Fearing Government Surveillance, US Journalists Are Self-Censoring 376
binarstu writes "Suzanne Nossel, writing for CNN, reports that 'a survey of American writers done in October revealed that nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance. They fessed up to curbing their research, not accepting certain assignments, even not discussing certain topics on the phone or via e-mail for fear of being targeted. The subjects they are avoiding are no surprise — mostly matters to do with the Middle East, the military and terrorism.' Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free. Americans have long protested the persecution and constraints on journalists and writers living under repressive regimes abroad, yet many seem ready to accept these new encroachments on their freedom at home.'"
Deluded ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Continuing to believe that is a sign you're delusional, not 'free'.
Re: (Score:2)
Continuing to believe that is a sign you're delusional, not 'free'.
Ah, but they have the freedom to be delusional in any way they wish...
Re: (Score:3)
agreed!! we should all aspire to be as bad as others rather than hold to our values.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I normally choose odd pictures as my avatar on Facebook. Yesterday I was about to zero in on one of the spies from Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy holding a bomb, and I decided against it. I'm middle eastern and live in the U.S. I shouldn't have to worry about such things, yet worries of surveilance coupled with my background swayed me otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember what living in "FREE AMERICA" was like.
Uh, just how old is that? I'm old enough to remember Kent State, being kicked by a middle-aged stranger because I didn't stand for the national anthem at a 4th of July fireworks display, and discussions with the school principal about my right to refuse swearing fealty to the US flag. I'm old enough to remember Eugene McCarthy and the Chicago police riot. Are you old enough to remember Joe McCarthy? HUAC? The Palmer Raids? When exactly were you living in "FREE AMERICA"? What was it like?
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you are a few years older than I am, I doubt that you remember living in a "FREE AMERICA". During the McCarthy days, you were "free" to associate with card carrying communists, of course, but the moment any of the McCarthyites found out about it, you would be dragged through an ugly media trial. After your character had been thoroughly destroyed, you were then free to actually join the party. A lot of black folk might chime in here, to remind you of the many ways that they were "free". In my lifetime, black people were denied service in white restaurants, denied seating at the front of buses, and denied access to necessary public spaces such as restrooms.
I believe that what you actually mean is, you can remember a time when you were completely unaware of civil rights violations all around you. I also remember such a time. Life was wonderful when I was five years old, and my greatest achievements included learning to ride a two-wheeled bike, and passing the test to get into first grade.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not that old, and I was born during WWII.
I can remember periods that were freer than now. But reports from the 1950s have convinced me that it probably wasn't any freer. (I was a kid, so I didn't notice.)
History also doesn't treat my illusions of earlier freedom kindly. People being arbitrarily deprived for property, and occasionally their lives, because of race...well, SOME people were free, but others were much less free.
What we have here is a corrupt government that can't be trusted, and is highly intrusive. (Those are three almost orthogonal factors...each undesireable.) The intrusiveness is incredibly strong, primarily because of technological factors. It's tremendously unhealthy for our traditional values. But if the government weren't corrupt, or could be trusted, then it would matter a lot less. (In that case it would be a potential threat rather than a believable threat.) But there have been times before when newspapers had their independence stifled by the government to a much greater degree.
The new factor is that the ownership of the news is centralized. Reporters can't now trust their editor to stand behind them, because it's no longer his call. Now it's the call of higher management, that often isn't even interested in the news business, except as a way to push ads. And reporters know this, and if they don't, their editors do, and let them know about it.
I no longer buy a newspaper, because I don't like paying people to lie to me. Similarly, I rarely listen to what a politician says...only watch what he does.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Informative)
Not get molested at airports. Protest without being required to have a permit or sent off to a free speech zone. It's not something I'd personally like to do, but there are many drugs that are illegal. The fourth amendment is being consistently ignored. There are constitution-free zones around the border. Those are just some things that are a problem at the moment. You obviously didn't try very hard if you couldn't think of one problem.
I'd also like to not have my communications spied on by the government.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Informative)
Carry a pocket knife into a government building. Ride the subway without being searched. Keep my fucking shoes on at the airport. Apply for a job without having to prove my citizenship. Not buy health insurance. Go to Canada without having to carry my passport like we could do for 99% of American history. Write DRM-cracking software. Smoke a joint if I feel like it (I don't actually want to do that, but many do, and who am I to deny them?)
Shall I go on?
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the simplest and yet most important one?
Being able to have a conversation with a couple of people about highly controversial topics without fear of the government recording your conversations, creating files on all of you, and adding you to watch lists that strongly curtail your freedom of movement?
