What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Geek Squad employee sings for Best Buy in holiday campaign. view!
youtube.com/bestbuy0 - Valerie DeAngelo explains the moment she got the casting call.
61 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+50"All joking aside, sites that provoke armed revolt against the U.S. government ought to be shut down, assuming that the government is still a democracy (namely, that elections still take place). Democracies will fix themselves so long as they remain democracies."
If the elections were 100% digital and were rigged, how would you know? Assuming it's still close, but the outcome is predetermined, how can you know you're no longer in a democracy?
The threat of armed revolt is what is supposed to keep the government in line. - blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -14/+55Did you even look? This one is terrifying:
"Raisethefist.com Shutdown
Raisethefist.com was an alternative media site conversing a diversity of subjects including anarchism, activism, and current events not reported by mainstream media or even what passes as alternative media were reported and commented on in an open publishing format available to the public."
"On January 24, 2002 approximately 25-30 individuals, mostly federal agents, but also LAPD, and LA Sherriffs Dept personnel according to one source, raided the raisethefist.com founder's home fully armed, confiscated some of his property and shut down the site along with the newly opened, laanrchists.org site that he also recently created" - blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+43More:
"Rage Against The Machine" fan discussion forum was shutdown "Because the FBI called the ISP, saying there was too much anti-American rhetoric on that board" October 29, 2001
"Canadian Feds Shut Down Overthrow.com" November 15, 2001
"YellowTimes.org Shut Down! The well known alternative news publication YellowTimes org was just shut down without explanation by its hosting company!" February 10, 2003 - jerryparid, on 10/12/2007, -11/+40Of course this is NOT censorship; when an American website gets shut down, there are "national security" reasons. When other country shut down/block some site; its oppression of human rights and censorship.
- icono1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+31Again; selective freedom of speech. Instead of burning real books the govt is shutting down web sites.... the e equivalent of a book burning.
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Great. The cat's out of the bag. Now they're going to have to shut down Digg. Great work, guys...
- shableep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20that still doesn't excuse any amount of repression from the government. no harm in complaining about attacks on constitutional rights. it's our criticism of our government that has helped stop it from becoming anything worse. i'm happy people are complaining and seeking improvement in legislation.
and... we've already criticized other nations. but this just isn't the place for that. - schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I just have one question...
What the hell happened to freedom of speech/press? - GyroTech, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18@Akaji
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
In case you're having trouble, that is one of the Founding Fathers demanding an armed revolt every 20 years in the least. Personally, I think the time is long overdue for an uprising or two, here in the UK as well as over in the USA.
I just don't happen to agree with the armed part :-) - deadcow231, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Thank god for the Wayback Machine...idk if it works or not, but it's probably worth a try. Here's the link: http://www.archive.org/index.php
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Isn't this illegal? This is ridiculous...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13China and Cuba aren't supposed to be a democracies you friggin idiot.
- UnstableMind, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10These three things caught my eye:
Uncached by Google
Cathy sent an email informing us - if you search for something on Google that has been cancelled from a particular surver, you can access a "cached" version of the page in question, but since September 11, certain 'offensive' pages are un-cached and they are no longer available for viewing, Cathy Collie, November 16, 2001
Google Un-Cached
Google has approached government agencies and private organizations, offering to remove from their "cache" the web pages that were removed from other sites, ABCNews.com / Good Morning America, October 15, 2001, and Contra Costa Times, October 18, 2001
MSNBC Removes Item on Congressional Coverage Restrictions
MSNBC removed from an article formerly entitled "Ashcroft Seeks Sweeping Powers" and now called "House Approves $343 Billion Defense Bill" a section about how the House Judiciary Committee's Republican staffers ordered television camera crews to leave a hearing on terrorist attacks after Ashcroft spoke but before civil liberties and free-speech advocates could testify, Media Alliance Project, September 24, 2001, and Yahoo Stop Police Abuse Group, September 27, 2001 - themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Know what would be a big '***** you' to the terrorists? Business as usual.
- mike1630, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Yea - why is the most recent entry so damn old...?
