Monday, June 22, 2009
Totally Retro Gaming
I just wanted to take this space to extol the virtues of DOSbox and abandonware. For those who don't know, abandonware is software that no longer has an active company defending its copyright, whether due to bankruptcy, being bought out, or just plain not renewing the copyright. This means that there is a large quantity of old games that are available free by dedicated communities online as shareware, perfect for the college student on a budget. The only issue is compatibility. Most of these games were written for Windows pre-95. That's where the DOSbox comes in. This program is basically an emalator/shell that simulates the extremely basic OS's these programs were written for. With very little effort, you too can be playing the great classics: Warcraft Orcs and Humans, System Shock, Civilization, and more. All it takes is a little diligence to find the gems among the games that were abandoned for one reason-they sucked.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Usurpation of "America"
I was writing a letter to a friend in Nicaragua recently, and a random thought went through my head. Why does the United States have a monopoly on being referred to as "America?" The US, at 9158960 sq. km, is only 21% of the combined area of North and South America, and only contains 33% of the combined population. There are vast areas of land and throngs of people outside of the United States that are 'American,' but are never described as such. I realize that "United Statesian" is a bit of a mouthful, but we really are not doing the rest of the world justice by claiming to be the only true 'Americans.'
Break's Over, Back to Work
Sorry for the downtime, anyone who's been watching this blog for updates. This blog was originally a class project dealing with First Amendment issues, and now I feel is the time to expand the scope of the blog. Now I'll just be writing about whatever issues manage to catch my fancy. If you'd like me to cover a certain topic, let me know.
Monday, April 27, 2009
A Dangerous Ploy - Seizing Control of the Internet
Qbit.cc has found a particularly troubling piece of legislation currently in Congress. The Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced by Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Nelson, and Snowe, aims to "ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States." The Act then goes on in legalese to further explain and elaborate upon how exactly this fine goal is to be achieved. Steven Bellovin, a professor of Computer Science at Colombia University, has a wonderful analysis of the technical efficiency of the various provisions, citing both good and bad applications of the law. The major fear that Qbit has brought to mind, though, lies in Section 9.
The DNS is a hierarchical system that allows for translation between human-meaningful phrases and computer code. It's the system that translates icanhascheezburger.com into 72.233.69.8, to allow the computer to understand what exactly it is looking for. In order to make these mappings consistent, however, there needs to be a unique bijection between the two - only one web site per name. This is what the ICANN currently does. ICANN oversees the domain registration and allocation process in a fair, balanced manner. This is the power that the government is currently seeking - the ability to control domain registration.
This power holds much potential for government abuse, though. We've already seen the abuse of the Terrorist Watch List for political benefit, with police departments adding protesting activists to the List for merely protesting, and children as young as 7 being placed on the List. Effectively, the government would hold veto power over anyone wishing to publish on the internet, and pull the plug if it disagrees with the message. Even though the current administration says it has no plans to use the power thusly, putting such powers in the hands of government in the first place is a dangerous undertaking. Especially if the power granted would have little effect on the cause the act is trying to promote.
The DNS only controls attempts to connect to other computers via what most people consider regular methods. Attempts that use only IP addresses to connect to servers, i.e. most hackers, would be completely unaffected by the changeover in power. In effect, the government seizure would hinder honest citizens while having no effect on the criminal class the Act is trying to protect against.
A combination of 2 further sections, Sections 18 and 23, holds even further chilling possiblities for abuse.
Section 18 gives the President the ability to declare a cybersecurity emergy, shutting down "Federal government and United States critical infrastructure in formation systems and networks". These are then defined in 23 to be pretty much whatever the President wants it to be. The President, therefore, can shut down whatever communication systems he/she decides to in the name of cybersecurity, which also has been helpfully left up to the President to decide when a cybersecurity crisis is occuring. This simply cannot stand. The government can not be in the business of deciding which voices get heard and which do not on the Internet. Even though there is little history of the Internet, the Internet has been established as a public forum, open to anyone to post. If the government controls whoever gets to post there, inroads will be made to erode the openness of the Internet, and eventually the government will be able to usurp one of the greatest tools free speech has seen in a long, long time.
Essentially, this section calls for the eventual phasing in of a federal replacement of the current DNS (Domain Naming System). Currently, the DNS is administered by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. In order to understand the implications of a change in control, it is important to understand what exactly the DNS does.SEC. 9. SECURE DOMAIN NAME ADDRESSING SYSTEM.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall develop a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system. The Assistant Secretary shall publish notice of the system requirements in the Federal Register together with an implementation schedule for Federal agencies and information systems or networks designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as critical infrastructure information systems or networks.
b) COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall ensure that each Federal agency and each such system or network implements the secure domain name addressing system in accordance with the schedule published by the Assistant Secretary.
