> Last month the US embassy in Hanoi said it was "deeply concerned by the decree's provisions", arguing that "fundamental freedoms apply online just as they do offline".
My hypocrisy-meter just broke.
My hypocrisy-meter just broke.
Economists prefer percentages to absolutes, and trends to isolated incidents. 9/11 has not only halted the long trend towards increasing freedom, but began a new and troubling trend of growing tyranny.
Perhaps the U.S. isn't overtly attacking press freedom, but the U.K. is, informs the U.S. before every incident, and the U.S. couldn't be happier.
Meanwhile, we (Americans) have more people living in cages than North Korea, China, Iran, and Vietnam combined. Most of them citizens, incarcerated after being subjected to extremely dubious trials for crimes related to drugs -- and whoops, look at today's latest headline: Drug Agents Use Vast Phone Trove Eclipsing N.S.A.’s
Relatively free states slide morph into corrupt police states precisely when the people sipping coffee with their luxury computers refuse to notice it happening.
That's... at least mildly pretentious. What social ills are the brave bands of roving latté-sippers going to save the country from next? Anyways, history has shown that despots don't have to care about what the intelligentsia thinks.
Obviously, despots don't care what the intelligentsia or anybody else with < despot power thinks. But in a high-functioning democracy, it is only through the apathy or willful ignorance (or freaky racism / nationalism) of the citizenry that you get despots in the first place. We're not there yet, but are obviously on that path.
I assume you're caucasian and rarely have your luxury car searched at traffic stops, or your electronic devices searched at border crossings? Me too. Yay for us.
And also like any good cliché, says more than it really says. For instance, that there is no permissible reason for government to go after anyone since it logically follows that if we let government go after Party A, they are that much closer to going after Party B.
For that reason, instead of living my life by clichés, I try to evaluate each situation on its own merits.
> I assume you're caucasian and rarely have your luxury car searched at traffic stops, or your electronic devices searched at border crossings?
Caucasian, yes.
'Luxury' car, no. Unless the MP3 player is a luxury nowadays. It doesn't get searched at traffic stops, but that is probably because I've not run across a traffic checkpoint in years.
Maybe I should go visit the despotic America though, so that I can find out what a traffic stop is like? Where would I find that, as I've been all over the East Coast and have had no success yet in finding it.
There needs to be rules, but they need to be sensible and not limit speech. The other side of that coin though is the laws against copyrighted material, most people don't care and download stuff illegally anyway.
I can't imagine lawmakers backing away from the Internet, and I don't really want them to because before you know it someone would be monetising child porn. No idea how you would even begin to solve the problem of balance though.
Not just the edges. I've seen porn sites self censor obvious fictional porn depicting children, because of concern over hosting child porn.
Then its DNS takedown time. Either by making sure that resolvers will lie, or removing it from the Internet on a US "because we say so" basis. No judge, no jury, no trial. Those stuff is only for "real" things, not virtual "sites" on the Internet.