- ericsemail, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8First of all, if you give up ANY freedom for security, you've already lost. America has already lost. We've already given up way too much. People in power only crave more power. They will never give back that power once it's given to them. This Administration has flushed all our freedoms down the drain: freedom of speech, freedom of privacy, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure--we've lost all of these and probably tons more and they aren't coming back. The world is a crooked place...and America is a nice place to live, don't get me wrong--but it's going downhill fast.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Akaji, can you clarify your stance with regards to the concept of "clear and present danger"?
- RyGuyX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4never thought of it like book burning - but now it seems like a frighteningly applicable comparison. And now my two cents...
Hey if Thomas Jefferson was for armed revolt every 20 years (a bit too frequent in my opinion) it probably wouldn't be too unreasonable to re-do the government. Seriously if we just started over from scratch we could trim alot of the fat off (old antiquated laws, ammendments could be incorperated directly into a new constitution, etc). We're alot more informed these days... maybe we don't need representation anymore - direct democracy... every vote counts... vote on issues instead of candidates? Of course there are classic problems with things like that but I digress.
I suppose the biggest problem with starting over, aside from all the work to do: would be getting people to agree on it; but controversial issues could be left out to be decided on a state-level (I know many would like less power in the federal government and more in the states) or a later date.
The people are the country. The government is not the country. Disagreeing with the government does not mean you do not love your country. Overthrowing the government does not mean you do not love your country. Ceaser was assassinated for the good of the state, or at least that's how his assassins felt about it.
Anyway censorship pisses me off.
Funny thing; my random text that I have to enter is "RabEL", almost thought it said "rebel" when I first looked at it, oddly relevant.
I now hesitate, wondering if the government would flag my account for such views... ah well - Liggmin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6you know, those terrorists, all our internets belong to them...
- WildBil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Rage Against The Machine" fan discussion forum was shutdown
"Because the FBI called the ISP, saying there was too much anti-American rhetoric on that board" Guerrilla News, October 29, 2001
Thats Sad - dw2005, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Al Jazeera and The Net - Free Speech, But Don't Say That
Arabic satellite TV network Al Jazeera's efforts to build an English-language web site have run into another speed bump. Akamai Technologies, whose "Accelerated Networks can stand up to unpredictable traffic and flash crowds for even the largest events," fired Al Jazeera last week. Akamai issued a statement saying it had worked "briefly" last week with Al Jazeera, but that it had decided "not to continue a customer relationship" with the channel. No reason was given for the decision, but an Al Jazeera spokeswoman told the New York Times that companies were coming under "nonstop political pressure" to refuse to do business with the channel.
This is pretty worrying; Al Jazeera was formed by ex-BBC journalists and is a fairly respectable news source. Furthermore, given that Akamai Technologies delivers so much media throuought the internet, I'd hate to think that the Bush administration had it and other companies like it wrapped around their little finger. - idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"So what if the federal government stepped over the line..."
You represent everything that is wrong with this country today. - rusty075, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Despite the sensationalist headline and article intro, most of these sites weren't "shut down by the government", at least not in the censorship sense that the submitter is suggesting. Here's a rundown of all of the sites listed, with my own non-sensationalist descriptions in place of EFF's:
DEA to Redirect Seized Websites - Guys that were selling drug paraphernalia through websites they were stupid enough to have US hosts for had their sites shut down and seized by the DEA. Yes, drug laws are stupid, but they are currently, you know, laws. Not censorship
ATF Fails to Poindexcise Bomb Threat Info - ATF takes some pages off their website. The information is still available to anyone who asks. Not censorship
No URL Left Behind? Web Scrub Raises Concerns - US Dept. of Education updates website to reflect current administration's policies. If that surprises anyone, you need to get out more. I'm pretty sure that every new administration would do that. I doubt that the Clinton's left Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" posters hanging on the walls.
Besieged ISP Restores Pearl Vid - FBI threatens obscenity charge against ISP hosting video of US citizen being decapitated. ISP keeps video up anyway.
FBI Seeks Pearl Video Ban on Net - Same ISP as above. This is sort of censorship, but they were only trying to prevent people from profiting from the viewing of the video, not trying to hide the fact that he had been killed. The rest of video, right up to the moment of death, was on every news site online.
Security Concerns Force House To Limit Access to Documents - Inspector General reports on flaws in the terrorism prevention systems marked as "Confidential". Well duh.
