Russia Poised to Restrict Net Activities 479
DigitalHammer writes: "The Russian Parliament is planning to place off- and online restrictions to curb pro-Nazi and anti-religious activities. Former Reds are afraid they will be labeled as extremists, while envirnomentalists and human rights groups complain that the proposed restrictions will halt free speech in communist-turned-democratic Russia. Deja vu, I see? News.com has the story."
There we go (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There we go (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There we go (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:There we go (Score:2, Funny)
I find it ironic that the real threats to the U.S. are elected...
I find it comforting. At least we know where to find them, then.
Re:There we go (Score:2, Insightful)
I also want to point out that the lack of a sunset clause in the Patriot Act shows its true intentions, since it does nothing to deter the threat at hand.
Re:There we go (Score:2)
Allow me to quote Paris.
"If you've really read it and still don't see it, then allow me to spell it out for you because it's all too clear to me that the Patriot Act violates so much more than just the 4th Amendment. Its signing has effectively nullified at least six amendments of the Bill of Rights addendum to the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this, America has become nothing short of a Police State. The Patriot Act is, in fact, a massive violation of the Constitution it purports to uphold and improve. Among other things, it mandates that judges give police search warrants when they ask for them, for any reason. In fact, judges can't deny these warrants to police, because police don't need a stated reason to ask for them.
The Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of American freedom. During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution in the 1790s, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Many states would not have signed the original Constitution without knowing that these amendments would be added. These amendments became known as the Bill of Rights, which Americans have cherished, protected and fought for for over 200 years.
The Patriot Act rushed through Congress and signed by President George W. Bush is a major step toward a totalitarian state in which individual liberty is crushed by the whim of police and corporate demagogues masquerading as patriots.
The Patriot Act:
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr316
* Violates the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee, the provision allowing the right to peaceably assemble, and the provision allowing the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
* Violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons of things to be seized." The Patriot Act, now passed and the law of the land, has revoked the necessity for probable cause, and now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under the act they are not required to even tell you why.
* Violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and the Patriot Act does away with due process. It even allows people to be kept in prison for life without even a trial.
* Violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to a speedy and public trial. Now you may get no trial at all, ever.
* Violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment).
* Violates the 13th Amendment (punishment without conviction).
From the ACLU's objections:
* It minimizes judicial supervision of telephone and Internet surveillance by law enforcement authorities in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. (Unrelated to terrorism? WTF? That means anything. Maybe surveillance of those expressing political dissent? Ya think?)
* It expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches in anti-terrorism investigations and in routine criminal investigations unrelated to terrorism. (Again - unrelated to terrorism? That means anything. If you disagree with the government's policies publically then this applies to you).
* It gives the Attorney General and the Secretary of State the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and block any non-citizen who belongs to them from entering the country. Under this provision the payment of membership dues is a deportable offense. (That means, among other things, that Bush and Ashcroft can decide that even obviously peaceful organizations are terrorists, and under this law, can put them in jail).
* It grants the FBI broad access to sensitive medical, financial, mental health, and educational records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime and without a court order. (I can't help you if you don't see the danger in this).
* It could lead to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes and use of intelligence authorities to bypass probable cause requirements in criminal cases. (This could apply to anyone).
* It puts the CIA and other intelligence agencies back in the business of spying on Americans by giving the Director of Central Intelligence the authority to identify priority targets for intelligence surveillance in the United States.
* It allows searches of highly personal financial records without notice and without judicial review based on a very low standard that does not require probable cause of a crime or even relevancy to an ongoing terrorism investigation. (They can do any of this without any reason whatsoever. This is the kind of freedom fascists have always wanted - freedom to put everyone who disagrees with them in jail).
* It creates a broad new definition of "domestic terrorism" that could sweep in people who engage in acts of political protest and subject them to wiretapping and enhanced penalties. (This means they can jail anyone who disagrees with them, and keep them in jail for life without a trial)."
Will that do for a start?
By the numbers (Score:2)
- Minimal judicial supervision of expanded telephone wiretaps and internet surveillance. One way is through new powers of Internet Monitoring. Monitoring an individual's communications normally would require law enforcement to demonstrate probable cause of criminal activity to a judge. The counter-terrorism law, however, dramatically lowers the surveillance standard with respect to certain aspects of the Internet by requiring only that law enforcement personnel certify that the surveillance is relevant to a criminal investigation. The court must accept the certification, even if the court believes that law enforcement is on a fishing expedition. Such a provision falls far short of active judicial oversight. The counter-terrorism law states that surveillance does not apply to the "content" of Internet communications; however, the law does not define "content" and clearly does apply to such information as e-mail addresses and recipients.
Another was is through "roving wiretaps": Under prior law, a wiretap was restricted to a particular telephone device. While the law needed updating to take into account the use of multiple cell phones, the USA PATRIOT Act goes too far. Instead of including a reasonable balancing of individuals' privacy interests, the new law now establishes what amounts to a "no privacy zone" which follows a target of surveillance. If a surveillance target enters your home, your telephone comes within a "no privacy zone" and can be tapped. Under these circumstances, it will be more difficult to ensure that innocent people aren't subject to wiretaps.
- Expanded ability of the federal government to conduct secret searches
- Power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and to deport any non-citizen who belongs to those groups: The Act established a new crime of domestic terrorism, with a definition so broad as to include certain acts of political protest involving threats or dangers to human life. When political protest harms property or individuals, those particular harmful acts already are punishable under various criminal laws. Sometimes domestic political protest activity inadvertently escalates to clashes with police and other types of violence. To allow such incidents to be treated as terrorism could have a stifling effect on dissent.
- Large-scale investigations of US citizens for "intelligence purposes." Have you ever heard of COINTELPRO? It's all happened before in the US, FBI and CIA et al got slapped down for it, it's well documented. Now those powers are back, in order to "fight terrorism". Do you really think that's all they'll be used for?
- FBI monitoring of libraries and booksellers: the Act contains provisions that make it easier for the FBI to search a bookstore's business records, including the titles of the books purchased by customers. And under the new amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), booksellers may not have the chance to resist subpoenas. Depending on the wording of the order, the bookseller may be required to immediately turn over the records that are being sought
It violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee of probable cause in astonishingly major and repeated ways. It now allows the police, at any time and for any reason, to enter and search your house. Under prior law, if the primary purpose of a search was to obtain "foreign intelligence information", the FBI could obtain a secret warrant through the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA Court) to conduct a physical search or wiretap without notifying the target of the search. The counter-terrorism law lowers the standard to permit the FBI to conduct a secret search or wiretap if intelligence surveillance is a significant purpose. Thus, under the new law, surveillance for the primary purpose of investigating criminal activity, with the auxiliary significant purpose of intelligence surveillance could circumvent the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirement for obtaining a search warrant.
- Reduction of Attorny-Client privilege:
Attorney General Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department would selectively monitor conversations between selected detainees and their attorneys, including people who have been detained but not charged with any crime. This order is a profound violation of fundamental legal and constitutional principles at the very core of our justice system. Such monitoring of conversations will not meet the high constitutional standards generally in place for other government surveillance - a finding of probable cause and judicial oversight. Instead, monitoring of attorney-client communications will be based on the attorney general's unilateral mere belief "that reasonable suspicion exists" that detainees may "use communications with attorneys or their agents to facilitate acts of terrorism."
