The most obvious solutions, which are being paid for by the United States Consumer are extending the Postal Regulations incorporating existing laws for the Internet. The wording needs to read as a part of private communications instead of mail communications. Transmissions of copyright material under the FCC can be made similar. Once a movie is transmitted ( transmission is broad ) “in any form” it can be owned by the reader/viewer and it is in the hands of the viewer. From this point forward, it is legally shared material even under copyright. You can’t stop people talking about entertainment. It would be counter productive of entertainment’s first premise.

The laws contra mail rip-offs should be applied to the Internet. The US Postal Service has raised prices to compensate monies for the reduced mail traffic, and they stated their price hikes are because of Internet competition. The laws that support people’s protections under Postal Carriers can be adjusted to customer protection. These laws were generated over an experienced three hundred years. Ben Franklin was the colonial Post Master General in 1775, and the Pony Express started before the Civil War. Laws well thought out from years of experiences came into being, and they have endured through many revisions.

The names have been changed to protect the guilty. Congressman Joe Blow and Congressman Henry Hankerer haven’t any possibility to produce laws that are as good or as exact existing from our history. To cut cost further, law enforcement needs little training and they have experience under existing laws. Millions of dollars can be saved because current training applies. The three hundred years of experience went through the hands of hundreds of government officials rendering current laws to protect the consumers and stifling illegal activities. Give the tools out of the tool chest to the right people. Their is no need to waste money by creating more government growth yeilding a different government.

Free Speech is a guarantee. The Federal Government cannot break the Constitution vagrantly although they make illusive vagueness in their dissertations to reduce the Bill of Rights. One question looms, if you are not given a second chance why are you to giving politicians second chances. Something came from their mouths and they acted opposite. Hold everyone, from your neighbor to your employer, on the same standard. No Second Chances! You got what you got without a second chance, now give equally back, don’t loan your tools, don’t give your vote, and don’t work, if promises are fleeting memories. Your iron is in the fire, now apply it. They may say they didn’t remember or the famous “I’m sorry, I can’t recollect that.” Break the philosophical spiral that may continue until humanity dies. This is not saying take advantage of others nor is it saying not to be charitable. It is saying your are the result, and this result gains you equally.

Responsibility will never be present, if the results don’t come to bear.

Think on it. Make a decision, because abuse is two fold. You must have an abuser and you must have the abused. Most people are not into sadomasochism yet you live it. In slavery there is a slave driver and the slave. The Constitution is the law of the people, and your representatives are to serve you not to be a bloodline of mastery. The Magna Carta (“The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest“) and the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments of The Constitution of the United States of America) were made to protect people from the horror of serfdom and to give the people the ability to say no to government abuse.

     To be clear, there are only two actions that those cops might be taking that would represent violation of Google’s first amendment rights.  They are using the court system to force removal of the video or abusing police authority to scare Google owners into removing the video.  The cops are doing the latter (at least) but either tactic is an attempted violation of free-speech rights.  

     Furthermore, Google’s posting of the police brutality video is not “defamation”.  Defamation involves a false portrayal of an individual or organization.  But the aforementioned video shows what actually happened: a cop brutalizing a suspect.  Therefore, the video shows the truth, not a false portrayal. 

     The cops are simply embarrassed that a “bad seed” among them has made them look bad in front of millions of viewers.  Out of this unprofessional, emotional bias, the cops violated their job parameters by telling Google to remove their brutality video.  That manipulates the fear or respect Google’s owners have for the law.  Such is an abuse of police authority and reverses the Constitution’s First Amendment clause.  It states that, “we the people” have the right to…petition the government for a redress of grievances…”.  It does not state the police (a branch of government) can petition civilians….to stifle their free-speech (i.e. the video). Therefore, Google should defend their first amendment rights and steadfastly refuse to meet the police precinct’s demand.

     Although, according to Bosker, Google has refused, it should go a step further and file the lawsuit mentioned above.  It should be for the cops’ false “defamation” charge as well as their abuse of authority.         

     Moreover, the cops should shut up about the video’s posting and fight harder against police corruption.  That will deter “borderline” cops from crossing the line and becoming “dirty”.  As a result, there will be fewer videos of police corruption in that state.  That is how cops can decrease the number of posted videos showing their misdeeds.     