I seem to remember the Founding Fathers being pretty fucking excited about getting that one into the framework of the country....
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. This is why an "originalist" interpretation of the Bill of Rights is paving the road to tyranny. I'm looking at you, Justice Scalia [wikipedia.org]!
In a lot of ways, the principles of the Constitution are greater than the men who framed it. One could say the same about the Magna Carta, with greater emphasis and confidence. What matters is what the principles in those documents mean to *us*, and what we do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Informative)
In Boston, at every subway station, the police set up a checkpoint one day a year and search everyone who goes through it. They do this a) to remind the citizens who is really in charge b) to keep up the security theatre that brings them Federal dollars and c) to establish a history of conducting dragnet searches so a future plaintiff cannot claim a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
If there is an American city that has a subway system and does NOT perform this annual charade, please let me know. I would be surprised but please to hear about it.
Re: (Score:3)
In Paris, I used to get searched everyday by the police before going to the library at the Centre Georges Pompidou.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not having insurance does not mean you're using the ER as your insurance. The fix is to repeal that law, not to force others to pay for the freeloaders.
Not having insurance does indeed mean you're using the ER as your insurance. If you believe that this obvious fact is not a fact, you should provide a reason for your belief.
That you feel the appropriate remedy, for what you claim is a non-existent problem, is to repeal the law requiring ER treatment indicates that you do indeed believe people without insurance are using the ER as their insurance.
A few of problems with this proposed remedy:
G.W. Bush (2007): "I mean, people have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
Mitt Romney (2012): "If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Please list some of the things you would like to do but can't because you are not free. I can't think of any.
-Feeding the homeless.
-Being homeless.
-Using a camera outside a government building.
-Searching for "Pressure Cooker" online without having troops burst through my front door.
-Not getting tazed by a cop for no good reason.
-Being able to catch a flight without putting up with high anxiety at the security check point, being groped or having my computer seized.
-Being able to read a science journal which contains actual science.
-Being able to switch on the TV and get something other than propaganda.
-Bein
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Please list some of the things you would like to do but can't because you are not free. I can't think of any.
No fly list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List [wikipedia.org]
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the point is that the US used to be a fine example of what freedom should look like.
When the US starts down this road, it's terrible news for everyone else on the planet as all of the other governments say "fuck it". And, in many cases, at the request of Americans, they've made the rest of us markedly less free as we get spied on more in order to give the US a sense of security.
America used to be one of the few free places on the planet, and was what we all hoped for. Now, not so much.
Sadly, America has almost become an impediment to everyone else's freedoms. Because they're sure as hell undermining them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo. That's exactly what I was thinking. Instead of "ha, ha, you are all delusional", people in non-US countries should be lamenting the fact that the US has become demonstrably less free, so that a higher standard to aspire (whether real or an ideal) to no longer exists. Or, create the higher standard as an example to the rest of the world. To laugh as we all race toward the bottom strikes me as the pinnacle of nihilistic cynicism.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Justice William O. Douglas had a pithy observation about this:
"As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
Re: (Score:2)
Warning: you'll need to be ADHD-free as the video is thirty minutes long :D
Re: (Score:3)
"It's not just you Yanks, either."
The thing is though: under OUR law (but not necessarily yours), the fact that the government's actions have a "chilling effect" on free speech makes the government actions prima facie unconstitutional.
This is pretty much positive proof that free speech is being "chilled". Therefore it is unconstitutional. End of story.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deluded ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You should read the correspondence of the founding fathers. They spell out very explicitly that the right to bear arms applies to individuals, and that the purpose of that right is to curb an oppressive government. The "militia" includes all able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 40, not just members of an established militia.
There is no misunderstanding on the part of gun rights advocates. The misunderstanding is intentionally spread by the gun control crowd. Government is not meant to have control over any man's ability to defend himself, period. We have made exceptions for dangerously violent people, and the mentally infirm - everyone else is entitled to carry the same weapons that the police forces are authorized to carry.
Re: (Score:3)
By the language of the time, "well-regulated" means "trained and disciplined". That meant an army.
The "citizen's militia" is indeed "every able-bodied man". But it isn't well-regulated. The the right to bear arms is an individual right, so that the citizen's militia can resist the "well-regulated militia" if need be.
Re:Deluded ... (Score:4, Informative)
"Which, by the way, is itself a misunderstanding about an amendment whose goal was to ensure a militia roughly in the same sense as the Swiss army."