The DNS is a hierarchical system that allows for translation between human-meaningful phrases and computer code. It's the system that translates icanhascheezburger.com into 72.233.69.8, to allow the computer to understand what exactly it is looking for. In order to make these mappings consistent, however, there needs to be a unique bijection between the two - only one web site per name. This is what the ICANN currently does. ICANN oversees the domain registration and allocation process in a fair, balanced manner. This is the power that the government is currently seeking - the ability to control domain registration.
This power holds much potential for government abuse, though. We've already seen the abuse of the Terrorist Watch List for political benefit, with police departments adding protesting activists to the List for merely protesting, and children as young as 7 being placed on the List. Effectively, the government would hold veto power over anyone wishing to publish on the internet, and pull the plug if it disagrees with the message. Even though the current administration says it has no plans to use the power thusly, putting such powers in the hands of government in the first place is a dangerous undertaking. Especially if the power granted would have little effect on the cause the act is trying to promote.
The DNS only controls attempts to connect to other computers via what most people consider regular methods. Attempts that use only IP addresses to connect to servers, i.e. most hackers, would be completely unaffected by the changeover in power. In effect, the government seizure would hinder honest citizens while having no effect on the criminal class the Act is trying to protect against.
A combination of 2 further sections, Sections 18 and 23, holds even further chilling possiblities for abuse.
SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY
The President—
. . .
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
. . .
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national securitySEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.
(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS.—
The term ‘‘Federal government and United States critical infrastructure in formation systems and networks’’ includes—
(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.
Section 18 gives the President the ability to declare a cybersecurity emergy, shutting down "Federal government and United States critical infrastructure in formation systems and networks". These are then defined in 23 to be pretty much whatever the President wants it to be. The President, therefore, can shut down whatever communication systems he/she decides to in the name of cybersecurity, which also has been helpfully left up to the President to decide when a cybersecurity crisis is occuring. This simply cannot stand. The government can not be in the business of deciding which voices get heard and which do not on the Internet. Even though there is little history of the Internet, the Internet has been established as a public forum, open to anyone to post. If the government controls whoever gets to post there, inroads will be made to erode the openness of the Internet, and eventually the government will be able to usurp one of the greatest tools free speech has seen in a long, long time.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
When Good Ideas Get Corrupted - Hiding Behind Charges of Racism and Free Speech
Next week, Geneva, Switzerland will be host to the Durban Review Conference, a review of the Durban Declaration of 2001. The Durban Declaration, and supporting documents, are anti-racist, meant to declare and condemn those who would perpetrate racist policies and other forms of intolerance, such as that against women or HIV+ people. A rather noble cause, one the U.S. would be sure to get behind, you'd think.
However, according to CNN, the U.S. will be boycotting the conference, along with Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, and Israel, due to revisions that did not meet the expectations of the U.S. Specifically, the Programme of Action adopted contains language that "prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians," according to the State Department. Other countries voiced similar concerns over the singling out of Israel and the Palestinian Conflict. Obama's administration also rejected language concerning the incitement of racial hatred, citing First Amendment conflicts with free speech. However, the Obama administration will still be committed to ending bigotry and racial inequality with other nations.
Ironically, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay released a statement in response to the boycott, saying "A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance to a pernicious and life-damaging degree on a daily basis all across the world, in both developed and developing countries." While charging the boycotter's with narrow-mindedness and tunnel vision, she fails to recognize that such single-minded determination on a single issue is what caused these nations to boycott the conference in the first place. The first Durban Conference was plagued by constant attacks on Israel's side in the Palestinian conflict, and reaffirming the Durban documents is rather counter to what Israel and its allies consider fair. As noted before in this blog, the UN is not infallible in rooting out the forces of intolerance. The UN is merely a conglomerate of its members, and if the members continue to be unabashedly intolerant, then the UN can not claim to be above such things either. Hiding intolerance behind the guise of attacking intolerance does not justify anything - the ends do NOT justify the means.
While this issue may not be a specific offense against free speech, it is still an example of what is to come, and what has passed - the continual, deliberate erosion of freedoms by those who cover themselves in the cloak of "equality." The equality they fight for, however, is the "freedom" to continue their own inhumane and intolerant policies while denying others the ability to criticize them. It is unfortunate that it should seem the divide fall along religious grounds, but if such is the case, then such are the terms to be used - no pussyfooting around it.
However, the incitement clause is a heavy indictment against free speech. Free speech includes the right to hold opinions different from our own, no matter how repugnant we may find them. It is this variance of thought that is embedded in the Constitution. The Durban Programme of Action, though, calls for the signatories to "denounce and actively discourage" racist and xenophobic comments on the internet. Under US judicial precedence, the closest exceptions to protected speech are incitement to crime, breach of the peace, and fighting words. Fighting words, however, must be addressed to a single person, and racist/xenophobic comments on the Internet are not exactly addressed individually. Incitement to crime requires that the speaker deliberately attempt to convince the listener to commit racial violence. Merely ranting about the intellectual and moral inadequacies of racial groups is not enough cause to indict on incitement. Causing a breach of the peace requires some form of unwilling, unreasonable disruption of "peace and quiet," which doesn't exactly happen on the Internet. There is a certain kind of deliberate action that must be taken to access Internet content, and that level of implied consent denies any claim to "peace and quiet." Since mere transmission of racist/xenophobic comments don't fall under unprotected speech categories, that means that they are protected under the free speech doctrine, and constitutionally, the US can not accept the terms of the Durban Programme of Action as they stand.