It violates the Fifth Amendment by allowing for indefinite incarceration without trial for those deemed by the Attorney General to be threats to national security. On October 29, several civil rights organizations filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking disclosure of government documents concerning more than 1,000 individuals arrested and detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Justice Department officials announced on November 8 that they no longer would provide a running tally of the total number of people being detained across the country in conjunction with federal anti-terrorist investigations. Instead, officials said they would release revised numbers that omit the largest group of detainees, which includes people being held on some grounds not directly related to September 11. In late November, the Justice Department released fragmentary information regarding some of the detainees, but fell far short of making a full accounting. On December 5, PFAWF and others filed suit in federal district court seeking expedited processing and immediate release by the Justice Department of the information requested under FOIA.
Re:There we go (Score:3, Insightful)
American Civil Liberties Union:
http://www.aclu.org/congress/patriot_chart.html [aclu.org]
Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism
Center for Democracy and Technology:
http://www.cdt.org/security/010911response.shtml [cdt.org]
http://www.cdt.org/wiretap/020530guidelines.shtml [cdt.org]
Molly Ivans (political columnist):
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
Robert Scheer (political columnist):
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemi
Need more? I've got 'em.
Re:Read my original post. (Score:2, Insightful)
From the CDT analysis:
While the stated intention of the new guidelines is to identify terrorist activity, they contain no protection against misuse against persons who hold disfavored political or religious opinions. That these concerns are not far-fetched is borne out by the exactly analogous FBI abuses, the "COINTELPRO" program among others, which led to adoption of the guidelines in the first instance. Under that program civil rights, labor and peace groups were systematically spied upon by the FBI, in collaboration with local police and private groups.
Re:There we go (Score:2, Funny)
after reading the article (Score:2)
Re:after reading the article (Score:2)
and any activity or publication that could threaten the "safety" of Russia.
Try writing a bunch of stuff that threatens the safety of the US... once again, bet if you really tried you could get an interview with some important types... there is no law against this in the US... I agree the US leads the world in free speech though...
Re:after reading the article (Score:2)
Some places are ruled by ideology and authority, and so ideology or anti-authority speech will be powerful and thus controlled by the ruling body. Some places are ruled by money, and so money-affecting speech will be controlled by the ruling body.
It all depends on what you constitute as 'free speech', methinks.
For some reason.. (Score:3, Funny)
If that cartoon were reprinted today, I can imagine the other guy responding with "no way, you're too extreme." Heh.
Not as bad as it looks? (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand the slippery slope argument, but it just as easily tilts the other way doesn't it? People have been known to get inflamed over certain types of speech. We need to maintain a healthy balance between a free society and a peaceful society: truly, that's what democracy is about at its heart.
Re:Not as bad as it looks? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, but basic to such an approach is the principle that people have some sort of `right not to be offended'. And once such a right is established, society is held hostage to those who are the most sensitive to perceived insults, with any opinion potentially becoming verboten depending on who claims to be offended.
This isn't a `slippery slope' argument -- once speech can arbitrarily become illegal based on the claim that it is offensive, you are already pretty far down the slope.
Re:Not as bad as it looks? (Score:2, Insightful)
The slander/libel laws derive from the morals against lying, not keeping everyone happy.
Re:Not as bad as it looks? (Score:2)
Democracy is evil... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, at the heart of the democracy is the tyranny of majority. That is why, as an American, I am happy that I live in a country that has a Representative Republic form of Government. Where constitutional rights trump the momentary whims of the majority in power.
An no, we do not need to maintain a healthy balance between free speech and a peaceful society. What we need to do is protect the ability to speak freely and punish those that use civil unrest or the threat of it to prevent that free speech -- the tyranny of the majoity which democracy fosters.
Re:Democracy is evil... (Score:2)
Human rights. (Score:4, Insightful)
Either you have it or you don't.
"Slippery slope" arguments are not always valid. However, in this case, the slope isn't just slippery; it's vertical.
Expression is one huge gray area; for any two given pieces of expression which you give me, i can give you a solid chain of "Well, but that's really identical to this, isn't it? Which is really identical to this, isn't it?" and even if no one would say that the endpoints are similar, each two links in that chain woul dbe philosophically identical.
The only things clearly defined enough to be valid exceptions to free speech are copyright protection, for specific phrasings and expressings of an idea, and slander, for presenting an idea as true when it is not. And note that both of these two things deal only with the dressings of the idea being expressed, and not with the desired expression itself. Laws which suppress "dangerous" speech, on the other hand, repress ideas at the core level, however they are expressed.
Beyond the two caveats above, you cannot balance, negotiate, make exceptions to, or in any way abrogate free speech rights and have them still be there. This isn't extremism. This is just saying, basic human rights are an all or nothing committment.
(While i'm on the subject, while this isn't quite relevant to net censorship in russia, i might as well note that most human rights act in exactly the same way-- that they are gray areas so huge that you have to look at them in terms of black and white while legislating. For example, Due process of law. Due process of law is merely a convention that the government, as the group of people with guns, agrees to follow. The people agree "okay, we will let you all have guns instead of taking the law into our own hands if you use this privilidge responsibly." If the government does not treat this convention as sacred, the people's rights evaporate. If you are in a situation where the government is not guaranteed to behave in a manner consistent with its constitutional basis, the freedoms that constitutional basis guarantees are meaningless.)
Re:Not as bad as it looks? (Score:2)
The Dictator is in the Details (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Dictator is in the Details (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, perhaps we should take a close look at our own Patriot Act. This too grants broad, and vague powers, we just went there first. Russia is following.
Re:The Dictator is in the Details (Score:2)
Pot(Kettle(black));
They probably got the know-how... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I think this time they'll have to pass : if you see the effort the chinese gov are pushing to get the falung gong movement silenced, I seriously doubt any web silencing is ever going to succeed.
As related curiousity, I wonder what the state of former-soviet intelligence is on the front of web and information technology. The east-block used to have some real geniusses in their computer staff... they practically invented cryptography (and virusses
Is there any russian experienced enough to comment on this ?
ACM Competition maybe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is that why St. Petersburg State won [baylor.edu] 2000 and 2001 ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest [baylor.edu]?
Re:They probably got the know-how... (Score:2)
Since as we know, Russia was a paradise of free expression prior to 1917.
Oh, the Irony.... (Score:2)
The wheel has turned. One can only hope it will make them Ruskie Commies[1] a little more appreciative of human rights than when they were in charge.
[1] Hey, we're in the age of George Dubya'. We're allowed to use good ol' boy nominclature again!
Censorship vs. online rights (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd just as soon get rid of all the porn sites, but that would be censorship, now wouldn't it?
What's the difference between censorship and online rights? What standards do you employ in determining how data online can be used?
I don't want anyone out there spying on me, not even with one of those little wireless "x-cams."
How can we prevent our rights from being trampled without trampling the rights of others? It's a hard line to find.
Always good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, you say that as if merely being `another society' somehow made them immune to basic, universal ideals such as free speech. The fact is that some things are objectively wrong, no matter what society they are part of, and even if they correspond to the beliefs of that society.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not objectively wrong to prevent free speech when the person being "oppressed" can freely leave their oppressors with no consiquence (as exists in Japan, though not in most Islamic states).
Your reply to my post referenced sept 11 as being something patently evil, and wrong; can't you even consider the fact that you, and everyone that thinks like you made us a target? Willfully imposing upon other cultures in such a "holier than thou" way something that goes against what they consider to be a basic, universal ideal handed down from God even.
Let others be free to do what they deem to be "best", and maybe they will leave us to be free to live they way we think is "best".