Just no. As a student of our country's history I can tell you that you are simply wrong about this. That's a distortion -- a small but very important distortion -- of what the words mean.
The Second Amendment says that because a "well-regulated militia" is necessary for defense, the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed... so they can fight off the "well regulated" militia if need be.
The "people's militia" is not "well-regulated". Well-regulated means "trained, disciplined". That's an army. The "people's militia is not trained or disciplined.
That might seem like a small difference but it's very important, and that difference was recognized just a few years ago by the Supreme Court when it struck down D.C.'s gun ban. (As it had been recognized in previous SCOTUS decisions, as well.) The right to bear arms is an individual right, not one belonging to a "militia".
Your little misunderstanding about what the Second Amendment means is: a delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's just a misunderstanding
How come its you that seems to have problems with understanding?
The founding fathers wrote extensively about the topic. The right to bear arms is for individuals. Full stop.
The real problem is that you didnt bother to check to see if the people you were listening to were being honest with you. A further problem is that you are now parroting their dishonesty. You are a sheep.
Why should I care? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are you sure. I thought it was like Law and Order, if you flip through the channels I am sure you'll find an episode playing.
Re: (Score:2)
There is always at least one episode of one of the CSIs on somewhere.
American talk a big game when it comes to freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Torture and the taking of political prisoners are touted as flaws of third world dictatorships and communists v. waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay and attempts to arrest Snowden and others who have taken a political stance they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but ... they got a legal opinion that said it wasn't torture, so it's all above board, right?
Of course, I'm sure the people putting that opinion forth never actually tried it themselves.
That the US might now be exerting a little extra muscle around people for simply disagreeing with them is definitely scary. When your press starts to self-censor, you are rapidly becoming anythi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When my father was a Luftwaffe Soldier/POW in US custody, he saw a German POW's foot being overrun by a US Army (or Army Air Force) truck on purpose. "To make the POW confess the killing of a downed US airman.
So, torture is NOT new for U.S. forces.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
When my father was a Luftwaffe Soldier/POW in US custody, he saw a German POW's foot being overrun by a US Army (or Army Air Force) truck on purpose. "To make the POW confess the killing of a downed US airman.
So, torture is NOT new for U.S. forces.
That is the point of the reference though. Killing and torture happen frequently in theaters of war, unfortunately. Even though torture is a very old practice in human culture, the US has been demonstrably exceptional in refusing to endorse (and actually condemning) the practice as policy.
What the prior comment was highlighting, and what is only implied if you did not follow US policy from 2001 to now, is that such action has basically received official endorsement at the highest levels of government as a
Re:American talk a big game when it comes to freed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Stalin killed 50 million of his own citizens. That's a pretty big step up from what's going on in the US.
So until Obama kills 50 million US citizens, nobody can complain about the US government, is that it?
Re:American talk a big game when it comes to freed (Score:4, Insightful)
The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the entire world -- and by a landslide. Either there is vastly more crime in the US than anywhere else in the world, or the system has been rigged to enrich the power elite at the expense of the common man.
Granted, incarceration is a step below murder, but the end result is the same for a man who deserves neither: x number of years of your life have been stolen from you, by way of violence (physical force).
Watching watchers (Score:5, Insightful)
The other three out of four were too fearful of their survey answers being logged by the NSA...
Re: (Score:2)
Suggested Slashdot Poll (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
4) No. If you're not on at least one secret watch-list, you're not living.
Re: (Score:2)
4) I'm not engaged in any activity that even the most bored NSA spy would find interesting. Although, perhaps that tin (Al) foil hat design.....
Re: (Score:2)
If I am engaged in attempting to get NSA spies to commit suicide out of sheer boredom, is that something the NSA would find interesting?
BTW, Nancy from the NSA, you know I like you and won't ever do that to you. Don't worry, this is just a joke.
Re: (Score:2)
US Gov COME AT ME BRO!
Mission accomplished (Score:2)
no text, due to self-censoring
Come to the UK and learn about real journalism (Score:5, Informative)
Tell them to come to the UK and they can see _real_ journalism in action.
In America, you have Ferengi style capitalism and call it "freedom".
In the UK, we are certainly not perfect, but we also have capitalism, but with a social conscience, because we understand that in the long run, our way of doing things leads to more freedom for a greater number of people
We also have a habit of telling people who would harm us to go and procreate with themselves. In America, a few thousand people are sadly killed and you cower in terror and throw away everything which made you so respected.
