Posts Tagged ‘Fuck Censorship’

Targeting Thought Crimes

Posted on March 13th, 2009 by Pete Eyre

Last week the BBC reported that police in Germany raided 200 flats and offices and seized “45,000 recordings, more than 170 computers and 70 weapons.” [...]

Read the rest of this entry »

Prosecuted for Attending Civil Disobedience Rally? It Could Happen to NH-Based Freedom Fighter, Ian Freeman

Posted on January 16th, 2009 by Pete Eyre

Editors Note: Special thanks to Crasher Kevin Dean for the post below. For more of Kevin’s work, check out his personal blog: http://monochromementality.com/
Internationally syndicated talk [...]

Read the rest of this entry »

Podcrash 022: Australian Internet Filter with Chris Berg of the IPA

Posted on January 14th, 2009 by Xaq Fixx

Chris Berg, head of the Australian Institute of Public Affiars IT and Telecommunications department joins us to talk about the soon coming mandatory internet filter [...]

 
icon for podpress  Standard Podcast [26:50m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (1061)
Read the rest of this entry »

South Korean Government Arrests Blogger for Speading “Malicious Rumor”

Posted on January 9th, 2009 by Pete Eyre

Park, a South Korean blogger who writes under the pseudonym “Minerva” was arrested by government agents for writing what they deem inaccurate information related to [...]

Read the rest of this entry »

Canada’s Rights-Stifling Human Rights Commission

Posted on December 26th, 2008 by Pete Eyre

In 1977 the  Canadian government created the Human Rights Commission to “to settle complaints of discrimination in employment and in the provision of services within [...]

Read the rest of this entry »

Internet Censorship is Futile

Posted on November 11th, 2008 by Xaq Fixx

Right now all around the world there are attempts to censor the internet, limiting what you can say, who’s version of the truth you are [...]

Read the rest of this entry »

One-sided science

Posted on July 21st, 2008 by Janet

Climate change is a touchy issue for a lot of people - and justifiably so. We’re talking about the future of the planet and the worldwide economy - it’s important stuff.

I don’t claim to have any kind of solution - I think claiming to understand or control our climate is even more conceited than thinking we can unilaterally run an economy.

I submitted the following while defending a fellow liberty lover against the claim that to grant any admission that there might be some climate change occurring is anti-freedom on a Western Standard Shotgun blog post:

Any claim that we can know what the climate is doing one way or another is nonsense - there’s no way that meteorologists can’t reliably tell me whether or not it’s going to rain this afternoon but some politico knows exactly what is or is not influencing the long-term climate patterns of the planet.

As such, it’s completely consistent to not have an opinion on whether or not climate changes are man-made, man-influenced, or man-independent but to have an opinion on what the best solution to concern over the issue is. Let the market decide if there is a problem, whether or not anything needs to be done to fix it, and what the best way to go about all of it might be.

The controversy doesn’t come from the complexity of the science behind global warming; it comes from meddlers on either side of the issue who are “sure” they’re right and agonizing over not being able to impose their decision on the rest of us if it’s left to the market.

Some people might think that this isn’t something that can’t be left to “the market” - some faceless body ruthlessly making decisions based on profit without taking into account what’s really important to people… but the fact is that the market is (or would be, without government interference) just a mechanism through which people indicate, through prices, what’s most important to them. Whether it’s buying stock in an environmentally friendly company or simply buying “green” products, people make all sorts of decisions indicating how important the environment is to them without turning it into a zero-sum game by involving the government.

As such, one thing I do think warrants attention is the lack of tolerance for debate on the issue by those agonizing over whether or not they’ll be the one to prescribe the solution. I don’t normally get too upset about stories of private censorship on this issue, but I find it very hard to ignore when statutory bodies such as Ofcom in the UK start censoring the debate.

Government, which is always trying to catch up to technology, is certainly not a force I want picking and choosing winners any field of scientific study*, especially one as potentially important as the study of climate change.

(*Or any field of anything, for that matter.)

Cross-posted to Liberty is Good

Read the rest of this entry »

freedom of speech and responsibility

Posted on September 10th, 2007 by Janet

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about freedom of speech. It is something that everyone in Canada and America values, or at least claims to value.