However, according to CNN, the U.S. will be boycotting the conference, along with Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, and Israel, due to revisions that did not meet the expectations of the U.S. Specifically, the Programme of Action adopted contains language that "prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians," according to the State Department. Other countries voiced similar concerns over the singling out of Israel and the Palestinian Conflict. Obama's administration also rejected language concerning the incitement of racial hatred, citing First Amendment conflicts with free speech. However, the Obama administration will still be committed to ending bigotry and racial inequality with other nations.
Ironically, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay released a statement in response to the boycott, saying "A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance to a pernicious and life-damaging degree on a daily basis all across the world, in both developed and developing countries." While charging the boycotter's with narrow-mindedness and tunnel vision, she fails to recognize that such single-minded determination on a single issue is what caused these nations to boycott the conference in the first place. The first Durban Conference was plagued by constant attacks on Israel's side in the Palestinian conflict, and reaffirming the Durban documents is rather counter to what Israel and its allies consider fair. As noted before in this blog, the UN is not infallible in rooting out the forces of intolerance. The UN is merely a conglomerate of its members, and if the members continue to be unabashedly intolerant, then the UN can not claim to be above such things either. Hiding intolerance behind the guise of attacking intolerance does not justify anything - the ends do NOT justify the means.
While this issue may not be a specific offense against free speech, it is still an example of what is to come, and what has passed - the continual, deliberate erosion of freedoms by those who cover themselves in the cloak of "equality." The equality they fight for, however, is the "freedom" to continue their own inhumane and intolerant policies while denying others the ability to criticize them. It is unfortunate that it should seem the divide fall along religious grounds, but if such is the case, then such are the terms to be used - no pussyfooting around it.
However, the incitement clause is a heavy indictment against free speech. Free speech includes the right to hold opinions different from our own, no matter how repugnant we may find them. It is this variance of thought that is embedded in the Constitution. The Durban Programme of Action, though, calls for the signatories to "denounce and actively discourage" racist and xenophobic comments on the internet. Under US judicial precedence, the closest exceptions to protected speech are incitement to crime, breach of the peace, and fighting words. Fighting words, however, must be addressed to a single person, and racist/xenophobic comments on the Internet are not exactly addressed individually. Incitement to crime requires that the speaker deliberately attempt to convince the listener to commit racial violence. Merely ranting about the intellectual and moral inadequacies of racial groups is not enough cause to indict on incitement. Causing a breach of the peace requires some form of unwilling, unreasonable disruption of "peace and quiet," which doesn't exactly happen on the Internet. There is a certain kind of deliberate action that must be taken to access Internet content, and that level of implied consent denies any claim to "peace and quiet." Since mere transmission of racist/xenophobic comments don't fall under unprotected speech categories, that means that they are protected under the free speech doctrine, and constitutionally, the US can not accept the terms of the Durban Programme of Action as they stand.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
When Cops Go Rogue - Blatantly Illegal Police Actions
On March 12, 2009, the Police Department of Phoenix, Arizona, raided the home of Jeff Pataky for "petty theft and computer tampering with intent to harass", and recently added identity theft to the charges for stealing name plates of police officers and harassing them.
Sounds innocent enough, until you find that Jeff Pataky is the operator of Bad Phoenix Cops , a blog dedicated to exposing corruption and deceit within the Phoenix Police Department. Pataky started the site after he was "maliciously prosecuted" by police after his ex-wife falsely accused him of harassing her, which he quite obviously disproved by being out of town on every occasion. According to Pataky, the police took computers, modems, routers, hard drives, memory cards, and other equipment - basically anything that would allow Pataky to continue blogging. They also took numerous personal files pertaining to Pataky's pending lawsuit against the department for their harassment of Pataky and attempts to illegally stifle his criticism on the blog. Pataky dismisses these charges, as the "stolen" nameplates were made at a local trophy shop, with instructions posted on the blog for further dissemination, and his "harassment" of the police is the public exposure of their corruption and disregard for legal processes - as immediate in the public concern as it can get.
Excuse me for a moment, but WHAT. THE. FUCK. Police are raiding a blogger critical of them and essentially stealing the equipment necessary for him to reach his audience. This is, quite possibly, the greatest hypocrisy of "serving the public" that I have ever seen.