In the UK, we have 7/7/2005 and then the citizens of London rode the tube in a large display of defiance sending a giant f***-you to the terrorists. Your journalists need to come over here and experience _our_ way of life.
Oh, and Edward Snowden, a true American hero, trusted a _British_ newspaper to reveal the truth.
That fact makes me proud to be British.
Re:Come to the UK and learn about real journalism (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it's time for you freedom-loving Brits to rise up and overthrow the tyranny of American imperialism.
Re: (Score:2)
Rightly so.
Re: (Score:3)
... That's the same UK that has essentially outlawed porn and "rude behavior," right?
Hey, isn't your capital city the one that's literally blanketed in high-tech surveillance equipment, has some sort of terrorist attack every year, and has a mayor who thinks the mean ol' poor should be punished for picking on the poor, innocent uber-wealthy?
The same UK whose government is, right now, running your so-called 'free' press through the ringer for the Snowden disclosures?
I wouldn't engage in a 'whose government i
Re:Come to the UK and learn about real journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of it is privately owned.
You'll find the same level of surveillance in any city as you would in London if you included all the private cameras in the statistics. At least in London they have to notify you that you're being survived. I recently walked into an LA shopping mall and found 14 security cameras at the entrance.
For all the cameras in London, nothing comes close to the abuses of the NSA. Cameras might accidentally catch you doing something, the NSA is actively looking for things to use against you.
The UK is big on accountability, they're still dragging Newscorp through that very same ringer for the voicemail "hacking" scandal. The thing with inquests in commonwealth countries is that they're run by non political organisations and politicians have to accept the result even if it's the complete opposite of what they wanted.
But lets compare this to the US government who has for years, conducted an illegal war started with fabricated evidence, imprisoned and tortured people including citizens of allied countries in secret prisons and on the subject of Snowden, has pretty much declared him guilty and sentenced him in absentia.
As an Australian, in order to gain entry I had to provide the US with more information than I had to provide the Australian government to get a National Police Clearance or the Canadian government to get a work permit. In fact the US has been the only nation I've travelled to where I've needed apply in advance to enter or declare where I'm staying to the airline before I even get on the plane.
So really, the UK looks like a bastion of freedom compared to the US (Despite the attempts of the Conservatives to ruin it and sadly, they're trying to do the same thing in Oz).
Done their job in the first place (Score:5, Insightful)
[DISPLAY OF GRATITUDE] (Score:5, Funny)
Man, this is some [GOOD NEWS]. I hope congress quits [WORKING TOO HARD FOR THEIR OWN GOOD], pulls their [HARD WORK AND COURAGE] out of their own [LOVE FOR THEIR COUNTRY AND ITS PEOPLE] and finally [TAKES THAT PAID VACATION THEY ALL WELL DESERVE].
Perhaps everyone is worried about it (Score:3)
Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care...
It may only seem that way. Ordinary Americans are worried about suveillance too.
I'm even wondering if I should post this comment anonymously.
Link to the thing, not the post about the thing! (Score:4, Informative)
nearly one in four has self-censored for fear of government surveillance
That's not exactly what the report said, and I'm just skimming the thing here.
http://www.pen.org/sites/default/files/Chilling%20Effects_PEN%20American.pdf [pen.org]
28% have curtailed or avoided social media activities, and another 12% have seriously considered doing so;
24% have deliberately avoided certain topics in phone or email conversations, and another 9% have seriously considered it;
16% have avoided writing or speaking about a particular topic, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
16% have refrained from conducting Internet searches or visiting websites on topics that may be considered controversial or suspicious, and another 12% have seriously considered it;
13% have taken extra steps to disguise or cover their digital footprints, and another 11% have seriously considered it;
3% have declined opportunities to meet (in person, or electronically) people who might be deemed security threats by the government, and another 4% have seriously considered it.
Boiled down: about one-third of the American press are chickens, about two-thirds are not.
.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be curious to know about the makeup of their sample. Are those two-thirds of non-chicken writers covering the Hollywood and sports team beats, and therefore have nothing to be brave about? Or does their cowardly sample consist primarily of paranoiac bloggers who write lengthy screeds about how they're not allowed to write lengthy screeds?
The set of people who actually do journalism about the government, the ones who could potentially get access to real secrets and understand the context they fit into, i
I'll be damned if I censor myself (Score:4, Interesting)
It is too easy to eavesdrop on communication. There is no way to avoid it happening, whether by corporation, the government, or a criminal gang.
