You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Caution on the Internet
- Thread starter Little-e
- Start date
Try this http://privacy.net/analyze/out, kind of interesting.
Bruce from West Oz
New member
Welcome to Australia, 1999.
They're doing it here; they'll do it there. You can not be "allowed" to have the voice that the Internet gives you.
B
They're doing it here; they'll do it there. You can not be "allowed" to have the voice that the Internet gives you.
B
Jeff White
New member
The Internet scares the politicians and big mwdia moguls to death. Why? It's a source of information that's becoming more and more mainstream all tthe time and they have NO control over it.
If you follow the money, you'll see that a few people control the major broadcast and print media outlets. They can fall in lockstep with the slant of a story and repeat the big lie over and over. In fairness this is probably more a result of one news agency following the lead of a bigger one, then an organized conspiracy, but the results are the same; the big lie is spread.
The internet is free unregulated information. Here you can find everything from the unsensored views of extremist groups, to the big news agencies. Much of what's on the internet is c@#p, but the truth is there too. And anyone with a web browser is free to access it all and make their own decisions as to what to believe. The best part is that all of this (the good and the bad) can be accessed from the privacy of your home. There is no one watching to see if you surf into a porn site, or the aryian nations info. So the guy who wouldn't go into the adult bookstore for fear of who might see him, or the one who puts his blinders on when he walks past the white supremacist literature at the gunshow can get his fix for that stuff online, and there is no social stigma about who knows attached to it. The lack of this stigma also works for us. People like Guns n Rosie and Miss Demeanors would probably never have walked into their neighborhood gunshop or shooting range, but they found us online and "the truth set them free" so to speak.
Those same media moguls who control the print and broadcast media are going to be in a delicate position as the battle to regulate the internet heats up. They can't use most of the arguements about smut, porn, or dangerous information available, because they've already fought these 1st amendment issues in court to be able to sell that stuff in their own medium.
As more and more people get online, the big lie will be harder to sell (the truth will be out there). Instead of backing down we should continue the way we are. We need to use the same arguements the pro-abortionist use about privacy, keep the government out of our bedrooms and out of our computers. This isn't about keeping teenagers off porn sites or from downloading the anarchist's cookbook, it's about making sure that people aren't exposed to politically incorrect ideas.
this battle is linked to our battle for RKBA and we have to fight on that front too.
Jeff
If you follow the money, you'll see that a few people control the major broadcast and print media outlets. They can fall in lockstep with the slant of a story and repeat the big lie over and over. In fairness this is probably more a result of one news agency following the lead of a bigger one, then an organized conspiracy, but the results are the same; the big lie is spread.
The internet is free unregulated information. Here you can find everything from the unsensored views of extremist groups, to the big news agencies. Much of what's on the internet is c@#p, but the truth is there too. And anyone with a web browser is free to access it all and make their own decisions as to what to believe. The best part is that all of this (the good and the bad) can be accessed from the privacy of your home. There is no one watching to see if you surf into a porn site, or the aryian nations info. So the guy who wouldn't go into the adult bookstore for fear of who might see him, or the one who puts his blinders on when he walks past the white supremacist literature at the gunshow can get his fix for that stuff online, and there is no social stigma about who knows attached to it. The lack of this stigma also works for us. People like Guns n Rosie and Miss Demeanors would probably never have walked into their neighborhood gunshop or shooting range, but they found us online and "the truth set them free" so to speak.
Those same media moguls who control the print and broadcast media are going to be in a delicate position as the battle to regulate the internet heats up. They can't use most of the arguements about smut, porn, or dangerous information available, because they've already fought these 1st amendment issues in court to be able to sell that stuff in their own medium.
As more and more people get online, the big lie will be harder to sell (the truth will be out there). Instead of backing down we should continue the way we are. We need to use the same arguements the pro-abortionist use about privacy, keep the government out of our bedrooms and out of our computers. This isn't about keeping teenagers off porn sites or from downloading the anarchist's cookbook, it's about making sure that people aren't exposed to politically incorrect ideas.
this battle is linked to our battle for RKBA and we have to fight on that front too.
Jeff
Jeff Thomas
New member
eeniii, please allow me to update your link - it is interesting, but I had a little problem with the original address:
http://privacy.net/analyze/ .
http://privacy.net/analyze/ .
