Slashdot Log In
Want Freedom?
Posted by
michael
on Fri Aug 30, 2002 12:11 PM
from the not-badly-enough dept.
from the not-badly-enough dept.
Xenopax writes "According to this story on the Sacramento Bee Americans are now more willing to throw away their first amendment rights for the false feeling of security than ever before. In fact many believe that the First amendment goes too far with its protection and think we should allow monitoring of religious groups for national security. Also many people believe the media shouldn't be allowed to question the government in times of war. One has to wonder if anyone cares about their constitutional rights any more, or if everyone would be happier living in 1984." The study is conducted by the Freedom Forum every year and is available for download.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Want Freedom?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1084 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
That rhetoric developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, mostly during wars.
During the Revolutionary War (1776), with the most powerful navy in the world anchored in NY harbor (the British), Jefferson wrote,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, overnments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The First Amendment, the subject of this article, was writting ~1790, not during war but not exactly a time of peace and harmony.
During the Civil War, in the mid-18th century, at perhaps the lowest, most dangerous moment in our nations history (the Battle of Gettysburg), Lincoln said,
Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:4, Interesting)
What are we sacrificing for now? Merely security for the majority? Every tinpot dictator in history has provided that.
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but we were at War - an official declaration had been made. We are not currently at war, and any rights being suspended now are being suspended indefinately. A citizen of the US should be able to plan out, including diagrams and timetables, how to blow up the WTC. Many have, as a matter of fact, and published the results, both in fiction form and essay form in underground magazines. Should the FBI follow the latter? Sure. Should they arrest them? No.
However, when war is declared, an act of Congress which can be temporarily enacted by the president, all bets are off. Normal rights are suspended, and the nation enters a state of martial law, with curfews, search and seizue laws being rewritten, etc. Do I have a problem with this? No. It's the nature of the situation. But it will end and things will be reverted back to full liberties and rights when the war ends.
The problem is, there is no declaration of war - just a removal of rights with no endpoint in sight. That's what upsets quite a few people about this situation. Wartime restriction of rights is one thing, removing rights for a nebulous, never ending situation sounds a little like 1984 and a lot like Joe McCarthy's witchhunts.
--
Evan (no reference)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:One of my favourite quotes... (Score:4, Funny)
By the way, I came across this quote recently:
The very stability of a free nation is based almost entirely upon the ability of the distributors of artistic works to carefully and tightly control the distribution of those works, charging whatever price they deem reasonable and fair, and acting with swift impunity in punishing, with our without the official sanction of the government, those who infringe on their rights to control those works. It is the essence of democracy that both the artists and the distributors of artistic works be paid substantially for each copy of a work, lest we fall into tyrrany. I know this, because I am George Washington, and that is how we founded this great and noble nation.
--George Washington.
I'm not entirely sure if George Washington said that, but hey, somebody said it, and it is applicable to an issue currently being discussed, so it must be important.
of course... (Score:5, Funny)
(for the sarcasm impaired: that is not my real belief).
The word is treason (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know of anyone that thinks the government should be required to be entirely truthful about ongoing operations in times of war. If a reporter discovers classified information and shares it, it is not a matter of the first amendment. It is a matter of treason, as if they'd discovered documents and sold them directly to a foreign power.
Just because you belong to the press corps doesn't make you above the law.
Re:The word is treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Franklin said: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Franklin said: (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because Franklin said it, doesn't make it true. Appeal to authority is a very weak form of argument.
Giving up some freedom can in fact give you some security, and we all do it all the time. I am not allowed to go around shooting people - if I do the cops come and arrest me. This is a compromise of my absolute freedom, but one that I (and the vast majority of other people) are very happy to make.
The question is not should we give up freedom for security, but how much and for how long, and what are we getting in return. These are the right questions to be asking. We should be very careful not to compromise any more freedom than is necessary and we should make sure that we get it all back once the threat has subsided. Freedom is a precious and important thing that we should not give up lightly.
