Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Social Networks The Internet The Media News Technology

In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail, Cost You Your Life 144

Posted by Soulskill
from the blog-free-or-die dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Bloggers in Vietnam are increasingly finding themselves thrown in jail. Despite freedom of speech being enshrined in the nation's Constitution, many who speak out against the government are thrown in jail — thanks to a new law that forbids such talk. In one desperate act, Dang Thi Kim Lieng lit herself on fire outside the Bac Lieu People's Committee building in southern Vietnam. She died of her injuries. She was protesting the detention of her daughter who was arrested for blogging against the government. Three other bloggers are scheduled be tried under section 88 of the criminal code, which relates to propaganda against the nation. A maximum sentence could carry with it 20 years in jail."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail, Cost You Your Life

Comments Filter:
  • by hawks5999 (588198) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:33PM (#40989995)
    Julian Assange was overheard to say.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:38PM (#40990033)

      Nah, in the United States, you don't even have to be a resident to break the laws.

      • There needs to be a mod for funny but all to true.
        • When China arrested its dissidents, USA protested

          When Russia harassed its dissidents, USA protested

          When Syria threatened its dissidents, USA protested

          But when Vietnam did that, USA just keep quite, very very quite

          Why??
           

          • The Russian girl group Pussy Riot is in jail for daring to challenge Poetin during a protest.

            The Dutch government is protesting. But a Dutch protester who threw a small candle (the kind that go under tea pots) against the golden carriage carrying the queen has been in jail for two years.

            And no, minor acts of vandalism are NOT typically sentenced like this. Throw ice-balls causing damage to cars and you don't even get arrested. But dare to do it against the absolute ruler and BAM, in jail for two years.

            Democ

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            But when Vietnam did that, USA just keep quite, very very quite

            Quite what? Don't keep us in suspense, man!

    • Lame title (Score:2, Insightful)

      by noh8rz7 (2706405)
      The title of the post should be, "In Vietnam: being a blogger could land you in jail; setting yourself on fire could cost you your life".
    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:49PM (#40990149) Homepage

      And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:56PM (#40990231) Journal

        still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

        Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.

        • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

          by NouberNou (1105915)
          And yet there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have never been, and never will be arrested for peaceably assembling...

          Also I think your definition of reasonably might be a bit unreasonable.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

          Yet. If we engage in other constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to peaceably assemble, we can reasonably expect to be arrested for it. Thousands of people already have been.

          Arrested, and then free within a few hours. Vietnamese people are being thrown in prison for TWENTY YEARS, for writing on the internet. I think it is perhaps a bit egotistical to think you have problems worth mentioning in comparison. STFU?

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Not everyone who blogs in Vietnam ends up in jail just as not everyone who posts a comment like the parent ends up in jail in the US. You have to have certain gravity around what you are posting or else just attempt to shut you down will create that gravity. "They" are not that dumb not do such cost benefit analysis, they only act like dump when they think it helps them.

        • by artor3 (1344997)

          "Yet" is such a lazy cop-out. You can use it to insinuate absolutely anything, and never be proven wrong.

          Lunatic: "Americans eat a dozen new-born babies every Thursday morning!"
          Sane Person: "What? No they don't! There's no evidence of that, and moreover, it's physically impossible given the length of human pregnancy."
          Lunatic: "Not yet, but just you wait. I saw a person eat a Big Mac last week; they'll start eating babies any day now."

      • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:06PM (#40990359) Homepage Journal

        And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

        Spoken like someone who's never tried confronting an American politician or candidate [progressive.org] with an opinion [niemanwatchdog.org] they don't care for, [pjmedia.com] in person.

        • by Doctor_Jest (688315) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:43PM (#40990787)

          Or this:

          http://www.copblock.org/858/alaska-troopers-assault-man-with-anti-obama-sign/ [copblock.org]

          http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6512746 [democratic...ground.com]

          Free speech knows no party affiliation. Free speech suppression is universal by both Donkey and Elephant...

        • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:56PM (#40990939) Homepage

          A candidate for the U.S. Senate was in town for a discussion panel for which I was running sound (since I volunteer as an audio technician). After the panel, she came out on stage where I was coiling cables, and we had a lovely discussion on labor unions. We presented our positions, discussed the merits and shortcomings of union power, and eventually conceded that both employers and unions too often behave like infants. It was an insightful and interesting conversation.

