state of affairs over there, things like that really should just be left alone. It doesn't help anything and it wasn't a big deal to leak that to everyone.

[wendell]

aehurst
"...You misinterpret my intent.... I own 3 rifles, 2 shotguns, 3 handguns and I have a concealed carry permit. The red neck reference alluded to another thread last year on gun control where it was implied that only red necks have guns... and they also have Dodge Ram 1500s parked in the drive way (which I do)."
Sounds like my house! W :>)

tlarkin
".....I am totally against censorship too, so really part of me wants to really support wikileaks..."
That's the position I find myself. In my innocent youth I would have thought differently. Then I believed (naively, as it turns out,) that my government and our elected representatives had noble intentions with the best interest of America and it's citizens foremost in everything it did. "God Bless America," "Across the Fruited Plain, etc." I believed the patriotic posters of WWII. But I find myself more cynical these days, perhaps because of the internet. And, perhaps because of my cynicism, I suspect Wikileaks might all be a planned move by those who would wish to essentially control and/or shut down the Internet as we know it and will use this event to justify doing just that. That's the dilemma!

benwiggy
" ...No one is going to take on the US military to stamp out tyranny, so the whole notion of the 2nd amendment is out-dated..."
The first statement is pretty much true, but if it comes to that all is lost anyway. But that doesn't validate the second statement.
The 2nd Amendment is not outdated. It's as valid as ever. In a Supreme Court ruling District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the
court ruled that the "Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm,unconnected to service in a militia; and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." Defense within the home is what most gun-owners are about. There are also many who just plain enjoy owning a weapon and target-shooting at target ranges. (For us country folk, the "target range" is usually a gully away from the house.) We remember the oft-quoted statement: "When seconds count, police are only minutes away." Except maybe within some extreme groups, a war against against our own government isn't something we are too concerned about.

[trevor]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Does the 1st Amendment cover the act of leaking government documents? Do the people have a right to know? It would be a really interesting argument to bring to the Supreme Court.

Yeah, it would be. That question was already brought to the Supreme Court back in 1971 in New York Times Co. v. United States (and here is the Wikipedia entry about it).

Trevor

[tlarkin]

Quote: Originally Posted by trevor Yeah, it would be. That question was already brought to the Supreme Court back in 1971 in New York Times Co. v. United States (and here is the Wikipedia entry about it). Trevor

Thanks for the link, but I should have been more specific. Post Patriot Act America is what I was referring to. I wonder if leaking such information would be seen as treason.

[roncross@cox.net]

Quote: Originally Posted by tlarkin Does the 1st Amendment cover the act of leaking government documents? Do the people have a right to know? It would be a really interesting argument to bring to the Supreme Court.

You should take a look at the Pentagon_Papers which were leaked and exposed during the vietnam war and all the information was classified. The NY Times choose to publish the documents irregardless of the sensitivity. This is indeed protected by free speech and it means that the government can be scrutinized for what they are doing. Recall that the Vietnam war was bloody and a lot of American lives were lost.

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

[aehurst]

The Supreme Court ruled that the US failed to meet its burden of proof for prior restraint. They did not rule that anybody can publish classified documents nor that they could not be subject to criminal prosecution under the Espionage Act if they did.

I haven't seen anything on Wikileaks I think would rise to the espionage level, but then I haven't seen all 250,000 documents.

[renaultssoftware]

More WikiLeaks: WikiLeaks backers threaten more cyber attacks