However embarassing the information Pataky posts on his blog may be, as public officials, the police officers lambasted have no legal recourse against the criticism, unless they can show Pataky made his comments with actual malice. The Supreme Court ruled as such in New York Times v Sullivan, when it was ruled that public officials could not silence their critics unless they could show that the criticism was knowingly false and malicious in content. While Pataky's postings may be malicious, they certainly are most likely true, as the source for all of Pataky's work comes from insiders in the police department, both current and retired. Given the nature and source of the complaints against these police, and the complete over-reaction against Pataky's home, it will be extremely difficult for them to prove actual malice on Pataky's part - if the charges are false at all. If the charges are true, then as public officials, such information is critical for an honest evaluation of the police force, and a critical public interest is vested in the information. With such a heavy public interest, Pataky has every right to publish the complaints and accusations against Phoenix police officers. The burden of proof is on the officers. If they don't want to see their names on the web, stop doing illegal shit and telling everyone about it.
Final Thought: Assistant Chief Andy Anderson claimed the case was "unique" because Pataky was running an "unaccredited grassroots web site." Umm, hello, but since when did people need "accreditation" to publish information about the public sphere? Never, ever, ever has there been a requirement to be part of the mainstream media circuit to engage in your First Amendment right to speech. Even if accreditation was required, the police department is in no way, shape, or form the legal authority on what sources can be accredited. The Phoenix Police Department, as a whole, is clearly in the wrong here. Stop trying to usurp the First Amendment.
Update: Due to several questions in the comments, I will point out that Bad Phoenix Cops has evidence that the officers involved had been informed by dedicated lawyers for the Phoenix Police Department that they are in fact public officials, despite the non-democratic process by which they are hired.
Sounds innocent enough, until you find that Jeff Pataky is the operator of Bad Phoenix Cops , a blog dedicated to exposing corruption and deceit within the Phoenix Police Department. Pataky started the site after he was "maliciously prosecuted" by police after his ex-wife falsely accused him of harassing her, which he quite obviously disproved by being out of town on every occasion. According to Pataky, the police took computers, modems, routers, hard drives, memory cards, and other equipment - basically anything that would allow Pataky to continue blogging. They also took numerous personal files pertaining to Pataky's pending lawsuit against the department for their harassment of Pataky and attempts to illegally stifle his criticism on the blog. Pataky dismisses these charges, as the "stolen" nameplates were made at a local trophy shop, with instructions posted on the blog for further dissemination, and his "harassment" of the police is the public exposure of their corruption and disregard for legal processes - as immediate in the public concern as it can get.
Excuse me for a moment, but WHAT. THE. FUCK. Police are raiding a blogger critical of them and essentially stealing the equipment necessary for him to reach his audience. This is, quite possibly, the greatest hypocrisy of "serving the public" that I have ever seen.
However embarassing the information Pataky posts on his blog may be, as public officials, the police officers lambasted have no legal recourse against the criticism, unless they can show Pataky made his comments with actual malice. The Supreme Court ruled as such in New York Times v Sullivan, when it was ruled that public officials could not silence their critics unless they could show that the criticism was knowingly false and malicious in content. While Pataky's postings may be malicious, they certainly are most likely true, as the source for all of Pataky's work comes from insiders in the police department, both current and retired. Given the nature and source of the complaints against these police, and the complete over-reaction against Pataky's home, it will be extremely difficult for them to prove actual malice on Pataky's part - if the charges are false at all. If the charges are true, then as public officials, such information is critical for an honest evaluation of the police force, and a critical public interest is vested in the information. With such a heavy public interest, Pataky has every right to publish the complaints and accusations against Phoenix police officers. The burden of proof is on the officers. If they don't want to see their names on the web, stop doing illegal shit and telling everyone about it.
Final Thought: Assistant Chief Andy Anderson claimed the case was "unique" because Pataky was running an "unaccredited grassroots web site." Umm, hello, but since when did people need "accreditation" to publish information about the public sphere? Never, ever, ever has there been a requirement to be part of the mainstream media circuit to engage in your First Amendment right to speech. Even if accreditation was required, the police department is in no way, shape, or form the legal authority on what sources can be accredited. The Phoenix Police Department, as a whole, is clearly in the wrong here. Stop trying to usurp the First Amendment.
Update: Due to several questions in the comments, I will point out that Bad Phoenix Cops has evidence that the officers involved had been informed by dedicated lawyers for the Phoenix Police Department that they are in fact public officials, despite the non-democratic process by which they are hired.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
UPDATE: The Economist Weighs in on Religious Sensitivity
The Economist has its take on the UN Resolution against Religious Defamation up here.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Religious Differences, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the UN
Have you heard about the hot new religion around town? It's all the rage with the tween girls. Known affectionately as Cullenism, Cullenists hold that Edward Cullen, the star of the hit novel Twilight, and his family are real, and Stephanie Meyer, the author, is the best author in all time. Also, good Cullenists get to spend eternity with the Cullenists, while those who are bad in life get sent to Jame's Cave. Doesn't that sound just lovely?1
{/sarcasm}
Lest you be too quick to judge Cullenism harshly, keep in mind UN Human Rights Resolution 2002/9, passed just this last Friday. While the majority of the Resolution is beyond reproach, recognizing the importance of stopping hate crimes and discrimination based on religion, one chilling line remains:
What exactly constitutes defamation of religion? And why is Islam so prominently identified as the major victim of defamation? Aren't other religions just as demonized in other parts of the world?