The Bell Tolls for FreeRepublic.com - Website that copyright infringed upon other journalists shut down by judge. Not censorship, since all the stories they were posting were ripped from other websites.
The veterans administration has shut down individual hospital websites hosted on non gov or edu servers. Wow, those crazy censors are at it again. Oh wait, those sites were just relocated to the VA's .gov domain. Oops. Not censorship.
U.S. Shuts Down Somalia Internet, links firms to terrorism - The US didn't "shut down Somalia's Internet", it froze the assets in US banks of two companies tied to Al Queda. Since then, other companies have reopened. Maybe, kinda, censorship, but that is a bit of a stretch.
Now don't get me wrong, I whole-heartedly agree that our rights have been infringed repeated in the name of the "War on Terror", but this is a really ***** list. Surely there must be better examples somewhere. Buried. - anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Leading corporate-connected, CIA- and NWO-controlled websites such as Google Video..."
I think you misspelled "***** crazy" there, friend. - kcpwnsgman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3armed uprising was the only way for the US to be separated, they DID try to become a freed country by sending a proclamation, which was ignored, even after they sent a threatening one, it was still ignored.
- swoopdog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I am glad they included RAISETHEFIST - it was a set up if there ever was one and as a result the operator and owner was jailed.
dont forget the organizers of SHAC.UK were all jailed just for having a website that outlined public knowledge of people who make decisions at HLS (Huntington Life Sciences) - paker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who defines what 'drug paraphernalia" is? What's to stop someone from going to a normal "legal" smoke shop and using a normal pipe to smoke weed?
- alphaeno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is why we have the 2nd amendment. And to people who say guns dont work against tanks and jets, take a look at what the Iraqis are fighting with.
- wootah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
In case you're having trouble, that is one of the Founding Fathers demanding an armed revolt every 20 years in the least. Personally, I think the time is long overdue for an uprising or two, here in the UK as well as over in the USA.
I just don't happen to agree with the armed part :-)"
Finally! Someone with their head out of their arse! - CrazyBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I clicked four times and didn't get to read about a website that has been shutdown...You need to shut your own website down
- chrisjj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Akamai Technolgies Inc. likely discontinued it's service to Al Jazeera because Akamai has strong ties to Israel and the US government. I find it pretty scary that 20% of world-wide Internet content passes through Akamai servers.
- yaosio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Too bad nothing on that page is true.
- dasluvaluva, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Don't know much about history, do ya?
- fwedwic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1get your governments strait douchebag. where the hell do u come from?!
- mikehartor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Impossible! I don't like such articles. http://coffeepages.blogspot.com
- OmegaWolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I find it appalling that free speech and the right to privacy are under frequent attack by the government. I have never understood why governments have such a problem with people expressing themselves, having fun and just generally doing as they please. These days, you can't criticize the government or you get shut down like Raise the Fist and we all know what happens to anyone who tokes up, never mind that no one is really hurt by any of these things. Why can't government just mind its own damn business and leave us the hell alone?
- postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4this was the liberal press and their gang of lawyers not the government trying to take down freerepublic.com
The Bell Tolls for FreeRepublic.com
The 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco, will convene to hear oral arguments in re: Washington Post and Los Angeles Times v. FreeRepublic.com LLC, in what is perhaps the most important 1st amendment case of the new millennium. At issue is the propensity of FreeRepublic.com and its owner, Jim Robinson, to allow the posting of whole-length articles from news organizations nationwide a policy the Post and Times, respectively, assert infringe upon the intellectual property rights of both the news corporations and of individual writers, LewRockwell.com, February 5, 2002 - cheezdoodle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." -- just kidding?
- sarge96, on 10/12/2007, -8/+9This is mostly squat compared with, say China censoring Google searches. So what if the federal government stepped over the line after 9/11? It's a fine line between security and civil liberties, and while the Administration could've done better, Its not easy.
- DMCLP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://web.archive.org/web/20050512074744/http://www.raisethefist.com/
- Flamingmoth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The equivalent of Fahrenheit 451 ..........
- toxicityj, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5wow. the world is turning into the book 1984. love it. next we'll be spied on 24-7...oh wait..
- WildBil, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Promote Armed Revolt don't allow OK but, Allow it in a free Speech on-line forum and monitor it for intelligence and law enforcement. That way we might catch some people before they act and have enough to convict with as well.