Any system that is taken to its absolute conclusion is dangerous. Have we learnt nothing of the danger when any view is taken to its extreme? I would have thought the example of Islamic fundamentalism was only too painfully clear.
"I wasn't using my civil liberties, anyway" (Score:5, Funny)
Americans throw away freedom for capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Intellectual property and copyright law in the digital era = censorship.
The computer is a communications tool which is an extention and enhancement to our ability to communicate and express ourselves, source code is the method of expression, 1s and 0s are the output of this expression.
However current intellectual property law is designed to reduce our abilities to express ourselves via code or even to copy a file.
Copyright and Intellectual property is out of control right now and its slowly removing our freedomm of speech and our right to expression.
Why is it ok to censor people in the name of capitalism, no one but rogue pirates dare step forward and say what we all know is happening.
Freenet, GNU, etc etc, its all about freedom of speech. Alot of people claim "well if you are going to have freedom to be open source you should also have freedom not to be"
However when you arent open source and you support the patent system you support censorship. Its very funny how Americans can jump to complain about China and the evils of Communism, claiming USA is all about freedom, claiming the constitution, but its all bullshit.
USA is about Capitalism right now, not freedom. While we are more free than China, we are only more free than China for now, eventually Capitalism will remove all freedom from us due to our own greed.
Re:Americans throw away freedom for SOCIALISM (Score:4, Insightful)
In a true capitalist system, government can NEVER subsidize, tariff, or embargo companies. They can't regulate or control. They can't tax.
In America, our government protects its friendly businesses with subsidies, while harming the competitors to its friends with tariffs and regulations.
Its not Capitalism that hurts our country (greed helps EVERYONE, not just the greedy), its excessive government regulations and subsidies that hurt us.
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
There will never be a pure anything for a long long time.
Currently the best we can do is have a mix of Capitalism and Socialism.
Socialism to give everyone universal benifits, the right to have the military protect them for example, the right to get an education, etc
People arent always born with the money to go to private school, buy a shitload of machine guns, pay their own personal doctor, and so on.
And if people did have to do this, doctors would make less money on average because people wouldnt have any money to pay them with, teachers would be working for pennies literally and poor students would never have access to good teachers, etc etc.
People can argue all they want for a pure Capitalist world but its just impossible, just like a pure Socialist world is impossible, the only way we could have a world like this is to have a utopia where everyone is responsible,mature, intelligent, and we have a perfect democracy.
When we have a Utopia then we can decide if we want it to be a Capitalist Utopia or A Socialist Utopia.
Right now we arent there yet.
Socialism is all that works for information (Score:5, Insightful)
And we are becoming more and more an information based economy.
True Capitalism couldnt work in the real world just like true Socialism cant work. Theres a reason we are a mixture of both, because this is the only thing that could work.
Without public schools, police, government, etc we'd have complete chaos because the people in this country arent intelligent enough, arent responsible enough, and they arent mature enough to successfully govern themselves.
Greed helps everyone? Thats not even logical, Greed only helps you, it doesnt always have to harm everyone else, but it only helps YOU.
Greed helps you. Depending on how you make your money decides how many people you help or harm.
I could say Socialism helps everyone too, you go to the police when you need them, you depend on the military to defend you from al qaeda, without socialism you wouldnt even have the internet, we would have never gone to the moon, we wouldnt have big industries.
Look, pure capitlaism can never work, its a pipe dream, pure socialism most likely can never work either, the best we can do is have a mixture of both, as the economy becomes less labor based and more information based, and we dont have to work as hard, we'll become more socialist, progression forces socialism because you cant sell something when theres unlimited amounts of it.
Capitalism if it was pure, it could work if it were 100 percent fair capitalism, this means capitalism without globalism, this means forcing companies to raise the minimum wage they pay their workers along with the amount of money the company brings in, meaning dynamic salary which increases when companies do good and decreases when they do bad, equal salary for everyone in the company this means the CEO shouldnt make billions and everyone else thousands unless the CEO actually is working the hardest and has been working there the longest.