The UN failed to denote exactly what is defamation, and so opens the door to future denial of free-speech rights. It is interesting to note that the major backers of this resolution, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, are among the greatest deniers of human rights. Fox News has compiled a short, but by no means comprehensive, list of human rights violations by the member states, among them the jailing of a British teacher in Sudan who allowed his (Muslim) students to name the class teddy bear Muhammed, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for documenting the abuse of Islamic women, and the reported arrest of two promoters of a book deemed offensive to the wife of the Prophet, Aisha (they mentioned she was nine and prepubescent when the marriage was consummated.)
Essentially, what is being labeled as the crime of "defamation" in these cases is in reality merely a sin of blasphemy, and of course, blasphemy is all relative. While religion is allowed to have its own beliefs, and have them respected, the actions of a person acting in religious fervor are not similarly defensible. You may believe that all left-handed people are tainted by the devil, and I don't really mind. It's when you forcibly exorcise them that you've crossed the line, and religion can not be a shield for such activity. No matter what your beliefs are, there are others who will disagree with you, and you can not simply shut them up without any reasonable discourse. Kevin Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it best:
Edit: My language was probably a little strong. I merely meant that it was somewhat depressing for the UN, bulwark of human rights, to be completely subverted by a repressive agenda against those rights in the cause of religion. I use the term "fascism" to mean a religion of nationalism, which can be combined with any other more common religion in government.
1) As the original source has blocked the post, presumably for generating large amounts of trolling, Cullenism beliefs are here.
{/sarcasm}
Lest you be too quick to judge Cullenism harshly, keep in mind UN Human Rights Resolution 2002/9, passed just this last Friday. While the majority of the Resolution is beyond reproach, recognizing the importance of stopping hate crimes and discrimination based on religion, one chilling line remains:
"8. Encourages States, within their respective constitutional systems, to provide adequate protection against all human rights violations resulting from defamation of religions and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems;"
What exactly constitutes defamation of religion? And why is Islam so prominently identified as the major victim of defamation? Aren't other religions just as demonized in other parts of the world?
The UN failed to denote exactly what is defamation, and so opens the door to future denial of free-speech rights. It is interesting to note that the major backers of this resolution, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, are among the greatest deniers of human rights. Fox News has compiled a short, but by no means comprehensive, list of human rights violations by the member states, among them the jailing of a British teacher in Sudan who allowed his (Muslim) students to name the class teddy bear Muhammed, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for documenting the abuse of Islamic women, and the reported arrest of two promoters of a book deemed offensive to the wife of the Prophet, Aisha (they mentioned she was nine and prepubescent when the marriage was consummated.)
Essentially, what is being labeled as the crime of "defamation" in these cases is in reality merely a sin of blasphemy, and of course, blasphemy is all relative. While religion is allowed to have its own beliefs, and have them respected, the actions of a person acting in religious fervor are not similarly defensible. You may believe that all left-handed people are tainted by the devil, and I don't really mind. It's when you forcibly exorcise them that you've crossed the line, and religion can not be a shield for such activity. No matter what your beliefs are, there are others who will disagree with you, and you can not simply shut them up without any reasonable discourse. Kevin Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it best:
“When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.” (quote from Fox News)And that is precisely what is being happening here - the usurpation of the human right to disagree for the "right" of an idea to never be scrutinized, to never be challenged, and to punish those who do not believe. Sorry for being pessimistic, but that sounds like the first step of militarism to me. How ironic that the UN, once the paragon of world diplomacy, should be the one ushering in a new age of fascism and theocracy.
Edit: My language was probably a little strong. I merely meant that it was somewhat depressing for the UN, bulwark of human rights, to be completely subverted by a repressive agenda against those rights in the cause of religion. I use the term "fascism" to mean a religion of nationalism, which can be combined with any other more common religion in government.
1) As the original source has blocked the post, presumably for generating large amounts of trolling, Cullenism beliefs are here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Tourism with a Twist - Getting Around Those Pesky Laws
Here in the U.S., our law is governed by our Constitution, and as citizens, we enjoy the full protection of such. However, several attempts have been made to stymie the free speech of Americans by bringing libel suits in foreign jurisdictions, in a tactic known as "libel tourism."