Privacy of internet transactions and of private e-mail is one thing.
But remember that posting on bulletin boards like this one is NOT whispering in private among friends, it is SHOUTING FROM THE ROOF TOP with a megaphone. There is no question of privacy here, because it is, by definition, a public forum. So there is nothing to stop BATF, FBI, the Aryan Nation or any other group from tuning in.
Heck, they even let me post, so you know they don't try to keep out the nuts.
Jim
But remember that posting on bulletin boards like this one is NOT whispering in private among friends, it is SHOUTING FROM THE ROOF TOP with a megaphone. There is no question of privacy here, because it is, by definition, a public forum. So there is nothing to stop BATF, FBI, the Aryan Nation or any other group from tuning in.
Heck, they even let me post, so you know they don't try to keep out the nuts.
Jim
Jedi Oomodo
New member
Sure, TFL is a public forum. Sure, BATF, FBI, JQ Public can come here and lurk and read everything posted. Fine. BUT, they CANNOT stop you from posting whatever you want (1stAmendment)and that is what they don't like. Once they can regulate virtual conversations like this forum, next they will be putting gov't microphones in your house so they can make sure you're not voicing any "rebellious" sentiments in your own home. Of course, this can only happen once RKBA is gone and we have no means to make the Congress Critters abide by the Constitution.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
Hi, Jedi,
Yes, you can say anything you want in expressing an opinion. But I have seen some folks go close to, if not over, the line. If you make threats ("I am going to take my gun and kill ....") or make explicit statements that you have violated or intend to violate the law ("I have a lot of C4 and I am going to blow up the XXX building...") I think you will find that someone might call on you and ask a lot of questions. And, IMHO, they should.
Some of us would probably be more tolerant of someone who said he had an illegal weapon, but a sworn law officer can't really ignore that kind of law violation either.
Even on a less obviously dangerous level, if you feel that you got cheated by Joe's Gun Shop and express the opinion that Joe is a crook, a cheat, an evil monster, etc., Joe just might sue for libel and would probably win.
Freedom of speech does go only so far, and the courts have set limits which apply to the Internet as well as to any other speech or writing.
Before you get around to arguing too heavily, what would you do if some guy on the net said that he was going to shoot up the school your child attends?
Jim
Jim
Yes, you can say anything you want in expressing an opinion. But I have seen some folks go close to, if not over, the line. If you make threats ("I am going to take my gun and kill ....") or make explicit statements that you have violated or intend to violate the law ("I have a lot of C4 and I am going to blow up the XXX building...") I think you will find that someone might call on you and ask a lot of questions. And, IMHO, they should.
Some of us would probably be more tolerant of someone who said he had an illegal weapon, but a sworn law officer can't really ignore that kind of law violation either.
Even on a less obviously dangerous level, if you feel that you got cheated by Joe's Gun Shop and express the opinion that Joe is a crook, a cheat, an evil monster, etc., Joe just might sue for libel and would probably win.
Freedom of speech does go only so far, and the courts have set limits which apply to the Internet as well as to any other speech or writing.
Before you get around to arguing too heavily, what would you do if some guy on the net said that he was going to shoot up the school your child attends?
Jim
Jim
Jedi Oomodo
New member
Jim,
I agree with you- our right to free speech only goes so far, just as RKBA only goes so far (i.e. we don't have the right to shoot at anyone/thing, wherever/whenever we want). I wouldn't dispute anyone who made the claim that a libelous statement made on an Internet forum was just as much a grounds for a suit than one made in an op-ed piece. What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear) was that the Socialist Liberals want to go beyond libel and threats, and regulate even protected speech and content, on the grounds that "It's too accessible/they can learn how to build bombs/it stirs up hate/it's for the children". I fear that, in typical liberal fashion, in seeking to stop the proliferation of anonymous death threats and the like they will try to put blanket censorship on the Internet rather than prosecuting the specific instances of criminal intent. Their approach is always to make ordinary people into potential/actual criminals, and let the real hoodlums get away with murder. Also, I think that such measures would be a "testing of the waters" for more strict controls on vocal and print speech, as well. Freedom of thought is dangerous to their agenda, as well, and in time they will seek to control how we think as well as how we act.
