Liberals take note: statism doesn’t pay
This is what happens when you put a statist in power:
Kristina Clair, a 34-year old Linux administrator living in Philadelphia who provides free server space for Indymedia.us, said she was shocked to receive the Justice Department’s subpoena. (The Independent Media Center is a left-of-center amalgamation of journalists and advocates that – according to their principles of unity and mission statement – work toward “promoting social and economic justice” and “social change.”)
The subpoena (PDF) from U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded “all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us” on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to “include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information,” including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers’ Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.
As much as Bush was unloved by the liberal media (and the feeling was probably mutual), he would never have tried such heavy-handed tactic. Even as a neocon, such overt exertion of government power (with no apparent compelling state interest) would have gotten him disowned by his own base.
But, as a statist, Obama administration doesn't have any problem with government control and government action—neither does he fear alienation of most of his base when he does something like this—because most of his supporters care far more about redistribution of wealth than liberty and freedom.
If there is any liberal left who gives a damn about freedom (never mind which freedom you cherish most—regardless of order and priority, there are some freedoms that we all care about deeply), take heed: statism is the wrong road to go down, for statism always leads to totalitarianism—and the day when totalitarianism is synonymous with liberalism is when Orwell's nightmare has come true.
Idea: dead man’s post
I am sure someone else had this idea before, too. But since I haven't read anything written by that someone, I'd like to get this idea.
In the movies and TV shows (in thrillers, e.g.), the protagonist will sometimes tell the villain that killing them won't help, because he sent a letter to his lawyer (or the media) instructing them to open it upon his death.
Well, today, I think there is an even better (and far less costly) method to do the same thing: dead man's blog post.
See, blogging softwares like Wordpress allows you to set the publication time. It can be in the future, and it can be in the past. Most of the times, I set it to "publish immediately". So you see where I am getting at.
I can write a post containing everything I want to get off my chest in the event of my death, set it to be published at some future date (say, a month or two weeks from now) and keep changing the publishing date to the future every few weeks or so. The moment you are unable to do that (either because you are dead or incapacitated), the post will be on a ticking clock to publication. (This idea, of course, will need improvements to counter various moves fascists can make to diffuse the time bomb, but I won't list it here.)
At the moment, I don't think I have any use for this (I don't have any sensitive information beyond my personal passwords and financial information; and I hope no one wants to kill me yet), but, oh well. Maybe some day.
Note to U.K. citizens: immigrate to U.S. today!
Because that's the only way you can be protected by our First Amendment protection, and the process takes quite some time.
"Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."
Leave your miserable island and continent.
Freedom is still alive here. The liberals and statists tried their best in the last century (and they are still trying), but they have yet to succeed here as completely as they had in Europe and elsewhere.
Mary Beth Buchanan, a disgusting statist
While she looks like a normal person in her photo in her Wikipedia page, nothing could be further from the truth. She is a disgusting statist with a full record of her evil deeds for public display (for one, start with the Wikipedia page's "controversial" cases).
Her latest crime (or at least what should have been crime, if our congress did their job of upholding our constitution, including the First Amendment) is this.
Degrading women in pornographic film is a crime now? What's she going to do next? Put all the rappers in jail? While I have no special sympathy for rappers (or for that matter, porn producers), the moment we deny protected speech—which I would broadly classify as any speech or expression that didn't harm any sentient being directly in the production of it and anything that didn't harm anyone directly and materially in the publication of it (no, having feelings hurt doesn't count and we have a well-established case law for libel and slander which I respect and defer to)—to certain class of individuals who don't generate sympathy is the day we deny the existence of the First Amendment.
Most likely the women depicted in "degrading" situation in these films are, well, actors, who were acting of their own free will and got paid handsomely for their performance in the film. If they were not, then surely there are ways to get at these pornographers that doesn't involve destroying the Constitution of the United States? Maybe, if there's any merit to it, charges of fraud or labor law (as detestable as some labor laws are, they don't infringe on anyone's fundamental rights so explicitly protected as free speech) could be brought against them?
I think I can understand why this statist is going for the obscenity charge (which the Supreme Court did rule as constitutional, under a variety of conditions which included different standards depending on the locality—before the era of Internet when you could apply particular state/county for publications): it's because it destroys the Constitution most and expands the power of the state most, if they could bring these charges successfully against these supposedly "vile" people—because first it's the "vile" people, and then it becomes the precedent for any ordinary person, because this first case against someone "vile" grants the state this power, like inviting a "friendly" vampire into your house that one time.
Well, remember the name "Mary Beth Buchanan" and the face in her Wikipedia page, and if she ever comes up for any position that she has to be elected to or if she ever comes up as a Supreme Court nominee, remember to protest vehemently against it: your freedom is at stake.
Pageant does not value free speech
A reader writes to Las Vegas Sun,
I am incensed by the shameful and hypocritical ranting by some of the judges of the Miss USA pageant concerning the stance against gay marriage voiced by Miss California, Carrie Prejean.
Amen to that. Those hypocrites pretend to support "equal rights" of everyone to marry anyone (or anything, for that matter) while denying Miss California her fundamental right to free speech. The day when we sacrifice one person's fundamental right for anyone else's ... privilege is the day when hell hath come on earth.
Mr. Trump, to his credit, tried to do some damage control by claiming that he respected Miss Prejean's opinion, but, well, he stopped short of vowing that he wouldn't invite such oppressive judges as Mr. Hilton in the future.
Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
If you think this is trivial, think again.
Because the next requirement will probably be some kind of proof that the the music/movie/ad/etc in question was not produced under the influence (of marijuana, crack, or whatever the feds feel like should be illegal at the time).
Judge's ruling that WoW bot violates DMCA is troubling
Glider, a popular WoW bot, took another hit on Wednesday as a federal judge ruled that the product went beyond copyright infringement to being a circumvention device under the DMCA. The decision raises serious questions about the legal status of interoperability and competition in the software industry.
First they came for WoW bot makers ...
Will you wait until they come for you? Abolish copyright NOW!