... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?
I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government. It is not a stretch to expect this constitutional protection to extend to what we read, whether in books or on the internet.
What basis do they have for suspecting all people that use libraries?
Anyone who thinks "oh well, it's ok because everything is different now and the government will only use it against the bad buys" does NOT know much about the early days of the FBI (F*ck Hoover). You also don't know about the abuses against suspected Communist, minority rights, and peace organizations.
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected. But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs*. Therefore, it's more in the interest of society for you to take responsibility for your speech.
*And please, don't quote me obscure cases where government abuse might have occured. All that shows is that the exceptions prove the rule.
IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech
That's a BS assertion. I don't know if you were only making an observation of the value system that exists, or whether you were asserting it as valid, but in any case, anonymous speech that makes false accusations is not dangerous.
Any anonymous speech is automatically suspect, why should it hold any credibility on its face?
After all, if anonymous speech was given the same sway as non-anonymous speech, then everyone would know "GigsVT is a fag" and wouldn't question it. (Hi Mr Anonymous GigsVT troll!)
Let's suppose I thought Osama Bin Laden was right for a second. Now, let's suppose I go write a letter, stating who I am, and where I live, and my beliefs that all Americans should die. How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
"Unpopular" speech has just as much a right to exist as "popular". If it has to be done anonymously, so be it. If it's "false accusations" as you claim, investigation will bear this.
There is a lot of fear right now of being prosecuted (persecuted) under the current government climate for your beliefs. If you don't think this is true, think about the Muslims and Hindus (damn ingnorant rednecks) that were assaulted after these attacks. Let's not forget, the US goverment is by the people, for the people. If you're a citizen, you're officially part of the government. You're assertion that the exceptions make the rule is a fallacy in this case, as it's the threat of BECOMING part of that "minority" stifles free speech.
Chances are you won't be arrested, but you will be watched more closely. And in all honesty there is nothing wrong with that. When you go into an area of your town known for violence, don't you watch your back a little bit more? If you knew that your neighbor made explosives in his basement (maybe he's just a demolitions worker, maybe he's not) wouldn't you keep an eye on him a bit more than normal? Caution against perceved threats is fine, it's action against unidentified threats that causes problems.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected.
There probably isn't any such thing as a non-oppressive government. Just about any government has something they'd rather was kept secret. Also governments are made up of people, there might be things these individuals do not want known or investigated.
But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
False accusations can be made without anonymity. All anonymity does is prevent the person making the accusation from being cross examined. If the accusation is false and you have freedom of speach then it can be refuted.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs.
Probably best not to hold Islamic religious beliefs, Russian citizenship and visit the US to give a speach of computer security then:)
"The C Programming Language -- A language which combines the flexibility of
assembly language with the power of assembly language."
I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the barage of posts talking about constitional rights, the Bush Administration and, of course, the 569 jokes about the "terrorists already winnning". But seriously, does anyone thing they have an absolute Constitional Right to anonymity when they use the internet or check out books in the library?
I know that even posing the question is going to be seriously unpopular, but it should be asked.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1, Insightful)
What basis do they have for suspecting all people
that use libraries?
Anyone who thinks "oh well, it's ok because
everything is different now and the government
will only use it against the bad buys" does NOT
know much about the early days of the FBI (F*ck
Hoover). You also don't know about the abuses
against suspected Communist, minority rights, and
peace organizations.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Maybe not, but we do have a constitutionally protected right to free speech. That right is infringed upon when the speaker (or listener) is concerned about repercussions from an oppressive government.
There is a balance between free speech and responsible speech. In an oppressive government, there is certainly an interest in having anonymous speech be protected. But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs*. Therefore, it's more in the interest of society for you to take responsibility for your speech.
*And please, don't quote me obscure cases where government abuse might have occured. All that shows is that the exceptions prove the rule.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
That's a BS assertion. I don't know if you were only making an observation of the value system that exists, or whether you were asserting it as valid, but in any case, anonymous speech that makes false accusations is not dangerous.
Any anonymous speech is automatically suspect, why should it hold any credibility on its face?
After all, if anonymous speech was given the same sway as non-anonymous speech, then everyone would know "GigsVT is a fag" and wouldn't question it. (Hi Mr Anonymous GigsVT troll!)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:1)
Let's suppose I thought Osama Bin Laden was right for a second. Now, let's suppose I go write a letter, stating who I am, and where I live, and my beliefs that all Americans should die. How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
"Unpopular" speech has just as much a right to exist as "popular". If it has to be done anonymously, so be it. If it's "false accusations" as you claim, investigation will bear this.
There is a lot of fear right now of being prosecuted (persecuted) under the current government climate for your beliefs. If you don't think this is true, think about the Muslims and Hindus (damn ingnorant rednecks) that were assaulted after these attacks. Let's not forget, the US goverment is by the people, for the people. If you're a citizen, you're officially part of the government. You're assertion that the exceptions make the rule is a fallacy in this case, as it's the threat of BECOMING part of that "minority" stifles free speech.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
How quickly do you think I would be arrested and charged with terrorism?
Never. In fact, take a look at some of the radical Islamic web sites sometime. You'll see that this is not an uncommon theme.
They only thing that will put a knock on your door is threats to the President, which by law they have to take seriously.
Re:I can already see ... (Score:2)
Re:I can already see ... (Score:3, Interesting)
There probably isn't any such thing as a non-oppressive government. Just about any government has something they'd rather was kept secret. Also governments are made up of people, there might be things these individuals do not want known or investigated.
But in most western governments, IMO the potential for abuse of anonymous speech (e.g., false accusations) outweighs the value of anonymous speech.
False accusations can be made without anonymity. All anonymity does is prevent the person making the accusation from being cross examined. If the accusation is false and you have freedom of speach then it can be refuted.
In other words, you have very little fear in the United States for being prosecuted by the government for your beliefs.
Probably best not to hold Islamic religious beliefs, Russian citizenship and visit the US to give a speach of computer security then