          This is one of several similar encounters I've had over the years, though the majority of discussions I've fallen into were with more local politicians. I doubt I could say I've "confronted" any of them, because I'm not going to go out of my way to be confrontational. Though it seems popular now to call any gaudy spectacle with a political motive a "protest", I prefer to submit my protests in a more effective and less offensive manner: calm and polite discourse.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @08:28PM (#40991761)

          Spoken like someone who's never tried confronting an American politician or candidate [progressive.org] with an opinion [niemanwatchdog.org] they don't care for, [pjmedia.com] in person

          Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you a specific audience or venue, nor does it offer protection when you force it.

          Write an open letter to the politician with your grievances and publish it. When you get arrested for doing that, you'll have a legitimate gripe. If you just get ignored by everyone, that's probably a sign that your message wasn't particularly important and you were just being a jackass when you tried to force people to listen to you.

        • A long long time ago when Senator John Kerry was running for president, I was at a small event in Los Angeles.

          In front of some local media, I confronted him about his "hockey goal" ad in which he (dressed as a goal keeper) said he would protect against Japanese imports. I said his ad (and the tone of his campaign) was contributing to the recent spike in anti-Asian American violence around the country (I'm Asian American).

          He said he, of course, didn't mean for it to be construed that way and didn't mean to

      • by trout007 (975317)

        I have to admit I am a bit afraid every time I post a pro liberty message. I have to travel by plane in a few weeks and it will be my first trip since 9/11. I am a bit curious if I'm flagged by the TSA. I'll let you know.

        • I travel 15-20 times a year (11-12 International trips, balance domestic) and have been very vocal about liberty, and active in the political community. No issues from TSA... I think you're assuming the US Government is more capable and intelligent than it really is...
      • And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

        Who needs to hunt? They can collect all they need to prosecute you courtesy of secret intercept rooms in the AT&T offices, etc. The only time they need to do any actual hunting is when someone decides you've said enough to be annnoying and wants to bring you in. By then it's a bit late.

        Remember. Innocent people have nothing to hide, but they're not going to be asking YOU what determines who's "innocent".

    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:54PM (#40990211) Journal

      We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].

      • Those 7000 where out of how many total protesters in the United States in 2011? In how many separate incidents did these arrests occur? What was the average arrest rate per event? You can throw out numbers like that and they seem shocking but in the big scheme of things it still comes out to be not really all that shocking, that is unless of course you are a total reactionary, which I have a feeling you are.
        • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:38PM (#40990721) Journal

          When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.

          Obama delivered big on the change, not so much on the hope.

          • Ahhh... Too funny. I think you need to sit down and really think out your political views and what you want to see in society because you obviously are pretty confused and angry to think about anything rationally.
          • by paiute (550198)

            When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.

            Did you read History from Little Golden Books? There was never a time when the country resembled your fantasy.

            • When the revolution is authoritarian, I'm proud to be reactionary. I want to take us back to a time when the Constitution was respected, and the law applied to rich and poor alike. When warrantless anything was unconscionable. When torture was punished no matter who the torturer was. When the rule of law still meant something.

              Did you read History from Little Golden Books? There was never a time when the country resembled your fantasy.

              True, but we used to at least try to pretend it was that way. Now we don't even bother.

          • by trout007 (975317)

            As someone who values liberty I find posts like yours a bit disturbing. There really was never a time in the past where everyone had liberty. There have been times where certain people had more than today. There were even times when the total liberty was greater. But unfortunately those times were also repressive for many. Talking about going back to a certain time is going to alienate a lot of people.

            I suggest talking about liberty as an unknown ideal that we should progress towards. Talk about a governmen

      • We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].

        To quote from the article you linked: "Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein and her running mate have been arrested at a sit-in at a Philadelphia bank over housing foreclosures." She was arrested for trespassing, not for anything she was saying. Given the refusal of most leftists to make distinctions like that -- the conflation of "expression" or "protest" with "speech", and the attitude that their cause is so righteous that it absolves them of any need to respect the rights of others -- I would expe

        • by Anonymous Coward
          1. 1. Sell off almost all public land so that the right to assembly effectively no longer exists
          2. 2. ????
          3. 3. PROFIT!!
            1. 1. Sell off almost all public land so that the right to assembly effectively no longer exists

            ... except that Jill Stein was not trespassing at the bank because she lacked someplace to hold an assembly. She could have voiced her opinion elsewhere just fine. She was trespassing because she wanted to embarrass the bank and draw attention to herself. Her desire to accomplish those goals did not entitle her to violate the rights of others. She had no more right to hold a protest inside the bank than the bank would have to conduct business in her living room.