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
(note: if you are wondering what i am defining as 'universal human rights', well, i think it's something of an open-ended idea by necessity, but i think that everything of importance is covered in this little list here. [un.org] )
I will venture to say that a culture in which individuals are discouraged from having individual thoughts and opinions and/or voicing them, and in which if you will not wholly accept the ideals and morals of the greature culture you must die or leave, is a really bad idea. I will say this becuase it encourages blind groupthink, and discourages the breaking of harmful misconceptions.
For an example of this, i will take one of your own examples: Feudal Japan. What happened to feudal japan?
Well, stepping aside some envy-of-the-western-world issues that could quite easily be compared to parts of modern islamic culture:
Partially through coersion, partially through indoctrination, they developed a value and ideal system in which the state and the culture and the emperor were important and godlike above all, and it was considered utterly absurd to question the perfection of these things. Blind belief to these things was considered a virtue.
And then what happened was that the emperor, who controlled the state, who controlled the culture, and who happened personally to not be a terribly strong-willed man, came under the influence of a couple of power-hungry generals, who convinced him that japan must expand, for whatever reasons. And they began to play him like a puppet. And the people, because their culture's moral system demanded it of them and they had no access to dissenting voices to provide a counterpoint to their culture's moral system, did whatever they believed their emperor wanted.
And so Japan raised a fanatic army, attempted to conquer just about all of asia, did any number of insane, tyrannical, and/or just plain evil things, and millions of people died.
Treating human rights as negotiable is just plain dangerous. Removing the sanity checks that freedom of expression provides necessarily ends in a Godwins-Law-triggering disaster. This is because a society that cannot question itself has no way of stopping itself when it gets out of control.
Does this make sense to you?
- - - - -
Like i said, i am not quite sure what you are trying to say here, or for that matter why whatever it is you're saying got modded up. Consider this: you spend most of your post making the point that you do not believe it moral for one culture to attempt to superimpose their value system on another.
Specifically, you are stating that slashdotters do not have the right to be making demands as to how that the Russian, Islamic and "feudal japanese" treat their citizens.
Your sole examples of things that the slashdotters et al are demanding the foreign powers stop, but you think the foreign powers should be allowed to continue, are things in which the foreign powers are imposing a value system on others.
So which is it? Is it permissible to force another to accept your value system, or not?
What is it that makes you think it is alright for an islamic nation to prevent a radical feminist lesbian from publishing a book that clashes with their moral ideals, but it is not alright for the united states to prevent said islamic nation from preventing said book? What is it that makes it okay for cultures to impose on individuals, but not okay for culures to impose on other cultures? This doesn't make sense.
I do not demand that the moral systems of others will be the same as mine before i will respect them.
However, i do demand of others, before i will give them my respect, that their moral systems be consistent.
You have failed to meet this criteria.
- - - - -
Two more points.
I don't agree with this, but even if i did, the current subject of discussion is Russia. Russia is very large. It is not particularly easy to leave Russia. Ask the province of Chechnia, sometime, about the time they've had in attempting to leave Russia (That war is still going on , by the way)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe that free speech should be a right for all people. That does not necissarily mean others do, or that I should force others to think so. I agree that history says that nations that do not allow free speech create havens for atrocity.
IMO cultures should not interfere with other cultures, because the cultures will either succeed or fail given the strength (or lack there of) of their beliefs. Example: Communist Russia. They held their beliefs against outside interference, and in the end it was the belief that failed them, not outside influence.
Perhaps this is greatly simplistic, as one's belief system cannot be conveyed in a few paragraphs...
You're assuming your own universal ideal (Score:2)
It is not objectively wrong to prevent free speech when the person being "oppressed" can freely leave their oppressors with no consiquence (as exists in Japan, though not in most Islamic states).
Go on, say that again. "There is no consequence for being forced out of your country." Then, assuming you've kept a straight face, let the rest of us know whether you really wouldn't make any exceptions to this rule. Would a law forcing Americans to accept Christianity (in the Bushs' version, of course; sorry Catholics, Liberals, and Mormons) or leave the country be okay, for example? Was Salem's only problem the fact that they didn't give their "witches" the option to leave the county, penniless?
Let others be free to do what they deem to be "best"
And if what they deem to be "best" is restricting the freedoms of other people still? How can you possibly think that fundamentalist Islamic states wanting to restrict the freedoms of their women is okay, but Americans wanting to restrict the "freedoms" of fundamentalist Islamic lawmakers is bad?
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
This freedom of choice is what puts me firmly in the individuals' camp. Free speech is fundamental to this. You refer to "others" when you say we should let them do as they please. That sounds worthy, yet it is a false presentation of reality. In many cases "others" are a collective, which means it is the rule of the majority or the mob. The minority, individuals with the same rights as all of us, get the short end of the deal. If everyone except one person in a country decides to curtail speech on a certain subject, should that speech be curtailed? I think not. Should the country's newspapers and news services offer that single person a platform for his beliefs? No, no one, not even news agencies, should be forced to follow or propagate another persons views. Should the rest of the country be allowed to shun that one person for his beliefs? Of course: they are all individuals entitled to their own beliefs, no one should force them to like someone. Should that single person then be jailed for airing his beliefs, to bring peace to the rest of the populace?
No. That is what oppression of minority viewpoints really means, and what freedom of speech means. It is a universal ideal. Each person is an end in him/herself, each individual is their own answer to the meaning of life. Free speech allows (but is not sufficient in itself) each human being to find their own purpose and happiness. Curtailing free speech turns individuals into sacrificial lambs
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Hence yes, I believe that slavery in the old south, extreme Islamic treatment of women (not all Islamic treatment mind you, as most nations allow women to leave), and forced extremination of the Jews is bad (mmmkay).
BUT I also believe that if women are allowed to leave the Islamic nation that oppresses them and they choose to stay, that is wholy within their right, even though I think gender discrimination is a horrible practice that should be never practiced (America first of all).
I personally believe that all humans should have the right to free speech. I also believe in a human's right to live the way they wish to live as long as it does not impose upon other humans.
Personally I believe the "don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you" right is more important than free speech. Oppression with no escape is certainly against this. "knowing one's place" in a society that you've joined is something else.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Jews, well I am one too (since my mother is) but for the nazist Germany jews were a disease a plague a cancer of this planet if you will. There are good studies made on the subject of reasons behind such believes. Do you even understand that no matter what you believe right now the nazis were just as sure in their and in fact their obligation to destroy Jews as you believe in your right to free speech?
There are no ultimate truths or rights and wrongs. Cannibals killed humans and ate them and today many states execute their prisoners. So what? Many believe that it is ultimately wrong to kill and I knew people who would kill anybody for just looking different without hesitation. They also believe in their ultimate rights.
Think.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
That in itself is a very interesting line. You see, this is were you divide by 0. This is were you take a square root of a negative number. This is were you try to add 1 to infinity and declare that you have found a number greater than infinity. This is your fallacy.
You are equating scientiffic approach to abstract philosofical arguements. We do not really *know* much. We, however, have theories that describe certain phenomena and can be backed up by empirical data better than whatever believes that predated ours. We have actually proven it to be a fact that our world is a planet and it rotates around the Sun and we are part of a greater Universe and that our world is not a flat round disk resting on the backs of a giant turtle or of three whales (different cultures had different believes.) But these are physical phenomena that simply waited to be discovered by the inquisite minds. However, no matter what the Constitution of your country (are you an American?) states, the bible, the coran, the torah, or anything else states *bad* and *good* are not such physical phenomena, they can be philosophised over but they cannot be theorised about. *Bad* and *Good* cannot be backed up by any scientific study or by any amount of imperical evidence, (if you try to use your current culture as an example of such evidence, I will provide hundreds of counter examples, but you should not try. It is not evidence it is just an example of one of many cultures within our time frame.)