The most high-profile case in recent years was Ehrenfeld v Mahfouz, where Irish/Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz had won a British libel suit against American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld for identifying Mahfouz in her book as a supporter and funder of terrorism. Ehrenfeld declined to defend herself in British court, citing the unreasonable cost of traveling to London and the fact that she had not published in Britain, and so did not want to lend credence to Mahfouz's libel tourism. After summary judgments had been served on Ehrenfeld, she sued in the New York court, arguing that Mahfouz fell under New York's CPLR 302 (a) (1) statute (Lines 22-3. Sorry for the third-party link, but this was the only definition I could find that did not reference Ehrenfeld), which gave the state jurisdiction over non-residents if they committed business transactions in the state and citing two such transactions.2 Surprisingly, the New York Court disagreed, and granted Mahfouz's request to dismiss Ehrenfeld's countersuit based on lack of jurisdiction. In denying jurisdiction, the court allowed that such action would be constitutionally permissible, but the authority to bring the case into NY jurisdiction had not been explicitly given by the Legislature.
Now hang on a moment. An American citizen, publishing in American forums, is denied the protection of the American constitution because ... a state legislature didn't allow it? Ehrenfeld had made no attempt to publish in Britain, and yet was theoretically subject to British law because third parties had brought 23 copies of her book to Britain and a chapter of her book on ABCnews.com was available to British readers. Yet, somehow, Mahfouz's actions, made totally against Ehrenfeld's work and holdings in America, had no bearing on Ehrenfeld's free speech protections in America. Sounds like the double standard Mahfouz was counting on to intimidate Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz got to attack Ehrenfeld in a completely irrelevant jurisdiction, and Ehrenfeld gets no recourse because New York declined to put Mahfouz under its jurisdiction.
Luckily, the legal loopholes that allowed such actions are being mended as we speak. Early this month, Representative Peter King (R. NY) introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, also known as Rachel's Law in recognition of Ehrenfeld, to stop such blatant workarounds of American law. Essentially, the bill is a formal recognition of the scare tactics of libel tourism, and a declaration that such judgments are invalid against American citizens until libel has been proven under American law. The bill is also a deterrent against false accusations by tripling damages if it is shown that the false libel was intended to interfere with the speaker's First Amendment rights.
It seems that such things would go without saying, but then, common sense seems to be missing from a lot of U.S. law. Still, this bill would be a huge step in the right direction, as American speakers increasingly find themselves under assault for criticizing foreign states or individuals. The United Nations has not been immune to this assault either, bowing to pressure from fundamentalist Muslims in its statement that "The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs" (Reuters.com). The statement was in response to cartoons that appeared in a Danish newspaper depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Under Sharia law, depictions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are blasphemous, and the cartoonists have had to fend off death threats for their actions.
It seems ridiculous to criticize the cartoonists for deserving the response they got, but so the U.N. did. Now let’s suppose that the cartoonists did attempt to respect every religious belief. How exactly are they supposed to resolve the simple conflict of which deity to portray as the Ultimate God? The U.N.'s decision puts the burden of speech on the speaker not to offend, but there is always someone who will claim offense simply to stop speech they do not agree with. Rather, the burden of speech should be on the listeners to assume some risk of being offended when they enter the public arena, and by extension the global forum. Otherwise, if speakers can not offend anyone, then pretty much all speech is thrown out the window. Want to have a female teacher? Sorry, it offends fundamentalist Christians. Want to grab a burger? Sorry, cows are sacred in Hinduism. Want to declare lack of belief in any god, i.e. be atheist? Sorry, can't have that. The list of ridiculous contradictions goes on. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that a speaker can respect every religion and still manage to convey a meaningful message. Given the global climate and general attitude towards Americans in the world at large, it's an extremely good thing Rachel's Law is under consideration, lest proponents of religious tolerance get sued for libel by fundamentalists claiming their religion is the only true one. It's just too bad that it's taken us this long to figure out that laws in other countries are not exactly in accordance with our own.
And just because I can, here's a cartoon of Jesus and Mo. Original author at www.jesusandmo.net.
The most high-profile case in recent years was Ehrenfeld v Mahfouz, where Irish/Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz had won a British libel suit against American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld for identifying Mahfouz in her book as a supporter and funder of terrorism. Ehrenfeld declined to defend herself in British court, citing the unreasonable cost of traveling to London and the fact that she had not published in Britain, and so did not want to lend credence to Mahfouz's libel tourism. After summary judgments had been served on Ehrenfeld, she sued in the New York court, arguing that Mahfouz fell under New York's CPLR 302 (a) (1) statute (Lines 22-3. Sorry for the third-party link, but this was the only definition I could find that did not reference Ehrenfeld), which gave the state jurisdiction over non-residents if they committed business transactions in the state and citing two such transactions.2 Surprisingly, the New York Court disagreed, and granted Mahfouz's request to dismiss Ehrenfeld's countersuit based on lack of jurisdiction. In denying jurisdiction, the court allowed that such action would be constitutionally permissible, but the authority to bring the case into NY jurisdiction had not been explicitly given by the Legislature.