      • We're not just talking about Assange. We're talking about thousands of Americans who took to the streets last year to exercise their constitutional right to peaceably assemble. Over 7000 [moonfruit.com] people have been arrested as part of OWS, including Presidential candidate Jill Stein [huffingtonpost.com].

        I've only followed it casually, but ISTM that the problems were almost entirely limited to a few cities (NYC, Okland) where the authorities decided they needed to take a proactively militant/confrontational approach to the protests. In my town the City Council basically said "more power to you".

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Here in Springfield, IL they arrested a coupe of people for criticizing a state congressman by writing their message in chalk on the public sidewalk, just as children do every day. They were charged with vandalism, even though the chalk is gone after the first rain, and no children have ever been arrested or even warned about writing in chalk on public sidewalks.

          But at least these protesters weren't beaten, so yeah, it matters where.

      • by Dahamma (304068)

        I'm moderately pro-OWS in their general goals (as hard to figure out as they are) but "peaceably assemble" != "camp out on public or private property for weeks at a time". If you think the founding fathers intended squatting or trespassing to be part of the First Amendment you are deluding yourself.

        I'm sure there were plenty of cases of people being unjustly arrested (the occasional journalist was even detained for being at the wrong place at the wrong time) but Jill Stein in particular was NOT one of thos

      • Yes, the OWS movement... Your right to peaceably assemble stops when it interferes with the right of free movement of tens of thousands of others...
      • And every one of those 7000+ would be released within 24 hours if there wasn't a charge to back it up - a legal charge under a statute already on the books, tested and proven to be Constitutional.

        Never mind that these protesters were being arrested for possession of controlled substances, vandalism, trespassing, assault, criminal mischief, etc. No, they were being locked up because they were "peaceably assembling."

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          Being held for 24 hours is the same as being convicted of something and oredered to serve 24 hours in jail. When you're detained, they don't put you in a comfy chair in a comfortable room, they put you in an orange jumpsuit, barely feed you, give you a thin plastic matress about an inch thick on a concrete slab, locked up, often with violent prisoners who have been convicted of crimes.

          Being held for 24 hours IS punishment in and of itself. Punishment without trial, I might add.

    • Back in Soviet days, an American tourist in Moscow decided to find out whether everything that was being said about USSR in American newspapers is true. So he stopped a passer-by and asked him if he has freedom of speech.

      "What's freedom of speech?", the Russian asked.

      "Well, for example, I can go straight to White House in Washington, and shout 'Reagan is an asshole', and nothing whatsoever will happen to me - that's freedom of speech."

      "Oh, in that case, we have freedom of speech, too. I can go straight to t

    • Julian Assange is being prosecuted for rape in a well-recognized first-world democracy.

      I assure you: if this guy was a Tea Party leader, and was accused of rape in Sweden, everyone here would say "rot in jail you rapist!". But because he shares the bias of Slashdot, then he is portrayed as an innocent hero.

  • Let's hope they learn how to use proxies and to remain anonymous.

  • by v1 (525388) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @05:37PM (#40990025) Homepage Journal

    You're free to talk about anything you want to. Unless we don't like what you say, in which case we will lock you up or kill you. Have a nice day.

    Funny how governments (usually of the oppressive variety) are deathly scared of people voicing their opinions of them or outing them publicly.

    Just how oppressive is Vientnam's government? That's not one I usually hear tossed around with Cuba, North Korea etc. IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.

    • by _merlin (160982) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:29PM (#40990625) Homepage Journal

      You have to be somewhat subtle about political commentary. You can't just print it on the front page of the newspaper. However, there are certain soap operas on TV that are obviously thinly veiled criticism of government figures and policies. Corruption is rife, there's a bit gap between the richest and the poorest, health care is expensive but it doesn't bankrupt anyone, they're even stricter on drug crimes than US (death penalty for possession of over 500g). It's not a bad place to live if it's where you want to live, just different trade-offs.