You have convinced yourself (or most likely you have being convinced by others within your culture) that you actually *know* what good and bad really are, but realize that most people who have posted here see such convictions as childish. You need to develop some character by analyzing your own believes and deciding for yourself whether you are thinking objectively or simply are following the easiest path that you can and that has being walked by too much already.
Life is short and in itself it should be considered the worst *bad* to you, realize that life does not have (or the rest of the universe) does not posses such properties and characteristics as good and bad. Those are simplified notions of life complexities provided for the masses to follow.
Study, try to become something more than the bacteria around you,
Think.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Back to my previous statement: you are trying to equate physical world and abstract notions that can be only operated upon in our minds.
*then you must accept that what you believe is, as you say, subjective. That it is an opinion, which is no more or less right than anyone else's opinion.*
I agree. I can only try to think outside of the box but I am constrained by the limitation the box put upon me, like most of us.
However all I stated is that noone can ultimately define *bad* and *good* as we all are constrained. Believing that you are not constrained is also a constrain (as you have noticed it recursed towards me.)
Let me regress: I expect noone who lives in a society to be able to come up with unconstrained definitions for *bad* and *good* that can be accepted by all cultures at all time as the ultimate definitions.
Cheers.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
All of the math is dealing with limited sets of data. The math dealing with limitless input sizes becomes to complex. In computers we have a field named "Complexity Theory" that deals with limitless inputs. However math that is useful to us is dealing with finite input sizes and finite states. Math never deals with notions of *good* and *bad* this is left to philosophy. Philosophy is constantly dealing with inputs of infinite sizes and with infinite number of unknowns and with states that cannot be replicated and thus are not repeatable. What you really are looking for is a science that can completely describe human behaviour and we do not have that kind of science yet. We do have sociology, which attempts to study behaviour of groups. Imagine that there was a science to describe human behaviour, at this point all notions of *good* and *bad* could be dropped since we would have a complete picture of behaviour at hand and we would not need such incomplete and ambiguous notions. Human behaviour all of a sudden could be replicated by an automaton. Would you say that an automaton can do something in a *bad* way and something else in a *good* way? Is your computer *bad* or *good* in ultimate sence of the word? *Good* and *bad* are irrelevant for computers and for humans that can be replicated by automatons and *good* and *bad* will only apply to those who could be replicated by automatons.
I think this is enough from me on the topic in this thread.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2, Insightful)
The benefits and drawbacks of views and courses of action are implicitly defined by your goal and constraints. If you think, "Houses for all, but no slave labour," then you've got a goal, but your constraints mean you can't force people to work to achieve it. But it's objectively neither wrong nor right; it's just a goal with constraints.
No, I don't think this technocratic and ignorant of society. There's plenty of room to talk about what's acceptable. But don't bastardise the semantics to support a point of view.
Morals vs Methods (Score:2)
But the notion that it is objectively better is wrong, because the notion of an "absolute moral standard" has no foundation. To borrow an analogy: what is space without the objects in it? If you claim an absolute (objective) moral standard, what defines it, how and why?
I disagree with your notion of objective morals, as I've said. As it happens, it seems we share at least some of our morals, although we don't share our basis for arriving at them. In fact, I find your reasoning dangerous: it abdicates responsibility for your morals. Pointing to "objective", "absolute" or any other morals as the core of your beliefs leaves you free to never question those beliefs.
Re:Morals vs Methods (Score:2)
If I choose, I can fault anyone for holding any beliefs. I would tend to fault them if I thought their beliefs hypocritical, or their actions not aligned with their stated beliefs (which may well be the same thing). This because I choose to believe by my beliefs. That's what freedom is. Not pretending that your beliefs are inherently superior and thus pretend them "objectively" correct, but own up to them, live by them, seek the company of those who are like minded, and defend against those who would seek to impose a different way of life.
In terms of actions, that's how people live, regardless of how we choose to label it.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
We get mad when China doesn't want Christian "missionaries" (look at S.America: Christian =! Peace ), we get mad over the French not wanting Nazi stuff, yet we don't bow down and let the Saudi's clerics (for example only) tell us how to make laws so they fit within the realm of Islamic "right" from "wrong".
Every nation is soverign and they have a choice what to block, oh well. Just let them block their own shit instead of coming here and telling me to follow their rules. Like I've said before, I don't mind book burning - as long as they aren't my books.
Heck, I'm still going to use underground Russian proxies to surf the net. (that is until those shut down...)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
We have no say so in the matter. Just as group like right-wing Saudi clerics have no say so in what our women should were, if we should allow computers and mobile phones and all that jazz.
The only thing we can do is bitch about it. We can't vote in Russia. Of course we will bitch about it though because we have freedom of speech and enjoy it.
The point is China doesn't write our laws and we don't tell the citizens of Bagdad what to do.
Just get over it. Sure it's news but we can't expect everyone to take our lead.
I would die over someone elses Fr1st Amendment rights but what Russia or any other country does is out of my control.
FoS doesn't always mean great things, we even recognize that and have the "clear and present danger" precedent (although not that straight forward, but I'm pressed for time right now).
Curbing "hateful" speech sounds good, and maybe it won't work at all. But get over it if you don't live in Russia.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking what we have/do is right and what they have/do is wrong is ethnocentric.
Simply you must get over it. There are other parts of the world that you could meddle with if you are that concerned.
If you want to do something for your fellow man then feed someone don't defend a Nazi's right to speech. I just don't think this is on the list of things to do.
Sure, in theory and rhetorics it's a great thing to stand up for but there are other things out there to foam at the mouth over.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
What are you, retarded? You don't see that enslaving and murdering one's citizens is wrong no matter what ethnicity you are? Imposing democracy and free speech is one thing, slaughtering your citizens for the length of their beards is another altogether. I don't give a shit how the Afghani hardline Islamics justify their treatment of women or their murder of citizens. They can quote passages from the Koran all day long and you still can't convince me that it is RIGHT, or that if other countries are able to that they should not stop it. I'm not a religious person, this is not a religious debate, this is a basic human decency issue.
I can't stand people on slashdot sometimes. They say stupid shit like the above poster without actually thinking it through. They make these huge sweeping conclusions without taking a step back and thinking.. "wait a minute, murder and enslavement is bad no matter what..". For the love of scrod FUCKING THINK.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
I'm simply stating that one groups ideas are not always shared by another. One mans god is anothers devil.
I in no way was trying to justify what is going on in murderous regimes through out the world.
I was however trying to explain that maybe Russia, being the democracy that it is, wants to put a limit on free speech and we should respect it.
Murder and enslavement is bad but we are not the world police and you aren't either. No one is, there is not much you can do.
But since you brought it up, why not try to do something about the millions of men, women and children being brought out of Sudan and killed or sold into slavery in the middle east? Why not bring up the fact that Saudi Arabia is the last functioning Monarchy on the planet? Why not? Because we have no legal or moral right to do anything.
Too bad.
But please don't fucking try to flame me. You didn't read my post and you are a fucking fool. I no where mentioned the Taliban. If I was to bring up murderous regimes it would be the alliance with our own gov't and the Northern Alliance, the 80's alliance with bin Ladin, our use of the "dirty bomb" (aka tatical nuclear weapons) in Iraq, the fact that we, like you, ignore the situation in Africa (Africa for Islam). We prop up the Saudi's and support them for oil when most of their nation doesn't want them in power anymore - but we keep it going by the grace of our own two president Bush's, this is why we were attacked.