     In other words, the positive benefit of posting videos (or of protesting) is that it holds guilty individuals accountable and spurs the organization to weed out corruption in their own ranks.   

     In addition to exposing corruption, it is also beneficial to post videos of honest cops exposing dirty cops.  That can help stimulate support of police whistle-blowers and encourage more cops to “turn in” dirty cops.  So, posting of a police brutality video is only the first step in the protester’s grab-bag of tactics.  Showcasing cop whistle-blowers is the second much-needed step and complements the first one. 

     In addition to police corruption, the US government in general is also being corrupt.  Bosker also reported that our government, “filed 5,950 requests for information on Google users, 93 percent of which the company complied with.”  If our government is doing that, then it means the government wants to prosecute or blacklist law-abiding citizens who want to expose governmental corruption.  Hence, the government is becoming tyrannical towards, and a threat to, peaceful citizens’ first amendment rights.  While Google was wrong for complying with 93% of those requests, it was right for opposing the police mentioned above.      

     So, let us continue exposing governmental corruption and support Google’s freedom of speech against misguided cops.    

          The key issue in this argument is one’s understanding of the first amendment as not being absolute, but only extending as far as one’s actions do not cause harm to others.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”  The Founding Fathers aimed to protect the liberty of citizens through the democratic process, however the states asked for a Bill of Rights to protect certain inalienable rights even from the majority.  The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to ensure that no majority could ever take base rights away from a minority.  However, the interpretation of these amendments is the key factor.  The Bill of Rights is meant to protect minority groups from unfair laws being passed by the majority to limit their rights; it does not give any individual the right to do whatever they want with impunity.  The Constitution aims to protect the citizens of a country from the tyranny of the majority, and this protection extends to the protecting of individuals from the unrestricted practice of other citizens.  While every person is entitled to free speech and to not be oppressed by the government, it is hardly the responsibility of government to protect the right of individuals to harm fellow citizens.  In this sense the state has the right to take some level of action to protect victims of cyber-bullying.

          The question then becomes to what extent the Kansouri legislature should punish the culprits of cyber-bullying.  The key factor in deciding the terms of any bill proposed is to ensure that the cyber-bullying has a defined victim and is not simply a means of venting anger, which would be protected by free speech provided it does not victimize any particular individual.  With the stipulation that cyber-bullying must have a defined victim, the law could constitutionally include punitive measures for students who feel the need to threaten liberty of others online.  The victims of what is essentially a hate crime are protected through the constitution more than those who are violating those persons’ freedoms.  The Kansouri legislature would be justified in passing legislation for the protection of individuals who are subject to cyber-bullying.

          The idea that free speech is an absolute right is popular among the American public.  However, the fact stands that even inalienable rights have limits that arise when the liberty of one citizen begins to threaten the basic rights of others.  The Kansouri legislature should take actions to prevent cyber-bullying in schools and would be constitutionally justified in doing so.

Even if the troll thought he was being humorous, slander (and especially of THAT nature) is despicably disgusting.

The triond forum is simply out of control.

I felt the need to speak out on this subject, to triond’s makers I have a message.

Get OFF your lazy backsides and start setting boundaries.

My necessary rant is now over.  

An anecdote:

Not too long ago I wrote an article about health benefits of masturbation. On my facebook I make no secret of my sex-positive lifestyle and shared my article. I was immediately yelled at by a woman angry that I was posting such “nasty” things and that she didn’t want her children knowing what “mastubation” is. Why she put masturbation in quotations like it’s some mythical creature is beyond me and only illustrates the point that it’s not the content we need to be afraid of, it’s how we handle and react to it. Children will know what masturbation is whether they have a name for it or not. Children explore with their hands and when something feels good, they tend to keep at it. It’s when children are caught and weighed with sexual guilt that they develop a complex. 

Our society is afraid and ashamed of sex yet embraces gratuitious violence. Sex is natural and normal, violence isn’t. Instead of trying to ban and hide sexual articles, we need to learn to embrace them and have open discussion. Parents, you can’t hide sex from your children. The hit Broadway musical Spring Awkening teaches the dangers of hiding sex and sexuality from children and pretending it doesn’t exist. Teach them, don’t ban sexuality. We’ll be a better society for it. 