    • We need to track abuses and publicize that tracking (UN Global Compact - Freedom of Speech [unglobalcompact.org] (click background to view a map)). We then need to make consistent PR moves against all forms of oppression - especially political freedoms. When a government restricts political freedoms they send a clear message: "Our grasp on power is tenuous, we are cowardly, and we fear our own people.". We need to send a message in return: "We support your people, but look down on your government. As long as you restrict politic
    • The government here is afraid that its hold on power is weak and that it lacks/is losing legitimacy. After the Vietnam war of course, the government was all powerful and seen as the victorious savior of the country (against the world's greatest power no less!).

      Now, more than a generation later, with a youthful population that was mostly born after the war those memories are fading.

      So the government mainly tries to keep things stable while it quietly plunders (through corruption) the country. It tries to d

    • by J Story (30227)

      IMHO any government that makes it a crime to speak negatively in public about the government, ruling party, president, or king, is oppressive just from that alone.

      Suppression of dissent implies that a regime has few arguments on its side beyond "might makes right". Its politicians and ruling class have essentially conceded the truth of the criticism levelled against them. What is even worse, however, is that, removed from the glare of public opinion, corruption will flourish, dragging the country down even more.

  • Some folks who do good work in the less-famous parts of the Internet:

    https://www.theengineroom.org/ [theengineroom.org]

    http://opennet.net/ [opennet.net]

    http://globalintegrity.org/ [globalintegrity.org]

    https://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]

    Disclosure: I've worked for two of these, though not recently.

  • If freedom of speech is enshrined in the Viet Constitution, why isn't the Supreme Court (or equivalent) releasing these people and protecting the constitutional law?

    • by Fned (43219)

      "Dammit! I KNEW we forgot something...."

      - Vietnamese Constitution authors

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Same reason it's happening in America. Gov't likes the power. The only difference is that the US gov't hides it better. For example, there are actually lists of topics that churches are not allowed to preach about. One of them is politics.

      • Same reason it's happening in America. Gov't likes the power. The only difference is that the US gov't hides it better. For example, there are actually lists of topics that churches are not allowed to preach about. One of them is politics.

        AIUI, that's just for maintaining their tax exempt status.

    • Freedom of speech was also enshrined in the constitution of the USSR (even the one that was enacted under Stalin in 1933), and is enshrined today in the constitution of China.

      Any constitution is just a piece of paper, unless enough people believe otherwise, and unless those people are willing to act on their beliefs.

    • Ever read the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)? It was quite high-minded.

      Sometimes a constitution is just a piece of paper.

    • If freedom of speech is enshrined in the Viet Constitution, why isn't the Supreme Court (or equivalent) releasing these people and protecting the constitutional law?

      Much like here in China (I split time between the US and China), freedom of speech is enshrined in the Vietnamese constitution. However, just like the US, it does not protect you from negative results from your speech - like shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater in the US will get you arrested. In these fascist oligarchical countries (China and Vietnam) they stretch the negative results to include "political instability" and "lack of faith in the central Government". So you can speak all you want, but if i

  • Moral of the story?

    Dont say bad things against the government in a blog.

  • Our blogging service will not be held responsible for blog-induced damage to life, limb and human rights if the name of the country in which the blogging took place includes any of the following words; 'people', 'republic' or 'democratic', unless multiple nongovernmental proxies and an up to date Liberte Linux live cd are used.

  • The Vietnamese government has a fine line to tread. Due to the current territorial [wikipedia.org] disputes [wikipedia.org] with China, there is a resurgence of Sinophobia among the populace in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government doesn't want to antagonize the Chinese government and jeopardize a huge trading relationship, but it also doesn't want to appear to be caving to the Chinese. It had shown remarkable restraints in allowing anti-China protests to proceed, but recently it had been curbing them because the protestors attention is
  • Misleading Title (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dean Edmonds (189342) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:06PM (#40990361)

    The title of this article claims that being a blogger in Vietnam could cost you your life. But the only person to lose their life was a non-blogger who set herself on fire in protest at the new law. So a more accurate title would be, "In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail. Setting Yourself On Fire Could Cost You Your Life".