Afghanistan's hardliners came from and were supported by Pakistan (and the USA in a small portion)... so where is there a connection to Saudi Arabia? Oh... there isn't you fucking chode.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
So when the Nazis are the majority, what they have/do will be right, too?
Besides, what's your problem, anyway? By your unextrapolatable value system, there's nothing wrong with us being ethnocentric.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
I don't know what this means. But assuming it means if they were in power they would look down on us... that is their whole stance. That is why they are a facist. That is what we are becoming. We use our values to say things like "those dirty Ruskies and their not having free speech!". That is how things work - you use the idea to rise people to action.
I'm not saying anyone is right. No one can be. Fact is that America is just another nation. Sure it gets people to sign up for the army when you say those things like "god bless america" and all that but it's all the American Meme talking.
Besides, what's your problem, anyway? By your unextrapolatable value system, there's nothing wrong with us being ethnocentric.
Well... there in fact isn't anything wrong with being a xenophobic little man, it is what has got us this far but being ethnocentric is what kills other cultures and I don't think we want to go at it with the Russians (that is if everyone here is right and hardliners took over and now they are limiting free speech because they are against freedom.)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Thinking what we have/do is right and what they have/do is wrong is ethnocentric
Oh really. So criticizing apartheid was ethocentric. Criticizing Saddam starving and bombing his own people is ethnocentric. Criticizing racist policies in Israel or suicide bombers from Palestine is ethnocentric. Criticizing Zimbabwe's racist and murderous farm policies is ethnoscentric. I guess its just in the culture of other people to be oppressed and want to kill each other. We'll just leave that to them.
It's that simple.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
It's that simple.
See. I've lost patience.
You dumb fucking bastard. I didn't speak of anything murderous. This isn't the first reply like this either of course.
We never did anything about any of these things (except apartheid kinda). We ignore the enslavement of Sudan's citizens - we drop "dirty" bombs in Iraqi schools!
We are ethnocentric because we think their versions of oppression are bad while we do the same shit! We aren't perfect and if you think so it's obvious I'm dealing with a mental midget.
We can't be international police when we can't have the international court either. Because by the opposite (to my idea) would say that everyone in the world has to have due process and a jury trial by his or her peers and all that jazz.
See, the only way we can extend our Constitution to other parts of the world would be through war and annexation.
Russia is a democracy regardless... shut up about what they do and get back to criticizing our leaders, that is what your job is
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
You dumb fucking bastard. I didn't speak of anything murderous
You said that imposing our values on others is ethnocentric. I pushed you to see whether you had really thought that position through to its natural conclusions. It seems you did not so you got angry.
I believe that individuals everywhere have the right to criticize governments everywhere. It's as simple as that. We are one human family and oppression in Russia bothers me because Russians are my kin.
We are ethnocentric because we think their versions of oppression are bad while we do the same shit!
Do you read Slashdot? There are more articles criticizing American censorship than any other country! Foreigners chime in (as they should) on those threads. Why should not Americans chime in on threads about Russians?
See, the only way we can extend our Constitution to other parts of the world would be through war and annexation.
That's bullshit. Many constitutions around the world are based in small or large part on one of the older Western ones (like the American or French one) because many of the ideas in those constitutions are universal. If the only way to spread the idea of freedom was through war then the idea of democracy would not have spread from ancient Greece to modern America, would it?
Re:Christian = !Peace (Score:2)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Who owns Russia's culture? The corrupt government, or the people trying to speak out about it?
Who owns Islamic culture? The radical Islamists preaching hate, or the people executed for speaking out about them?
In order to suppress speech, you need to suppress someone who is speaking. I think that he probably has some right to his culture, don't you?
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Yeah, no shit. We should have left the Nazis alone. It's a good thing we didn't waste our time in Cambodia and Rwanda. I mean, those societies have their own beliefs.
If you think "our beliefs" (Score:2)
This isn't about wanting other societies to follow our beliefs, this is about wanting other societies to not prevent their minorities (even their stupid ones) from expressing theirs.
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
Re:Always good to see... (Score:2)
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 applies even to Russians.
news? (Score:2)
Of course it's a limitation of free speach. Not everyone believes free-speech should be the most valuable of rights.
Re:news? (Score:2)
It would have been just as big news if China had shifted their policy in the other direction.
- James
Hold on a sec (Score:2)
So.... People in countries not subject to Russian law will be subject to this Russian law?
Vladimir Pekhtin, leader of President Putin's "unity" faction, told the Strana.ru Web site, "The most important thing is that the new bill sets the goal of fighting extremism activities. Thus, it outlaws not only ideas but the actions of persons and organizations threatening the rights and civil liberties of our citizens and the entire constitutional order in Russia."
So they plan to protect civil liberties by banning ideas?
Pekhtin cited examples such as mass brawls staged by football fans,
Ah yes, so soccer riots are triggered by the internet, now it all makes sense!!
Also opposed to the Draft on Contravention of Extremist Activities were members of the Communist Party, who feared they could be targeted as illegal extremists.
You just have to appreciate the irony of that last statement!
Re:Hold on a sec (Score:2)
the biggest threat to free speech (Score:2, Offtopic)
Free speech you might have, but if the other one is yelling ten times louder, you are not very likely to be heard. I think that a better measure for freedom of speech is to calculate who owns the media and what are their intentions.
Re:the biggest threat to free speech (Score:2)
The situation is to some extent same in United States, Russia, Germany - and even the tiny little Finland, in which I live.
Well, let's emphasize "to some extent." It's a real stretch to compare Russia to the US in terms of freedom of the press. Yes, big corporations control the most of the media in the liberal West; but other voices exist, and they don't get killed for expressing their opinions.
Now They'll All Want One! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's my WildConjecture(tm) that this is what's going on here and elsewhere in the world on a variety of issues.
The US pushes through a bunch of dodgy legislation based on an unspecified "threat" that is deemed to exist, called "terrorism". Not I am not saying that this threat doesn't exist - it may well - that's not the point. The point is by invoking this "terrorism" they get to legislate stuff that wouldn't normally fly.
And so a bunch of other countries, dying for any excuse to put through some dodgy legislation of their own, jump at the chance. You can get anything through parliament, they realise, if you just attach that scary "terrorism" rider.
Tell me it isn't so!
Be Quiet! Now they'll all want one! Indeed.
Kind of reminds me of the International Criminal Court situation. The US applauds because Slobby (Milosevic) is caught and tried, but doesn't want to become a member itself, fearing trial for people like, say, oh pick anyone you like, any of the usual suspects. And so because the US doesn't join, other countries who we'd all love to see front a court for crimes against humanity have a class A reason not to. Here's a review of a great book [dannyreviews.com] on the subject.
Re:Now They'll All Want One! (Score:2)
See, Milosevic wouldn't be in any trouble if he hadn't signed on to those pesky Dayton Accords. Kind of like how the Germans wouldn't have been in all that trouble in Nuremberg if it weren't for those silly Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords they signed back in the 20's and 30's. International law doesn't apply unless you let it. And what the ICJ is looking for is signatures on a blanket statement that says "we agree to be held in your jurisdiction all the time, no matter the circumstances."
We USAians are rather touchy about things like sovereignty and who's jurisdiction is who's. Individual states have to go through an extradition process before prisoner can be exchanged. It was very early in our history that the states passed a federal amendment that prevented a state from being sued by another state's citizen. Heck, our civil war (the bloodiest war in history for nearly 50 years) was fought essentially over a technicality in dividing state and federal rights.
Even now in the 21st century US states and the federal government are still arm-wrestling over their division of powers. And you think we're all just going to submit ourselves to another level of jurisdictions and legal powers just like that? You, sir, are funny.