AS for what would I do if someone was going to shoot up the school my kids attend- my children are/will be home-schooled, so either I or my wife would be there to shoot that psycho dead if he tried. If I heard him say he was going to shoot up Sen. Richard Bohica Elementary, I would call the police, unless I were in close proximity, it were happening right then and there, and I was in a position to stop him. I have a TX CHL, and have the right to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party if, under the law, I had the right to protect myself in said circumstances.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
I agree with you- our right to free speech only goes so far, just as RKBA only goes so far (i.e. we don't have the right to shoot at anyone/thing, wherever/whenever we want). I wouldn't dispute anyone who made the claim that a libelous statement made on an Internet forum was just as much a grounds for a suit than one made in an op-ed piece. What I meant (I guess I wasn't clear) was that the Socialist Liberals want to go beyond libel and threats, and regulate even protected speech and content, on the grounds that "It's too accessible/they can learn how to build bombs/it stirs up hate/it's for the children". I fear that, in typical liberal fashion, in seeking to stop the proliferation of anonymous death threats and the like they will try to put blanket censorship on the Internet rather than prosecuting the specific instances of criminal intent. Their approach is always to make ordinary people into potential/actual criminals, and let the real hoodlums get away with murder. Also, I think that such measures would be a "testing of the waters" for more strict controls on vocal and print speech, as well. Freedom of thought is dangerous to their agenda, as well, and in time they will seek to control how we think as well as how we act.
AS for what would I do if someone was going to shoot up the school my kids attend- my children are/will be home-schooled, so either I or my wife would be there to shoot that psycho dead if he tried. If I heard him say he was going to shoot up Sen. Richard Bohica Elementary, I would call the police, unless I were in close proximity, it were happening right then and there, and I was in a position to stop him. I have a TX CHL, and have the right to use deadly force to protect a 3rd party if, under the law, I had the right to protect myself in said circumstances.
------------------
"Is fhe'arr teicheadh math na droch fhuireach"
-Sarabian Oomodo
If it isn't Scottish, it's CRAP!
A firearm isn't a weapon until it is used as such.
Okay, freedom of speech...
I can have words, any words I want from any country I want. I can take them anywhere I want. I can do whatever I want with my words so long as I do not endanger, threaten, or hurt someone else.
If someone attacks me with words, I can use words to defend myself or even take a person to court.
But the words I have and can use, and how well I use them, are my business unless I mis-use them.
Now. RKBA!
I can have guns, any guns I want from any country I want. I can take them anywhere I want. I can do whatever I want with my guns so long as I do not endanger, threaten, or hurt someone else.
If someone attacks me with guns, I can use guns to defend myself or even take a person to court.
But the guns I have and can use, and how well I use them, are my business unless I mis-use them.
-------
Freedom of Speech! RKBA!
I can have words, any words I want from any country I want. I can take them anywhere I want. I can do whatever I want with my words so long as I do not endanger, threaten, or hurt someone else.
If someone attacks me with words, I can use words to defend myself or even take a person to court.
But the words I have and can use, and how well I use them, are my business unless I mis-use them.
Now. RKBA!
I can have guns, any guns I want from any country I want. I can take them anywhere I want. I can do whatever I want with my guns so long as I do not endanger, threaten, or hurt someone else.
If someone attacks me with guns, I can use guns to defend myself or even take a person to court.
But the guns I have and can use, and how well I use them, are my business unless I mis-use them.
-------
Freedom of Speech! RKBA!
We see whats happening in Australia....official gov't censorship/regulation of certain topics on the internet, including gun-related things
I see nothing wrong in the consequences of one's statements...its a matter of taking responsibility. Out on the street, face to face, its illegal to threaten to kill someone or to blow up a building. And thats fine, and it should be as well on the internet.
However, the gov't has no right, authority or business censoring or preventing someone from making a threat....
But this is even beyond making threats...this is good think, good speak...Shades of 1984. If they can do it to the internet, then the precident is set to do it to magazines, newspapers and books. And you betcha they will.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
I see nothing wrong in the consequences of one's statements...its a matter of taking responsibility. Out on the street, face to face, its illegal to threaten to kill someone or to blow up a building. And thats fine, and it should be as well on the internet.
However, the gov't has no right, authority or business censoring or preventing someone from making a threat....
But this is even beyond making threats...this is good think, good speak...Shades of 1984. If they can do it to the internet, then the precident is set to do it to magazines, newspapers and books. And you betcha they will.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!