We could decide to keep ourselves safe by self-censorship and accept the loss of freedom of speech. Or, we can continue to act normally. If the government has to contend with 0.1% of the population who are loud malcontents, the malcontents have a problem. If the government has to deal with 90% of the population who are loud malcontents, the government has a problem. They can't put us all in jail or shoot us.
I'll be damned if I let freedom of speech slip away. We didn't get it because of government benevolence (see The Old Issue by Kipling [fourmilab.ch]), and we won't keep it by being timid.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
North Korea proves that it's possible for a small group, less than 1%, to control an entire nation of millions of people and essentially run the entire country like one big permanent, 24/7, cradle-to-grave, prison camp. The peasentry in the DPRK vastly outnumber the ruling party but they don't rise up. It used to be that at least you got fed and clothed by your oppressive government in exchange for your souls--they don't even give them that anymore; yet still they don't rise up and revolt. It's often said t
I'd love to know how many (Score:2)
I can't believe how short sighted the media is, scratching at the feet of the President wanting approval.
The USA a free country ? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no evidence that this action is anything but voluntary.
Come back when these journalists are actually being restrained.
No we don't like it... (Score:2)
The terrorists have won. (Score:2)
It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom. It kills me even more that we, as a nation, keep electing them. It's as if we are actively doing this to ourselves.
Re: (Score:3)
It just kills me that those in power with their jingoistic cries of "they hate our freedom" are the ones stripping us of our freedom.
Well, appeal to emotion is one of the most effective propaganda techniques, you know.
That's why they put children in ads for damn near everything, or use "for the children" as an excuse for bad behavior - because what good, honest, 'Christian' (since we're talking about 'Murica) person would ever disagree with helping children? Do you hate children or something?
Stupid, yes. Counter-productive, yes. Effective, big-ol-honkin' yes.
Re:Government is too powerful (Score:4, Insightful)
By voting for which party in our political duopoly? The whole American political system is a mess because with the two entrenched parties, there is almost no ballot space for new ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
News flash: We do not have a black president. We have a half-white president, who was groomed and approved of by the entrenched party.
Re: (Score:3)
By voting for which party in our political duopoly? The whole American political system is a mess because with the two entrenched parties, there is almost no ballot space for new ideas.
Do something to create that ballot space then! We're working hard to create ballot space for Pirate Parties here in Europe so you're not alone in the fight.
Re:Government is too powerful (Score:4, Interesting)
And the fascist corporatists need the police state to ensure the continued vassalage of the underclass.
I'll take Bob LaFollette or FDR over Mussolini any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you mean to imply that Robert LaFollette was a Fascist? That's tantamount to calling Dick Cheney a Maoist.
Re:Government is too powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
Such links are drawn using logic like.. Hillary Clinton believes in educating children. Also Fascists believe in educating children. Therefore...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We THOUGHT we were voting for a new FDR in 2008.
Dude, who is this "we" you speak of? If you voted for Obama thinking he was FDR, what was it you were smoking in 2008, 'cause I'd like to partake in some of that now. Obama was an obvious tool in 2008. Were you reading his campaign material instead of following his votes in the Senate around Iraq, Afghanistan, FISA?
Re: (Score:3)
We THOUGHT we were voting for a new FDR in 2008. What we GOT was a new Calvin Coolidge.
A little weak on your history, [virginia.edu] aren't you? We thought we were getting an FDR but we got... well, not Coolidge, that would be Bush (and if McCain had won, he would have been Hoover). I'd say we wanted FDR and got Jimmy Carter.
I mean, really, do you believe for a second Coolidge would have signed the ACA?
Stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How about the summary IRS audits http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/cancer-patient-who-spoke-out-against-obamacare-now-being-audited/ [frontpagemag.com]
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/15/exclusive-prominent-catholic-prof-claims-irs-audited-her-after-speaking-out-against-obama-and-demanded-to-know-who-was-paying-her/ [theblaze.com]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/02/dr_ben_carson_irs_t [realclearpolitics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
"Ah but it is a police state, just not one in which you're likely to be dragged from your bed in the middle of the night."
Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePEttC-Tsys [youtube.com] They kicked the door in, and when a sleeping man opened his eyes to see what was going on, they murdered him, in front of his wife and his baby. You can do your own searches - an old veteran in a nursing facility was murdered for refusing to take medications. Cops like to shoot first, and ask questions later. If your name is asso
No the rich are too powerful (Score:3, Insightful)
And then "conservatives" like you claim to want a small government but then turn around and regulate a woman's body and people's sexual preferences with an iron fist. Your "less powerful government" would simply push the poor off a cliff so that the idle rich can buy a more influence over the government.