Enron and Worldcom situations should not be tolerated at all, a person should go to jail for life and their assets removed from them.
Globalism cannot work in pure Capitalism because Capitalism is all about small businesses not big businesses, big businesses are like governments and we dont need this.
No tax? Theres always going to be a tax because people always have to pool their money together to pay for say military forces or hospitals, however by making paying the tax a choice such as a donation you could still have pure capitalism while increasing freedom.
Re:Socialism is all that works for information (Score:4, Insightful)
"True" capitalism CAN work, and it DID work in America's most prosperous era (from the founding until the Civil War, when Lincoln's many fascist treasons corrupted the whole political system).
If people aren't smart enough to save money to educate their children, then they'll need to LEARN responsibility over the generations when they're poor. That's what's great about this country -- the unintelligent "darwinistically" fall by the wayside, and the MOST intelligent from other countries immigrate to our country to make the society stronger.
I know I'm a solo voice, but the hopes for liberty ARE growing, and I can only hope that people eventually see the fallacy that we "NEED" public education, or that we "NEED" minimum wage laws (laws that have removed 500,000+ jobs from the market, and hurt minorities and the young). Pick up one of those two books, settle in for a long week, and learn why Government Doesn't Work.
Re:Socialism is all that works for information (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a typical elitist approach to government. The basic premise of the government is that it is one of the people. Your argument against capitalism doesn't even make sense. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems, while the government services you cite are not economic in nature. Governments exist to provide at least a few basic services, among which are protection from invasion and law enforcement, for which the military and police are required. Using these entities as a "proof" that government is socialist is absurd; by your argument every government is socialist in nature. (Which, I suppose, was your intention all along).
Capitalism if it was pure, it could work if it were 100 percent fair capitalism, this means capitalism without globalism, this means forcing companies to raise the minimum wage they pay their workers along with the amount of money the company brings in, meaning dynamic salary which increases when companies do good and decreases when they do bad, equal salary for everyone in the company this means the CEO shouldnt make billions and everyone else thousands unless the CEO actually is working the hardest and has been working there the longest.
I don't know where you get this at all. Actually, I do; this is pure Marxist philosophy where Labor = Profit = Worth. No amount of work on a mud pie is going to increase its value. You would certainly refuse to pay $100 for a mud pie that I worked on for 20 hours, and you would certainly complain if you, as, let's say, a computer technician, made the same wage as the unskilled laborer handing out flyers on the street corner. There is more demand for higher skills, which makes them more valuable. If not, why bother going to get an education? You'll be making the same as everybody else anyway.
Your run-on sentence even contradicts itself in the middle: equal salary for everyone in the company...unless the CEO is actually working the hardest. Well, duh. The people who work harder and who are in demand are worth more. That's capitalism.
Enron and Worldcom situations should not be tolerated at all
Here I agree completely. I am all for minimal government involvement in business, but law enforcement should be ever present, which, in this case, means prosecution of fraud.
No tax? Theres always going to be a tax because people always have to pool their money together to pay for say military forces or hospitals, however by making paying the tax a choice such as a donation you could still have pure capitalism while increasing freedom.
I agree with the necessity of taxation as well. Making the tax optional is an interesting idea, but doomed to failure because too many will exploit the system. However, taxation for military and law enforcement do not make the system socialist because they are not economic in nature; they are part of the basic function of government.
religion (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that not every religion will be treated equaly... Bush will surely not mess with his friends of the christian right...
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
And if you pose for a camera, that's not speech, nor is letting your words be recorded on videotape. Speak all you like, but if the words end up in a fixed format, then damn you, you seditious criminal.
And if you want to wear a black armband to school during wartime, as a peaceful non-disruptive protest, then that "expression" is surely a crime too, and I hope you burn in hell.
Language and communication aren't limited to vocal sounds. As long as the action is without doubt, communication only, who are you to claim it's not protected?