"And so because the US doesn't join, other countries who we'd all love to see front a court for crimes against humanity have a class A reason not to."
It's better to have a thousand criminals go free...
Re:Now They'll All Want One! (Score:2)
You should look it up...
Re:Now They'll All Want One! (Score:2)
What credible sources do you base your opinions on?
From the horses mouth: This [cia.gov] is what the CIA has to say about it's admitted covert ops in Chile. Look at the "Track II"-strategy. It says that "CIA was directed to seek to instigate a coup" against a democratically elected president.
By the way, in the same document the CIA admit [cia.gov] that the US knew about the coup 1973 in advance (which you denied in your post).
That much is fact, so don't try to rewrite history, please.
The fact remains, whatever you may think of him Allende was a democratically elected president.
Another fact is that a lot of people disapeared during Pinochet's rule, never to be seen again.
The Chilean state officially recognises at least 3000 cases of people "dissapering" extrajudicial executions and death under torture. [amnesty.org]
Reality is never black or white. But Pinochet overthrew a democracy, and the USA aided and applauded him.
Scary maybe, but also true.
Re:Now They'll All Want One! (Score:2)
Yes, but if you read the document you will find that it acknowledge that the CIA was told to instigate a coup in 1970. I'll make it easy on you and include the relevant paragraph: If that's not interfering interfering in foreign governments I don't know what is, that they failed that time is not an excuse. Even the friggin' US government admits they did it, so why don't you just accept it for the fact it is.
And about you portraying Pinochet as some kind of friend of democracy.
Oh, come on! He had thousands of his own citizens tortured to death, created a dictatorship that lasted more than 15 years and at during that time (among other things) had himself declared senator for life, as well as securing amnesty for the torturers.
To make him look like anything else than an utter asshole, you have to put him next to Stalin or Hitler.
Note that I never claimed that Allende was a saint, simply a victim. And in that, no sainthood is implied.
Re:Now They'll All Want One! (Score:2)
Credible human rights groups? Amnesty says >3000, Chilean state says >3000. Nuff said.
And about the US not aiding Pinochet. I never claimed to have proof that the sucessful coup attempt had direct US support. But did Pinochet have US support after the coup? Definitly!
How about this (again, from the horses mouth) piece [state.gov]? It is a White House Press Statement, also available from U.S. Department of State here [state.gov]. I quote: The Church Report [state.gov], written in 1975 and available from available from U.S. Department of State. Claims that: Or, my personal favourite, from the same report... So, you see, the US does not disput that it aided the pinochet regime.
As of Pinochet being the lesser evil, frankly, that makes me sick. He had thousands of people tortured to death!
As far as I know noone has even accused Allende of crimes of that magnitude. (Yes, torturing people to death, outlawing and killing your opposition and beeing a dictator for one and a half decade is worse than nationalizing banks IMHO.)
I can't stop you from prefering Pinochet over Allende, but claiming that, and i quote what you said a few posts back: Namely, the US had no idea that the coup was coming, and was as taken by surprise as anyone else. or that Pinochet recieved no covert US support is just trying to rewrite history.
No different from claiming there was no holocaust.
Just because you whish it there was no US support to Pinochet doesn't make it so. The US governemnt aknowledges these fact, why can't you?
Tell me something... (Score:2)
If we want to protect free speech, but prevent smut from reaching children, why doesn't anyone just block IMAGES from questionable sites?
I mean, the text on those sites may not exude family values, but I've never head someone complain that it's so terrible: 'Johnny is *reading* about naked girls'.
Blatant smut can be blocked all together, while questionable sites can simply have their binary data blocked, allowing only text/html. While that doesn't prevent UUEncoded data, et al, it should make 99% of parents happy...
Anyone disagree?
Re:Tell me something... (Score:2)
) (
( o )
Eee-yowza!
GMFTatsujin
I prefer de facto censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideally, governments allow greater freedoms while encouraging good citizenship and common decency through education. This is the only mitigation between freedom and security. The United States has generally followed this path, more so than most other countries (although I think that this is being massively undermined by lower standards in grade-school education).
However, the U.S. is lucky in that its population is generally happy, free, educated, and less vulnerable to extremeties such as fascism, whether American, Russian, German, Islamic, or whatever.
A potential drawback to greater freedom is that de facto censorship becomes far more common (i.e. censorship based on the personal views of the owners of information distribution). Censorship happens - it just depends on who is doing it. Instead of the government ordering sites to be shut down, ISPs (and traditional media such as newspapers and tv for that matter) would refuse to "do business" with purveyors of extreme views.
Let the extreme fools talk. Good people will generally refuse to sell them any soap boxes.
- James
Censoring "anti-religious activities"... (Score:3)
This could, of course, be a code word for antisemitism. The problem there is not that it is hate directed at a religion, but at a group of people. Big difference. I think I even speak for most religious people when I say that there are more fundamentalist religious websites that scare me, offend me and can have far more dangerous consequences than any "anti-religious" stuff.
But what is the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
America right now is in such a state of panic (well, the government is...) that they would go out of their way to crush your message.
Let's look back to the Committees on Anti-American Activities. So many lives were ruined and people were forced to answer up because they believed in something that "threatened" America (note: some didn't even believe, they were just accused). Now even though people here were afraid because of the obvious reasons - the Communist party was on the ballott. They still would have to be elected to gain any power. In fact AFAIK, no one has ever been elected under the party.
So, is this a YRO story? Kinda. But only if you are in Russia. To change this you'd have to be Russian and you would have to vote out the bastards doing this. If no one objects then... oh well.
Of course "anyone who give up freedom for security deserves neither". But that is an American quote. My guess is that lots of people here would be jumping to restrict KKK or Al-Quesadilla sites fast.
It's a funny thing. Bush has used the word "terrorism" so much that he is starting to become a tumor, ah I mean terrorist himself. His speeches scare more people than a picture of bin Ladin or the falling Twin Towers.
Just wait till they sue over the LoTR Part II title claiming it's offensive.
Re:But what is the difference? (Score:2)
Too late, sortof. Some idiot has already created a petition movement to have the movie retitled. They seem to think there was never a book written by that name dozens of years ago.
And did you hear about the Starbucks ad campaign that was pulled? Two bottles of iced tea with a dragonfly in the background, can't have that happening. This country if full of idiots.
Re:But what is the difference? (Score:2)
Got this place is fucked up.... and we are making fun of Russia.
Re:But what is the difference? (Score:2)
It's the first thing to do to become a "good" leader.
For example Billy Grahm (spelled right? fuck it he's a bigot) rose up on Senator Joe's coat tails preaching "Communism must die or Christianity".
I could give you a huge list of artificial enemies conjured up to get power. Communism was one of those.
Required reading for everyone on Slashdot:
The Lucifer Priciple, Howard Bloom.
http://www.bookworld.com/lucifer/
Russia to has politicians (Score:2)
russian political system (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:russian political system (Score:2)
One tends to be concerned about censorship laws because the regulations can be a lot wider in implementation than originally planned. For example, China used to have a blanket ban on pornography. Fine, but in the eyes of the Chinese government, democratic politics was also classified as pornography.
I am sorry, I know how laws can work and be abused inside the new Russia. For example, the campaign by the FSB against Nikitin who was a former military officer who used public sources to collate data on nuclear waste disposal issues in the Russian Navy for Bellona [bellona.no], an environmental outfit. Similar cases include that of Grigory Pasco, a journalist investing illegal dumping of radioactive waste in the sea of Japan.