    • The title of this article claims that being a blogger in Vietnam could cost you your life. But the only person to lose their life was a non-blogger who set herself on fire in protest at the new law. So a more accurate title would be, "In Vietnam: Being a Blogger Could Land You In Jail. Setting Yourself On Fire Could Cost You Your Life".

      Or: "Being a Blogger Could Cost Someone Else Their Life by a Rather Indirect Mechanism".

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Sorry, quite a few of bloggers have disappeared over the years with flimsy 'evidences' for their 'crimes' or even without trial at all. A famous blogger was arrested first by the law against adultery, the 'evidence' was 2 used condoms. And after he was arrested, the police raided his house and 'found' some evidence on his computer that he violated the 88 article (propaganda against the government), and now he is sentenced for ~6 years in jail. Many other bloggers have been jailed in the similar way, and the

  • In traditional slashdot fashion, I'm posting this without actually reading the article rather than just the summary, but according to the summary, apparently what will cost you your life is if you decide to make a grand-but-probably-ultimately-pointless gesture and commit suicide to protest something, which is kind of tautologically true regardless of what you're protesting, or where.

    Meanwhile, everyone also already knows that in Vietnam, you can get thrown in jail for doing just about anything, or nothing,

  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Tuesday August 14, 2012 @06:19PM (#40990505)
    In the West jailing people for criticising the government would be unpopular, so they find more subtle but equally effective ways to do it. These silence not just bloggers, but journalists too: The easiest of these is libel laws. US Citizens are lucky that their Right to Free Speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but citizens in other supposedly liberal democracies have no such protection.

    Libel Law: "In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."
    https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html [efa.org.au]

    The UK defamation bill will do little to stop corporations suing individuals and should include a public interest defence
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-get-right-defamation-bill [guardian.co.uk]

    UK Libel reform campaigners demand better public interest defence
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/27/libel-reform-campaigners-public-interest-defence [guardian.co.uk]

    It doesn't affect only bloggers: Even journalists are restricted by what they can say:
    http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html [thenewsmanual.net]

    Explanation of UK Libel Law
    http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html [urban75.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law [wikipedia.org]

    The Australian Journalist's Defamation Checklist: Can you run this story?
    http://www.hss.bond.edu.au/defamkit/ [bond.edu.au]

    And if they report something embarassing to the Government, then it is jail time:
    http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_06.html [thenewsmanual.net]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Secrets_Act [wikipedia.org]
    http://www.caslon.com.au/secrecyguide4.htm [caslon.com.au]

    The government redacted 90% of the recent proposal to snoop on Internet Usage. You would think the public have a right to know, but it's National Security if they say it is:
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/no-minister-90-of-web-snoop-document-censored-to-stop--premature-unnecessary-debate-20100722-10mxo.html [smh.com.au]
    • by Anonymous Coward

      US has libel laws too. More importantly, the most crazy variety are so called "Food libel laws" can get you in jail for a very long time, simply for filming stuff you are not suppose to film, or speaking against a food.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_libel_laws [wikipedia.org]
      http://www.cspinet.org/foodspeak/oped/food_sedition.html [cspinet.org]

      These are not just civil law, these are criminal laws where you can be sent to jail.

      There is an old saying. Find me a man, and I'll find a paragraph (law) against him. This was used in context

  • misclick needs to be reversed
  • If they're feeling particularly evil, they'll make the daughter pay for the cost of extinguishment through extra labor in prison.

  • so that when these schmucks shows up the door we can give them at least some fight before we die.

    Whoever managed to streamline delivery of automatic weapons into China, North Korea, Vietnam, Iran etc. and arm their rebels will be the richest man on earth.

  • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Wednesday August 15, 2012 @01:13AM (#40993617)

    The number of heartless assholes on Slashdot really boggle my mind.

    You're posting to correct the headline, because it was the blogger's mother who died of burns, not the blogger? Really? THAT is what you want to talk about?

    It used to be that self-immolation actually caused people to wake up and do something about a massive injustice, with the support of all onlookers. Now you want to sit and quibble about the fucking headline. Somebody burned herself to death in protest of the unjust imprisonment of her daughter and you assholes are arguing over whether or not Viet Nam War protestors in the US are traitors.

    I hate you all.

  • They are turning into draconian commies. Let's start a war against Vietnam immediately!......oh, wait

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...