Burning the US flag might be wrong, but only because it's the one country in the world where you are guaranteed the right to do it.
Re:give away my rights? (Score:4, Interesting)
Me: Should the government be allowed to read suspicous people's email without a warrent?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to stop media that they view as a threat?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to hold suspected terrorists without trial?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to censor the internet?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should the government be allowed to put cameras looking into suspected terrorists houses?
Her: Yes.
Me: Should people give up any liberties to make our country safer?
Her: NO!!!!
exactly.
Thankfully, this is no democracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Our Constitution was set forth in order to protect our God given rights from destruction by an insane majority. As you can now see, the insane majority is here.
I will only vote for those who push legislation for smaller government. In Illinois, we will have libertarians on almost every ballot position, and that's how I will make my statement.
Of course, if we do find more infrindgements on our liberties, I will be one of the first to move to Costa Rica, or another country where their freedoms are GROWING, and because those countries aren't fighting "wars on everything," the standard of living is just as high as it is here (for entrepreneurs), but the tax burden and liberty loss is less.
Don't accept this mess. Vote to end government/business orgies and socialist schemes -- VOTE LIBERTARIAN [lp.org].
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise (Score:3, Funny)
They needed a survey to find this out?
Well, I guess that's how Fascism takes root.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
- Martin Niemöller
Let me say this clearly: Bush sucks. He's a dangerous, arrogant man who's brother stole the election for him, and who's flushing our democracy down the toilet as fast as we will let him.
Unanswered Questions about 9/11 [unansweredquestions.org]
With apologies to Jello Biafra... (Score:5, Insightful)
We interupt your surfing session with a special bulletin:
The Internet is now under martial law. All constitutional rights have been suspended. Stay in your homes! Do not attempt to contact loved ones, science fiction authors, or software developers.
SHUT UP!
Do not attempt to think, or depresion may occur. Stay in your homes. Curfew is at 7 pm sharp after work. Anyone transferring content on ports other than those allowed by their subdivision router - will - be - shot.
(Remain calm.)
Do not panic. Your neighborhood Digital Rights Inspector will be around to collect access logs in the morning. Anyone caught interfering with the collection of access logs - will - be - shot.
Stay in your homes! Remain calm! The number one enemy of progress is questions! The security of Hollywood's business model is more important that individual will!
(All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.)
No more than two people may discuss programming techniques without permission! Write only the code prescribed by your boss or supervisor!
SHUT UP!
BE HAPPY!
Obey all orders without question!
The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory!
BE HAPPY!
At last, everything is done for you...
Freedom and the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
A question. Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
It is suprising (not to say a little annoying) for many outside the US to hear this opinion expressed repeatedly by Americans. Democracy, feedom and liberty are ideas have been around since the Greeks, and probably before. There have been democratic governments in parts of Europe for over 800 years.
So can we please drop this idea that America invented freedom? It's just a tad irritating.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:5, Funny)
.
Re:Freedom and the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is it that there seem to be many Americans that believe that the USA invented the concepts of democracy, freedom and liberty? The issue comes up time and time again. Is it something that is taught in schools in the USA?
Nope. The usual party line is that the Greeks invented Democracy, Freedom, and Liberty; and that the Americans re-established it after getting sick and tired of Monarchy.
That's the party line anyway. The reality is probably more complex, involving a mix of Masonic ideals, romantic ideals about the Greeks and Romans, and English corporate traditions.
I do think it's safe to say that The American Revolution inspired (or was one of the inspirations for) the French Revolution, which laid the foundation for the spread of Liberal Democratic ideals throughout the world. At least, that's my rather provincial, and admittedly somewhat chauvanistic, take on the matter.
Of course, what's going on now, IMO, is laying the foundation for the spread of tyrrany throughout the world.
1984? More of a Brave New World (Score:4, Interesting)
In a society where creature comforts are increasingly easy to come by for the average man, there's an increasing willingness/tendency to sacrifice - or ignore - everybody else. So a few of those funny towel-heads get harassed - what of it? So a few lazy bums are on the streets - not my problem. So long as I get my multiple television channels, eh?