Re: (Score:2)
God-damn but I hate how religious fundamentalists have co-opted conservativism.
I don't know about "conservatives like [OP]," but I'd like to inform you that conservatives like me don't give a flying fuck what strangers do with their own bodies, so long as 'what they do' doesn't translate to getting between me and my right to do whatever the fuck I want, so long as it's not getting between someone else and their right to do whatever the fuck they want, so long as... well, you get the picture.
Of course, "prog
Re:Government is too powerful (Score:5, Insightful)
If your statement were true then Germany, Norway, Belgium, and lots of other countries would be police states. If you want to argue for smaller government you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
We need to strip government of unneeded power and put ourselves back into proper Constitutional governance. The problem is, progressives need the power of the Police State to enforce their progressive policies. But they are the first ones that complain about the police state.
First of all, don't conflate the Democrats with progressives, we don't have a progressive party in the US. Second, US conservatives are just as (or more) authoritarian [politicalcompass.org] as it's so-called liberals. Don't get me wrong, I'm no longer a fan of Obama but Romney would have been no better [politicalcompass.org]. Second, look at all the votes for the Patriot Act in 2001 and 2006: the overwhelming majority of nay votes (and those abstaining) were Democrats [educate-yourself.org]. Third, who is passing all the laws requiring women to be vaginally probed before th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it's an ideology. The ideology is: I don't do drugs, therefore I will make laws so that you don't either. It is as authoritarian as anything.
Your inability to recognize the authoritarianism of those you support bespeaks cognitive dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm complaining about the War on Drugs, started by Nixon
No.
Nixon might have ramped things up a bit, but the War on Personal Freedom (thank you, Bill Hicks) technically started with a man named Harry J. Anslinger, [wikipedia.org] America's first drug czar.
Re: (Score:3)
Nixon first used the phrase, "War on Drugs". According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "The CSA did not only combine existing federal drug laws but it also changed the nature of federal drug law policies, expanded the scope of federal drug laws and expanded Federal law enforcement as pertaining to controlled substances."
Consider Paragraph 811 "Authority and criteria for classification of substances" of the Controlled Substances Act [fda.gov], written by Nixon's Attorney General, which says, in part:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhhhh, you seem to be putting the cart before the horse. The UN didn't cause the US to take an anti-drug stance. It was the US that coerced the rest of the world to go along with this "War on Drugs" thing. Don't blame this fiasco on the UN, it's all of our own making.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's all the Democrats fault. The republicans are pure and never do anything wrong.
Nothing at all, like ending the war on poverty and replacing it with the war on drugs. Which has had no consequences to the populace as a whole. Nope none at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Journalists have for years been censoring information -
That's why using "censorship" in the new, modern meaning has made it just a flame triggerword useful only to push people's hot buttons. It retains its pejorative connotation but none of the pejorative meaning. Under the current popular definition, as used in this story in particular, "censorship" means "any decision not to say something".
Journalists "censor" themselves every day they write an article. What did they say vs. what didn't they include? Editors censor the journalists, and then the public as a
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a study or statistics to support your claim? Sounds more like an ignorant anecdote. In my news browsing I see plenty of stories negative to Democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When was America free? In the past, plenty of groups that didn't include white men didn't have very many rights. Even in the past, the government violated the constitution and discarded people's rights to supposedly keep them safe. I agree that there are some very serious problems at the moment, but I'm not sure America was ever truly the bastion of freedom that some people seem to think it was.
Re: (Score:3)
Yet ordinary Americans, for the most part, seem not to care: 'Surveillance so intrusive it is putting certain subjects out of bounds would seem like cause for alarm in a country that prides itself as the world's most free.
America, land of the free, home of the brave.. Inviting every Tom, Dick and Harry from all corners of the globe to come join America's way of life wasn't such a good thing afterall. It has politicians back peddling like crazy to shore up the borders now. Now that we have clearly let some of those who would love to destroy America move on in.. Why is everyone so surprised by the survellance taking place now being that we are really threatened by these unknown foreigners emigrating and raising their children to hate America?
Uh, why are you so worried about foreigners? Because they aren't the ones passing "laws" giving themselves the right to arrest you without charges, imprison you indefinitely without due process, torture you, violate your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, prevent you from exercising your rights to free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, etc. etc. etc.
Really, dude, if you're worried about people who want to "destroy America," you should be paying more attention t