Some religious sects will also feel the pinch. Perhaps this isn't a bad thing as some cults are really money-making rackets. However, it does appear that the Orthodox Church (not afraid of a little business itself) uses the rules about sects against other genuine religious groups.
The problem is that the environmentalists are particularly worried that the new rules will be applied to them. There is politics and big money associated with pollution (as everywhere), and it is felt that such influence will be used to have web sites shut down.
Putin is definitely one of the better presidents, but I'm sorry that once a KGB man, always a KGB man. The training is designed to instil a certain mindset.
FINALLY (Score:2)
It's nice to finally see Russia shedding the democratic veneer it's been wearing for the past decade like so much bad makeup.
"Communist-turned-democratic" my ass. Yeltsin turned the Russian gov't into a virtual dictatorship then handed it over to a former KGB spook. An uninformed populus is fed bullshit through state-owned media outlets while Putin pays lip-service to a castrated Duma and does whatever he wants. It looks alot more like Napoleonic France than any sort of democracy to me.
Re:FINALLY (Score:2)
"Communist-turned-democratic" my ass.
Democratic my ass.
The US isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. You (unless you happened to be an elected official) don't make the laws - you elect people to do that for you.
The people of Russia do the same.
Yeltsin turned the Russian gov't into a virtual dictatorship then handed it over to a former KGB spook.
In 1991, when a military coup threatened to overthrow Mikhail Gorbachev's government and put an end to the democratic reforms that he had begun, Boris Yeltsin risked his life opposing them and championed the cause of a truly democratic Russia.
When was the last time you put your life on the line for democracy? When was the last time an official in the upper echelons of the US government did the same?
And Russian President Vladimir Putin is a former KGB operative - so what? Weren't US Presidents J Edgar Hoover and George Bush Sr CIA chiefs?
Furthermore, Yeltsin didn't just "hand over" anything to anyone - Putin was democratically elected to his post by a majority of the Russian people. Which is more than can be said of George W Bush.
An uninformed populus is fed bullshit through state-owned media outlets while Putin pays lip-service to a castrated Duma and does whatever he wants.
Oh dear. Do you really think that the average American has a clue about global affairs? About how the rest of the world views them? Do you think the news that you get on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, etc is evenhanded and unbiased? Do you really think that Senators and Congressmen serve their constituents before they serve themselves? Do you really believe that Dubya is a good president, serving America's long-term interests?
Two facts for you to think about.
1. Only 5 percent of Americans have passports - what does that suggest to you about Joe Average's knowledge of other nations, cultures and societies?
2. The biggest library in the US is the Library of Congress. It's paid for by taxpayers but taxpayers can't use it.
I suggest that, in the future, before you completely write-off other societies (especially those that you have no first-hand knowledge of) that you first examine the one you live in first.
Democracy (Score:2, Interesting)
However, no government always makes the right decisions, so neither can a totalitarian governement. Many people in western society believe that democratic governments are Good, and non-democratic governments are Evil. But what defines ``democratic''? In an absolute democracy, the people vote on every decision a government makes. This makes the government extremely inefficient, and it leads to many bad decissions. This is caused by the fact that governments decide on many issues that many people are not knowledgeble enough to judge on.
Nowadays, governments refered to as ``democratic'' usually follow the paradigm of electing a new government every so often, which will then rule the country until the next elections. There are two forms: democracies, where the responsibilities are divided over a number of individuals, and republics, where a president can make decisions on every aspect of society. Most governments are somewhere in between, and the power of individuals or individual bodies is usually restricted, either through a strict separation of legislative organs (trias politica) or a system of checks and balances.
The problem with a system where governments are elected for a certain period of time, is that, once governments are elected, they can in fact do whatever they want. This is usually bad policy, because doing something contrary to the will of the people will lead to that party or person not getting elected next time. However, a number of factors complicate the issue. First of all, a government can do a lot to influence its people. The two main ways of doing this are censorship and propaganda. Censorship refers to the process of prohibiting material that the government considers harmful, propaganda refers to the government promoting certain practices or a certain way of thinking. Every government that I am aware of practices both censorship and propaganda to a certain extent.
Then there is the issue of influencing people before the elections. A proven technique to win votes in democratic governments is to just cry out loud that the former government made terrible mistakes, making people afraid of something, and promising to correct that through imposing strict law and order. This is a strategy most suitable for extremist parties, and has proven succesful in history, and has been practiced in recent elections in Israel and many European states. From an outsider's point of view, the feelings of insecurity raised by those parties usually seem very unreasonable. Governments try to protect their citizens from this kind of mass-hysteria by outlawing certain parties known to play on people's feelings. This is meant to protect the people against themselves (as many such parties tend to be either incompetent, or not really concerned about their citizens), but can be taken too far, leading to governments sustaining their own reign through the power they have.
Another issue is the influence of the media. Media have a very strong influence on how people think, and what they consider important. In some states, the media are entirely controlled by the government. This is a dangerous situation, because it makes it very easy for the government to manipulate people's thoughts. In other states, the media are entirely free, that is, the government does not have any direct control over them. This is also a dangerous situation, as the most popular media tend to be controlled by large corporations. Corporations have certain interests that correspond with the programmes of certain political parties better than with others. Independent media, therefore, have much to gain by influencing people to vote for certain parties rahter than others. The influence of corporations on elections becomes even stronger when one takes the cost of election campaigns into consideration. These are usually vast, and it is not unusual for parties to accept money from corporations to fund their election campaigns. Even if the corporations do not ask the party to do anything in return, by merely giving money to a party they favor that party over the others, increasing chances of that party to win the elections.
The point I have tried to make here, in a rather lengthy way, is that no government is free of issues. There's always something wrong, sometimes there simply isn't a right way. Banning out certain parties isn't necessarily bad. Being undemocratic isn't necessarily bad. Restricting freedom isn't necessarily bad. It all depends.
---
Anybody that wants the presidency so much that he'll spend two years
organising and campaigning for it is not to be trusted with the office.
-- David Broder
Gosh, how horrid (Score:3)
Free speech in US... (Score:2)
calling russia a democracy nowadays (Score:2)
The big question to me is... (Score:2)
Are we talking about a bill proposed by old-school comunists in Russia, or by a bill proposed by pro-EU elements? Keep in mind that this kind of law is very common in EU member states.
Who am I more afraid of? The pro-EU folks. They're the ones that seem to have a lousy track record with writing up touchy-feel anti-speech laws on the one hand and then not imposing them evenly on the other. After all, you can't talk bad about any other religion. Unless it's Islam [bbc.co.uk]. Then it's OK to talk about sealing off your borders to people from Arab countries just because a small percentage of their citizens happen to be terrorists. Racial profiling? Oh, no, that's that thing that only happens over in the US. Not in the EU.
Say what you will about the Soviets, but they had at least one thing going for them: While they were brutally opressive, they were generally brutally opressive evenly across all religions and cultures. If Christians and Muslims started killing each other in one of the Soviet republics or one of their satellite regimes, Moscow got grumpy, which made the KGB grumpy, which made the Red Army officers grumpy, and you go on down the line until you have a really grumpy soldier with a Kalashnikov who didn't give a rat's ass who worshipped who. And damn if things didn't get real quiet real quick. Keep in mind that all the trouble in Yugoslavia didn't happen until after the collapse of the USSR.
Irony (Score:2)
-
Anti terrorism is a front (Score:2)
Right -- Like Russia doesn't already have laws against rioting in the streets, randomly assaulting people or setting bombs that to injure and/or kill people cleaning up graffiti.
There's no need for laws against those things, because they're already illegal.