Most people just don't care all that much about their freedom - they view 'freedom' as the right to watch tv, drink a beer, see a football game. Even on Slashdot, there are always people who are happy to espouse the free software alternative right up to the point at which they want to play a Windows-only, proprietary computer game. Is it really surprising that most of us don't know what our rights are? We don't need or want to know - and such rights are threatening, particularly in the hands of _other people_.
Just a quick rant.
religious groups (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution doesn't need amending (Score:5, Interesting)
From the above, it has been inferred that any kind of prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, that putting the 10 Commandments on public property is unconstitutional, that pr0n is legal, that a woman has the right to privacy and, consequently, the right to terminate pregnancy, that public libraries may not filter web sites, and so on and so forth.
The point I'm making is that we have become accustomed to reading an awful lot into that one small amendment. As a student of political science, however, I find it both amusing and disturbing that the first five words of the amendment are the ones most frequently ignored: "Congress shall pass no law..."
Taken literally (and as the Founding Fathers intended!) this means that most of these freedoms we take for granted were never intended to be freedoms at the level they are, but rather issues left to the individual states!
I don't know exactly what that means for us today, but it is food for thought.
Has anyone noticed... (Score:5, Insightful)
That on average, citizens of countries with more freedom tend to be much safer than citizens of countries with less?
Think of the world's non-democratic countries, like Iraq, or Argentina under the fascists. Are the people there safe? NO! People are taken from their homes in the middle of the night, imprisoned, tortured, and killed. Why? Because people arent' free to question and criticise the government. Because people either believe that their government cannot be opposed, or that opposing it would weaken their country.
Your freedom doesn't harm your safety. It guarantees it. Freedom exists to protect the individual's right to life, liberty, and security of person.
And as soon as you try to trade your freedom for safety, you will find that you've lost them both.
Appropriate response (Score:4, Insightful)
"Shut up."
people, we is not wrapped tight (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad truth is that the average person is dumb, and half the population is even dumber than that.
Thus, it doesn't surprise me when 4 out of 10 people say that they don't think the press and the academic community should be allowed to criticize government plans -- they're the 4 who are dumber than average.
Looking closely... (Score:4, Interesting)
The question the article makes a lot of noise over (question 2.) Question 2 is basically a recitation of the text of the first amendment, followed by the text:
"Based on your own feelings about the First Amendment, please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following statement: The First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.'
In this context, more people agreed than disagreed (by 2 points) that the First Amendment goes to far.
Now, if you look at questions 3-9, each of which ask the interviewee to rate the importance of each freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment individually, there's a solid and vociferous defense for the freedoms guaranteed (on average, between 65% and 80% of people feel that any given freedom is 'essential'.)
What does this tell us? It tells me that there is an effective lobby against "The First Amendment", and that, when the freedoms are disassociated from "The First Amendment", Americans are rabidly supportive of their First Amendment rights. This leads me to hope that, while First Amendment attacks are en vogue in a number of circles today, that the people will lash back should the Frist Amendment face too concerted of an attack.
If we want to draw attention to the erosion of First Amendment rights, we need to step away from the "XXXXX is taking away our First Amendment rights" argument and approach the problem from an "XXXXX is taking away your (right to assemble/right to practice religion/right to privacy/right to speak your mind)."
Sadly, it seems that people cherish the First Amendment considerably less than they cherish the rights that amendment provides.
(My views are my own. They do not reflect those of my employer. I am not a real political analyst, I just work with them.)
Your rights won't be taken away (Score:5, Insightful)
The state can't give you free speech, and the state can't take it away. You're born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Like old Campbell said, 'Freedom is something you assume. Then you wait for someone to try to take it away from you. The degree to which you resist is the degree to which you are free.' - Utah Phillips
How would the world react. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US government was openly and violently suppressing the American people, what do you think the rest of the world would do? Would the Europeans come to our aide? Would the Africans laugh at our disgrace? Would China just go on with its business of becoming the next super-power?
