What is Digg?149 Comments
- inactive, on 02/28/2008, -0/+92Hmm this wikileaks looks interesting. Thank god for people who try to censor ***** otherwise I'd never find out about half this stuff.
- usrlocalbin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+89Until these old judges either retire or die off, this ***** is going to continue to happen.
When they view this stuff as a 'series of tubes' and have nooo clue at all about any of this, this is going to happen.
Internet related things really needs its own courts. We have criminal court, family court, etc. We really need some sort of court for internet/IT related topics. With judges and lawyers who specialize in this area and actually know what they are doing. - jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -1/+78It's amazing to me that the judge didn't consider the many implications of his action before ordering the site scrubbed from Dynadot. Judges don't like being overruled, and this suit against the ISP seems destined to fare badly at trial, much less on appeal, even without the Constitutional implications. Not to mention that he's trying to do the impossible in taking the documents offline. Maybe he really does think he's God.
- EricDrawback, on 02/28/2008, -9/+50Due to constant "States of Emergency", the U.S. Constitution has been effectively suspended since March 9th, 1933. Over the last 75 years we have been spoon fed the idea that the Constitution is archaic, and can't be applied to the ever changing world around us. It is nothing but lies, manipulation, and scare mongering to concentrate power back into the hands of the privileged few.
- Lyk4n, on 02/28/2008, -5/+41Fascism != Socialism
- jcounterman, on 02/28/2008, -1/+30The judge made a bad distinction here. It is perfectly ok and legal for employees to leak documents that show illegal activity by their employer. It is ILLEGAL for individuals to steal and post trade secrets of their employers.
The judge needs to learn the difference between these two things. - jwrichards, on 02/28/2008, -0/+22Wikileaks is still online at http://wikileaks.in/wiki/Wikileaks
- Zipko, on 02/28/2008, -0/+21The idea of specialized judges to deal with new technology is really what we need. Even when today's slate of judges retire the new judges this generation creates will have the same problems dealing with next generation technologies. It's just an inherent problem with the experience required to reach such a high position. By the time someone becomes a federal judge they're already considered old by technology's standard.
Having 'old' judges who are trained in new technologies and specialize in these cases is what will help prevent some of these mistakes. - FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -5/+25What in the hell is socialist about this story? It's just one stupid judge who made one stupid decision. Get the ***** over yourself.
- kipmartin, on 02/28/2008, -1/+18this judge was appointed by a republican. California is leaning very slightly to the right of the rest of the country (source: American Heritage Foundation, 2006--a conservative think tank). raping the Constitution? the Constitution isnt going to get changed or harmed in any way because of this judge. he isnt able to change or 'rape' the Constitution. its his interpretation which is being called into question. and finally, socialism is an economic system, not a political system. socialism can exist in a democracy, or in a tyranny. it is simply how a government choses to manages its finances. activist state judges, the states themselves, and the Constitution itself remains neutral in national economics and financial questions--they do not address issues of national economy. had you said the judge was a moron, totally pushing an agenda, or just not a good adjudicator based on his misinterpretation of the law, i might have agreed with you. instead, you chose to argue via ad hominum attack and with complete ignorance of the definitions of 8 out of 14 words in your post.
- peaceninja, on 02/28/2008, -0/+17i believe its called the barbara streisand effect
- AlKo, on 02/28/2008, -1/+17And people continue to agree with and openly support the scare-mongering, even supposedly educated and rational people.
- LegalSatire, on 02/28/2008, -0/+13Anyone know where you can access this now?
- inactive, on 02/28/2008, -2/+14Hey people we need to enforce the constitution ourselves, the piece of paper isn't going to grow legs and enforce itself. We ARE the constitution. Just sitting around bitching about how everything is unconstitutional isn't going to do *****.
- digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+13notice this new idea coming out of the woods about "liberal fascism" after a jew named Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about it. Suddenly there's this ridiculous revelation that the white house has really been taken over by liberals even though Bush ran on the conservative platform, was supported by the votes of conservatives, is a corporate conservative's wet dream, and appointed the judge that this article is referring to. And we're supposed to believe that the illegal invasion of Iraq was instigated by liberals??? Stop spewing this garbage because it makes you look utterly stupid even though you're just being intellectually dishonest for political purposes.
- starkruzr, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11Welcome to being reported for spamming.
- starkruzr, on 02/28/2008, -3/+14Fascist.
- LegalSatire, on 02/28/2008, -1/+12Comment hijacking for mirrors:
http://duggmirror.com
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qGYwSK3UpZcJ: ... - shmatt, on 02/28/2008, -0/+11RTFA the judge was a bush appointee.
- bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Are you seriously that stupid?
This isn't a liberal move, it's a corporatist one. A hard-right wing stance.
A liberal would demand that the banks open their records for scrutiny. - inactive, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11its amazing how things get skewed.... and your entirely correct. You have no right to post a document into public domain if you signed a NDA, but you do have every right to take the incriminating evidence to the proper legal authorities. Whistle blowers are protected by Federal Law in this regard.
- lukeydukey, on 02/28/2008, -1/+11So Anonymous, you now have a secondary backup for "dox". use it. =)
- olenick, on 02/28/2008, -0/+10Oh EFF, do I hear an emergency intervenor motion and appeal, w/ standing based upon the chilling effect this will have on other clients? Better yet, one of the wikileaks.org people can ink a retainer.