- geomon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ Collegeruled
"I see no reason why information that would be potentially dangerous in the hands of those who hate this country shouldn't be removed."
Yeah, don't forget to ask Daddy Gubbament when its OK to go to bed too.
If you sort the list according to risk there are probably 5% of those sites that actually discussed potential risk to the public. The rest had more to do with groupthink and conformity.
Tell me, "oh keeping the world safe from terrorists", what public safety interest is served by redacting the location of a 40 year old liquid waste disposal sites in the middle of the ***** desert (not used in over 20 years) from maps that everyone has already seen for the last 30 years?
I don't know either, but the DOE told us to remove them from our maps after 9/11 due to security concerns.
Yep, keeping the world safe, one ancient waste site at a time. - dforty3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Here is an interesting article on Censorship...
http://www.total911.info/2007/03/copyright-as-censorship-dangerous-trend.html
Also pasted below for your covenience...
TOTAL 911 INFO
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Copyright as censorship a dangerous trend
When 9/11 researchers last week discovered and disseminated a clip of BBC news reporters announcing that WTC building 7 had "collapsed" more than 20 minutes before it was destroyed in a controlled demolition on September 11, 2001. Leading corporate-connected, CIA- and NWO-controlled websites such as Google Video attempted to purge the video from the web, but ultimately gave up in the face of thousands fo grassroots infowarriors continuously uploading the video.
The image brought to mind other incidents over the past year of corporate media using copyright as a pretext to censor reality on behalf of their New World Order masters
One day after the 2006 midterm election, Bill Maher appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and announced that everyone in Washington knew that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman was gay. CNN edited the comment from the late-night replay of the program, but not before gay activist John Aravosis of AmericaBlog.com had posted the exchange to YouTube.
But the informational clip did not stay up on YouTube very long. CNN demanded that YouTube pull the video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and YouTube complied.
However, Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post also hosted a clip of Maher and King and persevered in hosting the clip despite the blizzard of legal claims which saw it purged from everywhere else on the net. Is the law different for YouTube than it is for HuffingtonPost? No. But they have different lawyers. HuffingtonPost, which stresses the importance of fearlessness, did not take the bogus legal arguments of YouTube and CNN at face value -- and they turned out just fine.
Last May, the producers of the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change" received a cease-and-desist letter from lawyers representing the Naudet Brothers, some of whose film taken on 9/11 was used in "Loose Change." "Loose Change" producers Louder Than Words, Inc. have kept the Naudet film in online versions of their film but reportedly will back off of using this footage in an upcoming theatrical release.
Since that incident, the Naudet brothers have proved their motivation behind the legal threats to be little more than the suppression of information regarding 9/11. For after all, the most important Naudet footage used in "Loose Change", of New York firemen describing the explosions that went off in the twin towers, was in fact purged from the fifth anniversary edition of the film which aired on CBS September 11, 2006.
As "Loose Change" moves toward a theatrical edition and the BBC incident portends greater video battle ahead, the 9/11 truth movement should become increasingly fearless in asserting First Amendment free speech and fair use rights in intellectual property issues. At primary issue is evidence of a crime of mass murder -- evidence which should not be suppressed by those seeking to abuse copyright law. If an IP attorney with a history of siding with copyright totalists advises cowering before the likes of the Naudet brothers, he perhaps should be shunted aside for one more fearless -- one who would relish the opportunity to call the Naudets on their bluff and put them under oath about their possible foreknowledge of 9/11.
Labels: intellectual property, mockingbird, naudet
.....---
.....| Posted by Total at 9:00 PM | PERMA-LINK | - brainxs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Really good. I bet this article was here about a year ago.
- blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Sherman never distributed or authored any information about explosives. In fact the FBI referred to a completely different site authored by a completely different individual"
-- http://www.raisethefist.com/
This *eighteen year old* musician was put in jail for a year. Look at him: http://www.raisethefist.com/smallsherm.gif
Run for your lives! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Some one needs to stop this
- CollegeRuled, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I see no reason why information that would be potentially dangerous in the hands of those who hate this country shouldn't be removed.
- postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2we don't need Al Jazeera we already have msnbc.
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 