Would the French help an American resistance movement? Would the British sell the people arms? Or would there be endless talk and admonitions of human rights violations? I really can't imagine that anyone would help us.
I really do believe that the greatest threat to American citizens is not terrorism, but our own government. That might be paranoid, but it's how I feel about it. And everyday I become more and more concerned. And then I wonder, who would help us? What would the world do?
Re:How would the world react. . . (Score:4, Funny)
Congratulations! You're on our new list!
Love,
The FBI
"One issue" GWB voters are the reason. (Score:3, Interesting)
While I have nothing against the bible or people reading it, living it or whatever. I DO NOT want people telling me what I can, or can't do based on their 'bible beliefs'. The regression of free speech is a sad tale of repressed morality, and low IQ. When I hear that a book/movie/music is banned, people are being put on 'probably going to be a crimminal' lists and held for no legal reason, and when GWB decides to go to war all by himself, I ask, "Where are the dissenting voices?"
The DMCA, U.S Patent Office, the Patriot act, Carnivore, Echelon, M$ allowed monopoly, the lack of worker rights in the workplace, **AAs, DRM, SSCCA, the isolationism of the USA and our resulting lack of support for the Kyoto treaty, the lack of difference between political parties, Senator Disney and his Club, Campaign Reform (not), CAFE standards, war oil oil war, Alaskan Reserve, Enron, Halburton, Worldcom, The Office of Homeland Security.
Are these things NOT fucked up? Am I missing something?
I don't fear the terrorists. I fear my own well meaning, scared, righteous, incompetent citizens will continue to support a Government that is plainly out of control.
I'm now in the list.
well you know (Score:3, Funny)
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
we got what we asked for (Score:3)
I remember when the presidential election was under way, there was a parody site about Bush. And he hated being made fun of, and tried to shut it down (with lawyers? does anyone remember?). When the press asked about it, he said, "there ought to be limits to free speech."
Well, we elected him, and now a good number of people in this country are starting to think there ought to be limits to free speech. Gee. How could that happen? And sarcasm aside, how could we, the people, elect someone who is openly hostile to the Constitutional principles the country was founded upon? What were we thinking?
in that case... (Score:3, Insightful)
And how many throw away their Second... (Score:3, Insightful)
Free Speech is just as dangerous as a gun - anybody who has seen a riot (or a lynch mob) being incited will attest to that.
The Founding Fathers held the right to free expression and the right to self defense as inalienable rights (as in, you cannot be forced to surrender those rights under any circumstances). This was because they knew that without the ability to defend them, by force if necessary, we would lose them.
And look at what is happening. Little by little we are deprived of our freedom of expression, and denied any peaceful means to oppose this.
I don't want to see violence be the only alternative. I don't want to see violence be used. But if we lose the option, and then we lose all other alternatives....
From the article: (Score:3, Funny)
What exactly are we supposed to do to dispose of old flags then? Dump them in the trash?
Morons.
Very scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very scary to me that even more people in this survey think that government criticism should be prohibited.
It also sickens me that there are plenty of people who think that the government should be able to spy on religious practices. People think that their religion will be safe because they aren't muslim. They think: "Only muslims are terrorists, after all."
I have news for these ignorant people. Every major religion has terrorist groups associated with it. This includes ultra-right-wing psuedo-christian groups who think it is okay blow up abortion clinics. This includes the IRA. This even includes some fringe Jewish groups who plan mosque bombings.
The government WILL eventually use groups like these as an excuse to spy on everybody's church if given the opportunity.
You have to stand up for our rights, period. When the government starts raiding mosques routinely, don't just think "Oh, they're just going after the muslims. Everyone knows that only muslims are terrorists, so won't affect me." It will.
It would also help to get your ass up on election day and go vote.
In An Unrelated Story... (Score:3, Funny)