The laws are, however really useful against anybody who is doing something you don't like -- including political parties starting to gain popularity. The nice thing about those laws is that they have very vague definitions of what's illegal and very broad descriptions of what you can do about it -- and when someone gets arrested 'for violating anti-terror laws' most people aren't going to realize that the real 'crime' was threatening to become a real alternative to the current ruling party(s).
But it's not like Canada and the US have been that much better with our so-called 'anti-terror' either! Canada's law would have classified general strikes as terrorism), and US laws seem to allow them to hold US citizens indefinitely and without trial if they are deemed 'illegal combatants' even if they've never left US soil.
Re:Wrong approach... (Score:3)
Now you, and others, keep claiming this, but the fact remains that every single government which has described itself as communist has been murderous and totalitarian. Every single one. And every single one has said, as you say, that `what went before was not really communism. We are the true communism.
Actually the party was Communist, the government and social/economic system was Socialist. US didn't cease to be a Republic when Clinton was a President, did it?
The Cradle of Totalitarianism (Score:2)
So, while you may say `trust us, we'll be different this time, we mean it', you'll have to forgive us if we're not willing to take that chance.
You believe that because you've only read the history that tells you about the totalitarian ones. Read "Rogue State" by Philip Blum [barnesandnoble.com]. When you've finished that, try "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn [barnesandnoble.com], and "Heroes" by John Pilger [amazon.com].
The fact is that there have been many attempts at democratic socialist and communist states, e.g. Kerala state in India [multinationalmonitor.org], Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala [rose-hulman.edu], and they have been mostly been stamped down hard by murderous, totalitarian right-wing regimes, usually assisted by the United States gov't. I'm talking about murderous, totalitarian right-wing regimes like Indonesia, Peru, Chile and Colombia, with murderous totalitarian dictators like Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, Stroessner in Paraguay, Somoza in El Salvador, the Shah of Iran, etc. President Reagan once described Gen. Efrain Rios-Montt, the butcher of Guatemala, as "totally dedicated to democracy", and complained that he'd had a "bum rap" on human rights.
For that matter, the US is happy enough to support China, which is about as "Communist" today as it has ever been, to the point of extending them Most Favored Nation trading status, regardless of their brutal totalitarian practices. It's not the ideology that the US objects to you, you see, it's the money. So long as the money flows, so long as there's oil, or chromium, or bauxite, or new markets for Nike and Microsoft, or whatever else the US govt is after that week, "Communist" or "Capitalist", it makes no difference.
I was raised to believe the same right-wing propaganda as you were, pal. It never occurred to me that my teachers and parents could have got it so completely wrong. Go read the history for yourself, and decide for yourself whether ideology has any connection with totalitarianism.
Standard right-wing ad hominem (Score:2)
"Standard lefty drivel", that's rather imprecise. Kindly name some "undocumented claims" from any of the three books I suggested, and I will document them for you.
Nor does Kerala make a good example -- it may or may not call itself communist (I am not convinced that it does)
You're not? Well, what would convince you? It has on and off since 1957 been ruled by a majority of elected Communist Party members. What else would you call it?
Your other examples are equally flawed, from Guatemala, where for all your complaining the people you name did establish a democracy which is free and strong to this day,
The right-wing junta was finally wound up once it was no longer necessary to suppress the popular left-wing movement. They "went legit", like mafias eventually do everywhere. No-one has answered for the terrible mass murders commited by the right-wing government there, the over 200,000 dead and disappeared. But this is beside the point. A peacful democratic Communist movement was brutally suppressed by right-wing totalitarians, rebutting your contention that "every single government which has described itself as communist has been murderous and totalitarian. Every single one." Perhaps you would like to qualify that statement, now that you are faced with evidence to the contary?
to Pinochet, who stepped down peacably when voted out of office in elections he had called --
Repsonding to pressure from the Reagan administration, which was embarrassed by all the bad publicity, and no longer had any significant left-wing opposition remaining to worry about in Chile. Pinochet had become a liability, so the US asked him to step down. Pinochet made sure to pass a law granting himself and all his torturing, murdering pals immunity before stepping down, of course. They're still fighting that battle now in the courts. But once again, this is beside the point. The Marxist Allende govenrment was democratically elected, and the right-wing Pinochet tore the elected government down in a coup, supported by the US. Your original statement, that "every single government which has described itself as communist has been murderous and totalitarian. Every single one." is once again proven demonstrably false.
Will you be revising that earlier statement then?
Tame and substantiated (Score:2)
http://www.converge.org.nz/lac/articles/news990
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0327/p08s01-
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/tunion/199
Likewise, you keep repeating that Allende was elected democratically, as if this made it okay that he suspended Chile's democracy and called in foreign troops to help suppress his rivals.
Pardon? What foreign troops?
You offer various theories as to why Pinochet created democracy, but you cannot deny that he did.
I never offered any theories about Pinochet "creating democracy". He was asked to leave by the White House, so he did. The Chilean people themselves created any democracy there, despite our and Pinochet's best efforts. Good luck to them: they deserve a decent life after what we put them through. Why do you continue to act as an apologist for a brutal dictator without a democratic bone in his body?
And you repeat the claim that the CIA was behind Pinochet's coup, even though you yourself posted documents earlier in this thread denying that.
You appear to be confusing me with some other person rebutting your right-wing claptrap: I did no such thing. May I see the link to documents I posted denying the CIA was behind Pinochet's coup please?
Ingratitude (Score:2)
The "history" you keep threatening to cite is most probably from your favorite authors, right wing, pro-US-govt sources. Mine is from left-wing sources. You rely on yours being endorsed by the US govt for them to be taken as gospel. You're clearly surprised that I don't agree. It's like arguing the case for religious pluralism with Mullah Omar.
You ask me to look at "any history of the period". I have looked at many, they all disagree with you, apart from the ones by avowed right wingers like yourself. Surprise.
As for Pinochet, to repeat, I am not defending him, but you cannot deny that he held democratic elections, and stepped down when his party lost.
Sounds an awful lot like defense of him to me. And yes, I deny it, and so do most non-govt historians. You present his actions as if he did them to be democratic. He did not. He was pressured to hold elections, and there was no longer any threat to him from holding them. Castro would do the same if he could.
This stands in sharp contrast to Mr. Allende, who suspended democracy in Chile.
No, his own army turned against him, and therefore it was the army that suspended democracy, not Allende. He then reacted in kind. This is not the act of a totalitarian, though you clearly would like to think so, if only to feel better about what Kissinger, perhaps the most evil man alive, did to that poor miserable country. Even Bush thinks it's OK to suspend certain US citizens' rights in wartime. The US also had no problem helping the Venezuelan army tearing up the Venezuelan constitution last month, and ateempting to install some oil consultant in place of the democratically elected President Chavez. But they clearly screwed up, and forgot to make sure the whole army was with them this time around. They may yet succeed on a later attempt.
I note that you also credit the US with pressuring Mr. Pinochet to do so -- so what, exactly, is your complaint about US action?
Under most circumstances, I would be glad of this kind of pressure. But since it was the US that put Pinochet in power int he first place, and since it's the US that has trained up dictators and their henchmen in the fine arts of torture and suppression of internal dissent for decades at the School Of The Americas at Fort Benning, you'll forgive me if I don't weep for joy when the US decides it's time for one of its tame dictators to take a hike. The same could be said about US support for Noriega. While it suited the US, they supported him, and winked at his drug trade. As soon as he was no longer useful, the US gave him the heave-ho. Should we applaud this? Should we be grateful? No thank you.
Re:"communist-turned-democratic"? (Score:2)