- inactive, on 02/28/2008, -2/+11a digg would have sufficed
- digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -0/+9WTF are you talking about you complete idiot?
- c130commnav, on 02/28/2008, -1/+9And so many people say that freenet is pointless and unnecessary. It is sad times when those people are wrong :(
http://freenetproject.org/ - SuckMyDigg, on 02/28/2008, -0/+8They have dozens of aliases and mirror domains: http://wikileaks.cx/wiki/Cover_Domains
- brufleth, on 02/28/2008, -2/+10Telling a web site to be removed from the internet is not socialist. It isn't really even in the same genre as socialism (economic system vs political system).
I think YOU need to go do a "define: fascism" in Google. You might actually learn something. Suppressing opposition and putting state control over personal freedoms is fascist, not socialist. - StiGUP, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7It seems judges will try and hand a death sentence out to anyone....or anything?
- nahsrocketeer75, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7It's the futility and counterproductive nature of what the bank has done that strikes me most. You would think that anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Internet and Wikileaks would know this effort would not only fail but backfire. Any lawyer telling them anything else committed malpractice.
- SuckMyDigg, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7The EFF is just one of 12 organizations jumping into the fray, including the ACLU and even Associated Press.
- retr0grade, on 02/28/2008, -0/+7the hamster is dying. here's a google cache of the article text...
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:qGYwSK3UpZcJ: ... - avlhostel, on 02/28/2008, -1/+8Wikileaks are also online : http://wikileaks.be/wiki/wikileaks
At least until we loose the rest of our rights to the Comcast & AT&T monopolies.
This judge is worthless, and will be paying for his decision, but the governments control over allowing monopolies to be a "privatized big brother" is very scary. - EricDrawback, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Well, my focus on college was Constitutional law, and although I did not end up following through and going into a graduate program, I feel like I know enough to comment on the situation.
There are several parts of the Constitution (not to mention most of the original intent) that has been thrown completely out the window over the last 75 years. Gold and Silver are not legal tender, private good is now interpreted as corporate good (according to a 2006 Supreme Court decision on eminent domain), the Executive branch has usurped Congress' role in foreign policy (declaring war), etc. The bottom line is, the excuse of a "national emergency" has been used time and again to subvert the Constitution and it's original intent.
Samder -Throwing around Alex Jones' name, and trying to put all Constitutionalists in the tinfoil hat camp is not a valid rebuttal. - akkibaba, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8Here's another good idea : Use the ***** reply button.
- ubuwalker31, on 02/28/2008, -0/+6Oldhick, you are correct...except for the rule that you can't contract illegal activity. So for example, you can't contract a murder. Likewise, you can't contract silence (which can be considered misprision of a felony) about money laundering or other crimes.
- digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7why is everyone talking about socialism communism etcetera??? don't let these trolls suck you into this void of organizational despair that is socialism capitalism blah blah blah. This discussion is about America and its Constitution and how there is an evil idealogical movement that secretively wants to undermine the power of Constitutional self-government in order to roll back the progressive changes of the 21st century so it can reinstate the authority of the rich over the poor.
- MCCULLAH, on 02/28/2008, -2/+8i would pwn them at the constitution
- Thuktun, on 02/28/2008, -1/+7"The Constitution is Commons sense thats why 90% of the country are too stupid to understand that."
What an amazing observation. - bjornski, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Go back to FreeRepublic and get some talking points that actually have something to do with the topic.
- digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6Bush #43 appointed this judge. We can't accept that these guys simply don't care about how things look. They know the justice department has hijacked by their own operatives and is now officially the same branch as the executive. Mukasey has a picture of George Orwell hanging in his office according to Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2 ... !!!), which is a testament to just how little these guys give a ***** about what the public thinks. After finally agreeing that Bush's wiretapping and torture programs are constitutionally illegal, Mukasey has the gall to tell the press he won't enforce the ruling, which is God Damn infuriating if you ask me - especially after having spent so much time watching them debate the issues in congress. So tell me chaps, how do we go about enforcing the laws ourselves??? I'm starting to experience a little bit of vertigo, at this point.
- digitalhair, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6AND, you replied to your own comment, which really wasn't even necessary. See how silly this looks???
- kronzdigg, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5interestingly enough I read the entire u.s. constitution about a week ago. As I did I couldn't help but see so many areas in my life where my constitutional right (so called) are tread upon daily. I wish people would get on the RP train. I will continue to support all Constitutionally restricted candidates.
- FredFredrickson, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5You might... but then, you 'll see other judges come to their own conclusions, and not always take the route of precedence. Regardless though, it has nothing to do with socialism, a concept I get the feeling that many Digg users have no understanding of.
- Corrosionx, on 02/28/2008, -4/+9Wikileaks is a canary in the coal mine. What will be censored next?
- pintomp3, on 02/28/2008, -1/+6wrong, the reason does matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action. - redxxx, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5While we are at it, some sort of legislation preventing the East District of Texas from hearing IP and technology cases?
It is retarded that a backwater full of ignorant rednecks should effectively dictate so much law they know nothing about. - SSUK, on 02/28/2008, -0/+5I agree. Never knew of this site until they tried to close it down. For a site which probably is just a regular hit for conspiracy theorists and geeks who already have a jaded perception of the world, they sure look suspicious for trying to censor the site.
- Obsidian743, on 02/28/2008, -1/+5http://www.jail4judges.org/
- dudeguy1234, on 02/28/2008, -0/+4Epic FAIL. They are completely different.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 149 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is