Now hang on a moment. An American citizen, publishing in American forums, is denied the protection of the American constitution because ... a state legislature didn't allow it? Ehrenfeld had made no attempt to publish in Britain, and yet was theoretically subject to British law because third parties had brought 23 copies of her book to Britain and a chapter of her book on ABCnews.com was available to British readers. Yet, somehow, Mahfouz's actions, made totally against Ehrenfeld's work and holdings in America, had no bearing on Ehrenfeld's free speech protections in America. Sounds like the double standard Mahfouz was counting on to intimidate Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz got to attack Ehrenfeld in a completely irrelevant jurisdiction, and Ehrenfeld gets no recourse because New York declined to put Mahfouz under its jurisdiction.
Luckily, the legal loopholes that allowed such actions are being mended as we speak. Early this month, Representative Peter King (R. NY) introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, also known as Rachel's Law in recognition of Ehrenfeld, to stop such blatant workarounds of American law. Essentially, the bill is a formal recognition of the scare tactics of libel tourism, and a declaration that such judgments are invalid against American citizens until libel has been proven under American law. The bill is also a deterrent against false accusations by tripling damages if it is shown that the false libel was intended to interfere with the speaker's First Amendment rights.
It seems that such things would go without saying, but then, common sense seems to be missing from a lot of U.S. law. Still, this bill would be a huge step in the right direction, as American speakers increasingly find themselves under assault for criticizing foreign states or individuals. The United Nations has not been immune to this assault either, bowing to pressure from fundamentalist Muslims in its statement that "The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs" (Reuters.com). The statement was in response to cartoons that appeared in a Danish newspaper depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Under Sharia law, depictions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are blasphemous, and the cartoonists have had to fend off death threats for their actions.
It seems ridiculous to criticize the cartoonists for deserving the response they got, but so the U.N. did. Now let’s suppose that the cartoonists did attempt to respect every religious belief. How exactly are they supposed to resolve the simple conflict of which deity to portray as the Ultimate God? The U.N.'s decision puts the burden of speech on the speaker not to offend, but there is always someone who will claim offense simply to stop speech they do not agree with. Rather, the burden of speech should be on the listeners to assume some risk of being offended when they enter the public arena, and by extension the global forum. Otherwise, if speakers can not offend anyone, then pretty much all speech is thrown out the window. Want to have a female teacher? Sorry, it offends fundamentalist Christians. Want to grab a burger? Sorry, cows are sacred in Hinduism. Want to declare lack of belief in any god, i.e. be atheist? Sorry, can't have that. The list of ridiculous contradictions goes on. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that a speaker can respect every religion and still manage to convey a meaningful message. Given the global climate and general attitude towards Americans in the world at large, it's an extremely good thing Rachel's Law is under consideration, lest proponents of religious tolerance get sued for libel by fundamentalists claiming their religion is the only true one. It's just too bad that it's taken us this long to figure out that laws in other countries are not exactly in accordance with our own.
And just because I can, here's a cartoon of Jesus and Mo. Original author at www.jesusandmo.net.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Unofficially Disturbed
So we had a bit of an event here at U of I this past weekend. I'm sure if you were in town anytime Friday or Saturday afternoon you saw people out and about celebrating quite energetically. But what exactly were they celebrating?
Getting drunk off their asses, is what. Of course, the "official" reason is that they were celebrating Unofficial St. Patrick's Day. This day was created by bar owner Scott Cochrane in 1996 in order to allow students to celebrate St. Patrick's Day while still at campus, since the real day often fell over Spring Break.1 Originally, just his bars celebrated the event. Shortly, though, other bars and stores realized just how much money Cochrane was getting, and wanted in on the action. It's grown quite a bit since then, and now it pulls alumni and students from all over the Midwest back to Champaign-Urbana to raise a toast (or 21) to Unofficial.
There's a bit of a problem with that, though. Ask almost anyone who's wearing green, they'll say the day is "Just another excuse to get drunk."2 Whatever symbolism Unofficial may have had to Cochrane, the day has simply become a Day of Alcohol. Two men were hospitalized from alcohol poisoning before noon on Unofficial. Public pictures from Unofficial can be found here. The amount of sheer willful bending of the law in the pictures says quite a bit on how limits were perceived that day.
Now of course, the University has attempted to mitigate the harm befalling their students. Visitors were barred from staying overnight in the (mainly freshmen and sophmores) dorms and getting free lodgings. Rather reasonably so, since all the freshmen, sophmores, and half the juniors are below the drinking age. Extra security was positioned around the University during the day, ejecting people from classes for being drunk or carrying alcohol into class. A letter was sent home to parents of the students, asking them to talk to their kids about Unoffical and underage drinking. Champain and Urbana took some action as well, ordering bars not to open until 11AM and to admit only those aged 21 and up, as well as stationing a heavy police presence on the streets.
Which rather begs the question, why not simply ban the day, or at least the liquor? This "tradition" was started by a bar owner to drive up business, nothing more, and now has gotten completely out of hand. Admittedly, local businesses get quite the uptick in business, but at a rather heavy price. Streets, apartments, and people are completely trashed, fights break out at bars, and underage drinking goes through the roof. Derek Roetzer, manager of the Flat Top Grill near Wright and Green, said that Unofficial drove away most of his local business, replacing it with drunken students. Seems like there really isn't anything against banning the day, other than money.