(Image via morguefile)

Political correctness is a fact of life in modern society. It’s changed the way we view and use language to communicate with one another in an attempt to make sure no one is offended. We edit ourselves to make sure our words carry no trace of any ‘-ism’ – those dreaded thought patterns that are responsible for all society’s ills.

Yet what’s considered PC speech at one time might be classed as offensive a few years later. I’ve been disabled since birth. When I was a child, older people in my hometown would call me “crippled” or “lame.” In my teen years, “handicapped” was the acceptable term. At university, it was “disabled,” and that’s the term I use. Recently, I’ve seen arguments pushing for “wheelchair user,” or “differently abled,” to replace “disabled.” If the unseen forces of PC speech do decide to make those ponderous phrases the ‘proper’ terms, I’ll stick with “disabled.” My disability is more than just an inability to walk unaided. And I don’t need anyone else to tell me that I have my own set of abilities and talents.

A recent story in the National Post illustrates just how silly the whole issue of PC speech can be. In the first issue of the Journal of Animal Ethics, the editors call for a new vocabulary for animals. They argue that terms like “vermin,” “wildlife,” “animal,” and even “pet” are derogatory, betraying our human-centric bias against other living beings. Change the way we speak about animals, they claim, and we will treat animals better. I’ve had pets for most of my life. Right now, I’m watching my cat play with a blanket, blissfully unaware of the linguistic oppression and abuse she has suffered over the past 14 years. Not being able to understand complex spoken language has its advantages after all.

The fact that this subject is even up for debate proves how important it is for us to rein in the forces of PC speech before they sink their claws even further into our societal psyche. Sorry. I shouldn’t have said “claws” since that carries negative connotations. How about “extended fingernails?”

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that we have a responsibility to treat the animals we share our lives with well. I support responsible hunting and maintenance of wildlife. But when we waste time and energy debating frivolous issues like this, instead of dealing with the problems humans face in the world, it’s time to realign our priorities.

They’re trying to make us think it’s a good idea to take away our first amendment right; free speech. This is HUGE people! HUGE! This nut job above is Lindsey Graham. Yeah, this fella has a ladies name. Moving on, he advocates to get rid of the first amendment, here in the United States. These religious goons should NOT by any means try to take away our rights. Look at the world today, we have so many violations going on with our rights right now as it is. Never mind more. We don’t need any more taken away. What we NEED to do is start getting them back. We can do this by fighting this one in particular. Tell your politicians that we don’t want this. Contact any and all of them, and tell them how YOU feel about this issue. Tell them that you will not re-elect them again if they do not listen to the people’s wants. This is America, we need to get our rights back!

Image by Francisco Diez via Flickr

                I want you, the reader, to know that I do not make the following statements lightly. I believe I have been, personally, targeted by the U.S. Government.  I say this because over the past two years my computers have been infected with viruses that cause them to stop operating, crash, forcing me to reinstall the operating system on numerous occasions.

                I believe these attacks have been carried out against me because I make political jokes, relationship jokes, and I publish pictures of NYC and surrounding buildings. I make political jokes not because I have an issue with a particular official or party but because I like to find the humor behind things. I make relationship jokes because there are events that men and women share with each other or friends that I find humorous and I like to convey. I publish pictures of NYC and surrounding cities because I love the way how our architecture enhances the natural environment and want to share this.

                I thought at first that I was just unlucky. That it was because I was downloading files from the Internet, through a WI FI connection, at a few local NJ libraries, so I stopped doing that. I avoided downloading files but my computer crashed anyway just from going on their Internet! This was a net book, specifically designed for use on the Internet. So then I started using all kinds of top rate anti virus software. I still got crashes.