Ask a Canadian if they’d be willing to give up their freedom of speech, and they will likely tell you that in Canada we believe in free speech. Ask an American to support a candidate for president who’s running on a promise to repeal the first amendment and they’ll likely laugh in your face.

We are two of the freest countries in the world, and for all of our flirtations with socialism, free speech is something that average Canadians and Americans continue to have at least a strong superficial belief in.

So why is it that so often we hear the words “I believe in free speech, but…”

But what?

Well the one I hear most often is, “We believe in free speech, but freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.”

OK, so we need to make sure that people are responsible for their actions.
Let’s examine this argument against free speech. (And it is an argument against free speech - unless you have complete freedom of speech, you do not have free speech. Is it freedom of religion if you can be any religion but pagan/Catholic/Jewish? Same deal.)

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” Someone will almost always say. Well, actually, you can - but we hold you accountable for it. The offender must compensate the theater owner for lost business and property damage, the injured for their injuries, and must be held accountable by all the folks inconvenienced and anyone else who thinks that they’re a jerk for messing with everyone’s night out. Freedom of speech, coupled with the protection of property, will force responsibility on the offender.

Hate speech? Allow it. If someone is an outright racist or bigot, I’d rather know so that I can deny them business, avoid them, give them dirty looks, and so that their community can follow suit. Let’s unite behind whoever is under attack by the bigots and show them support in a way few other events can. Everyone loves to hate a villain. Again - freedom of speech forces responsibility on the offender.

“But what about death threats?” someone else will ask. Well, to quote Ian from Ianism (which appears to be down - what a shame), if someone is going to try to kill me, the last thing I want to do is take away their ability to warn me.

And what about free speech that doesn’t physically hurt or coerce any person or property? What about the overtly moral attempting to “protect” us from what they find offensive and therefore “damaging” to, well, who knows who. Probably the children.

Who decides what’s offensive? Those busybodies trying to ban it? Well, let’s say said busybodies are very religious. Should they be able to stop me from saying “There is no God?” Let’s hope not.
But let’s ignore that very important point for the sake of getting to the “responsibility” argument. Regardless of who’s deciding what’s OK for me to see or hear, what does censorship of this type accomplish?

Well, people aren’t offended by, for example, turning on their TV at 5:00 in the afternoon and hearing a curse word or seeing a partially naked woman. But what does this do? It takes away the responsibility of those watching the TV to mind what channels they go to, the responsibility of parents to watch their children or teach them about the things they hope they will avoid.

In the case of offended sensibilities, freedom is curtailed specifically to avoid responsibility. Is mass irresponsibility really something that we want to be encouraging? According to the people lobbying for censorship, that’s exactly the kind of mindset we should all be trying to avoid.

(cross-posted to The Natural Society and Liberty is Good)

Read the rest of this entry »

Teachers in websites closure call

Posted on August 4th, 2007 by nichoals260

The Article

Makes me remember why we need Ron Paul for President. He is for no censorship of the Internet.

Read the rest of this entry »

BONG HiTS 4 FREE SPEECH

Posted on June 30th, 2007 by drewbisson

Free speech takes a hit…

Morse v. Frederick


This is the message that terrorized our nation’s children!

The best way to fight censorship is to
propagate the censored message.
FUCK CENSORSHIP!


ACTION:

On July 4th, our small group will be out in front of the court house
with signs that say “BONG HiTS 4 FREE SPEECH”.
We are a small group, but we will notify the media.

I’m working on spreading the word to see if other small groups will join with the same simple demonstration in front of their own local court houses (also on July 4th).

We may do it again the following weekend or the weekend after.

Join us, or drive by and honk.

KICK ASS SHIRT:
Also check out this nice shirt I made just for this event: BONG HiTS 4 FREE SPEECH shirt

Read the rest of this entry »

More News

Sign-up for the Bureaucrash Bulletin

Email
First Name
Last Name

Subscribe to the Podcrash


Any Podcatcher

View in iTunes

Bureaucrash HQ

City of Dallas Bans Window Signs for Small Business

Under a Dallas law enacted in 2008, businesses are prohibited ...

Crash Accomplished

Code Red Healthcare Rally