Except the Constitution, of course. Bars, restaurants, and whatever other organizations want to have the freedom to promote and talk about whatever events they want to under freedom of speech. It doesn't matter that the event has caused problems in the past, or even that the cities can show that the next one will too. Terminiello v. Chicago established that a speaker could not be held liable for "disturbing the peace" by his speech, even when that disturbance was two large mobs fighting each other. Even with all the alcohol around, the crowds on Unofficial hardly approached that benchmark of devastation, and so, the promotions continue. The best actions against Unofficial that can be taken are simply those of mitigation, arresting individual perpetrators and increasing security checks in public places and on University property. So local residents and students mark the calendar for next year, one for avoidance and one for jubilation, and the saga continues meandering in a tipsy line til the next round comes.
1 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/09/News/Bar-Restrictions.Create.Mixed.Opinions.On.Safety.During.Unofficial-3665035.shtml
2 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/06/News/Students.Visitors.Get.Early.Start.On.Unofficial-3663627.shtml
Edit: The link has been updated, and works for my computer. Sorry if it doesn't for yours.
Getting drunk off their asses, is what. Of course, the "official" reason is that they were celebrating Unofficial St. Patrick's Day. This day was created by bar owner Scott Cochrane in 1996 in order to allow students to celebrate St. Patrick's Day while still at campus, since the real day often fell over Spring Break.1 Originally, just his bars celebrated the event. Shortly, though, other bars and stores realized just how much money Cochrane was getting, and wanted in on the action. It's grown quite a bit since then, and now it pulls alumni and students from all over the Midwest back to Champaign-Urbana to raise a toast (or 21) to Unofficial.
There's a bit of a problem with that, though. Ask almost anyone who's wearing green, they'll say the day is "Just another excuse to get drunk."2 Whatever symbolism Unofficial may have had to Cochrane, the day has simply become a Day of Alcohol. Two men were hospitalized from alcohol poisoning before noon on Unofficial. Public pictures from Unofficial can be found here. The amount of sheer willful bending of the law in the pictures says quite a bit on how limits were perceived that day.
Now of course, the University has attempted to mitigate the harm befalling their students. Visitors were barred from staying overnight in the (mainly freshmen and sophmores) dorms and getting free lodgings. Rather reasonably so, since all the freshmen, sophmores, and half the juniors are below the drinking age. Extra security was positioned around the University during the day, ejecting people from classes for being drunk or carrying alcohol into class. A letter was sent home to parents of the students, asking them to talk to their kids about Unoffical and underage drinking. Champain and Urbana took some action as well, ordering bars not to open until 11AM and to admit only those aged 21 and up, as well as stationing a heavy police presence on the streets.
Which rather begs the question, why not simply ban the day, or at least the liquor? This "tradition" was started by a bar owner to drive up business, nothing more, and now has gotten completely out of hand. Admittedly, local businesses get quite the uptick in business, but at a rather heavy price. Streets, apartments, and people are completely trashed, fights break out at bars, and underage drinking goes through the roof. Derek Roetzer, manager of the Flat Top Grill near Wright and Green, said that Unofficial drove away most of his local business, replacing it with drunken students. Seems like there really isn't anything against banning the day, other than money.
Except the Constitution, of course. Bars, restaurants, and whatever other organizations want to have the freedom to promote and talk about whatever events they want to under freedom of speech. It doesn't matter that the event has caused problems in the past, or even that the cities can show that the next one will too. Terminiello v. Chicago established that a speaker could not be held liable for "disturbing the peace" by his speech, even when that disturbance was two large mobs fighting each other. Even with all the alcohol around, the crowds on Unofficial hardly approached that benchmark of devastation, and so, the promotions continue. The best actions against Unofficial that can be taken are simply those of mitigation, arresting individual perpetrators and increasing security checks in public places and on University property. So local residents and students mark the calendar for next year, one for avoidance and one for jubilation, and the saga continues meandering in a tipsy line til the next round comes.
1 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/09/News/Bar-Restrictions.Create.Mixed.Opinions.On.Safety.During.Unofficial-3665035.shtml
2 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/06/News/Students.Visitors.Get.Early.Start.On.Unofficial-3663627.shtml
Edit: The link has been updated, and works for my computer. Sorry if it doesn't for yours.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A New Format
Bear with me as I attempt to mold my thoughts into these posts. Casual yet researched is not exactly my style, and expect some early stumbling before I fully catch my flow.
Testing
This post is a test. Please remove all study materials from your desk and take out your #2 pencils. No Calculators will be allowed. You will have 5 minutes to complete all the questions.
1. Please hand in your test. Congratulations, you will receive an A.
1. Please hand in your test. Congratulations, you will receive an A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