Finally, I got so annoyed that I only started using my computer at home, on my home Internet connection. This seemed to work well until I started realizing my computer was constantly processing data and I wasn’t using it. I know computers do things secretly but it was obvious that something was going on. It came to a head when I bought a new anti virus security program and my computer quickly silenced. Then within two days my computer crashed. I want you to know that this software fit the requirements to work on my system! And I had not had a crash by this computer in 2 years. Also when I tried to save pictures to a DVD and download them to my laptop I spent 5 hours trying to download files that should have taken me 5 minutes. It was like someone saw what I was trying to do and put up roadblocks at every turn! I would figure one way to do it, download a few, and I would get blocked. Another way to download a few and I’d get blocked.  These were pictures of NYC and a few public parks!

                So, it comes down to this, readers. The U.S. Government is no longer friendly to you if you make jokes, if you publish photos, and seems to think it can crash your computer system without any action on the victim taken.

                I am stating all this publicly because, I believe in a United States where we have freedom of speech. But, apparently our government does not believe in this anymore. They feel they can crash your computer system, gain access to your computer and delete pictures, and files they don’t like. And basically make your life hell for standing up for your rights. I am writing this article to you after having enough! Once again my computer crashed, took 2 hours to fix, and as I was fixing it I started wondering when us U.S. citizens will all start practicing communism.

For the same politicians who claimed that it was the free speech of their political allies that forced a crazy man to shoot a lovely young, congress woman, comes the proclamation that there must be the blood in the streets and the promise that they will bring a gun to a knife fight and they they have us all in their cross-hairs.

Some politicians are opportunistic liars who will say and do anything to get elected.  For instance the same people who lied and said the Tea Parties where full of racists protected a violent leftist group that pledged to kill the children of their political enemies.

Again, if their adversaries just look at them funny it is  bloody nightmare from Satan,  but if an Army Major who murders his fellow soldiers in cold blood just happens to belong to a politically correct and protected religion then the rest of us had better not jump to conclusions about him–or else.

We will tolerate ourselves and our nation into a early grave if we can not kick all of these politically correct Marxists in drag out of office.

This resolution is in no way an attack on patriotism, as anyone who wants to can still choose to recite the pledge of allegiance, whether it be before school, after school, during their lunch break, before they go to bed, when they wake up, even during class at an appropriate time. It does not discourage any of that. All it does is discourage schools from telling the students to recite the pledge.

Many people would argue that this resolution is unpatriotic; however that is simply not the case. Our nation was founded on the belief that a citizen must question and challenge their government, and as we all know, people opposing their government is exactly how we became America. This is not to say that America has an oppressive government similar to that of Great Britain in colonial times, but the principal remains the same.

American ideology demands that the people challenge, question, and actively participate in their government. To encourage students to swear their loyalty to the Republic without them understanding why they should or shouldn’t, and without them even understanding what they’re saying, undermines the very meaning of the pledge. It is indoctrination, and it is contradictory to the very principals for which America stands, and therefore, is essentially unpatriotic.

In having students recite these words, which have not been explained to most of them, we are essentially indoctrinating them with a loyalty to our republic. As kindergarten students, who among us, when asked over the school’s intercom to stand and recite the pledge of allegiance, asked “why?” Who asked what exactly we were swearing, or what kind of commitment we were making? Who understood what the words “pledge”, “allegiance”, or “republic” even meant? And who among us asked the simple question: “Do we have to say the pledge?”

            The fact is, very few of us understood any of these things. Because our teachers and classmates did it, we had the vague idea that we were doing the right thing – that this was what we should be doing. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can speak for most when I say that that was about as far as our understanding of the situation reached.

            It is wrong for the government to try to instill a specific political view in a child. Because the children don’t understand what they’re saying, or why they’re saying it, it is essentially taking advantage of their naivety. We are indoctrinating children to support their government, not because they agree with it’s policies, not out of respect for those who died to give us our freedom, but because they don’t know any better.

            Fellow senators, I stand before you today as a patriot. I am a patriot, but not in the traditional sense of the word. I don’t have an American flag hanging on my front porch, I don’t bleed red, white and blue, and honestly, my heart doesn’t swell with pride every time I see a montage of bald eagles and billowing flags accompanied by the national anthem.

            Fellow senators, I am a patriot because I believe that the fundamental principles of America – liberty and justice for all – are noble enough to stand on their own, and powerful enough to endure the tests of time. If the flag and the causes for which it stands be just, then we don’t need an oath to bind us to them.