Questions were asked about what "going over the line" meant. Assclowns like Crimethinc are exactly what you'd want to point at and say "that's what I'm talking about." Disagreeing with the government (or even just Republicans) is one thing, but going around encouraging people to vandalize websites/etc is something else.
Jesus. No wonder he looked like he was expecting to be arrested.
Idiots like this may as well go on the Republican payroll. It's all fine to be a mindlessly enthusiastic twit, but when you have the skills and ability to do serious damage to things, you lose that option and have to THINK seriously about the consequences of your actions.
What did he think would be likely to happen in the wake of acts of political vandalism, such as he advocates? Reductions in police powers in the governtment? Reduced government action against hackers? A more permissive government atti
Are vandalism and terrorism now interchangeable terms?
This country's language has been co-opted by the hard right to such an extent that even progressives like you often have had your consciousness arrested.
Other than that, I am with you about the importance of sensible tactics.
No more than "murder" is interchangable with "terrorism".
Ultimately, murder, vandalism, and other assorted crimes are not necessarily terrorism. What makes an act "terrorism", is the reason behind the act. If I kill you for your watch, it's not not terrorism. If I kill you as a warning to others not to say what you're saying, or do what you are doing, it's terrorism.
Likewise, if I destroy your property, harrass you, and restrict your ability to freely move about, all in an effort to make you afraid to
Yep __LINT__ - that's exactly what I meant. Sorry if it was ambiguous enough to be misunderstood by the other poster.
Crimethinc is advocating destruction of property, which I took to be vandalism, even if it is 'merely' digital property, in order to prevent the political participation of that group. That's terrorism folks. If I threatened to spray Stallman (who is a hydrophobe) with water whenever he says 'GNU/Linux', that'd be terrorism, even if on a small scale. It isn't the crime, but the political
So the guy who spoke at Defconf and argued for giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time. So what?
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected in his person for his own speech?
He didn't just advocate "giving them a hard time". He advocated illegal activities. This is not, and never has been, protected speech. He advocates the restricing of their rights, specifically, destroying their property, and interfering with their ability to travel.
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
Do you care to explain why the KKK or the god-damned white supremacy groups remain legal?
It is not what you say (except as in the case of a crying fire in a crowded theater), it is what you do.
Unless you are foreigner, in which case,they can lock you away without access to counsel by declaring you an "enemy combatant". Ain't it lovely to live in the land of the free?
The KKK, and many white-supremacy groups, remain legal because they, unlike Crimethinc, are very careful not to openly advocate illegal activities. If any individual KKK member came out and gave a speech to the general public, in which he advocated stringing minorities up by their toes, they'd be prosecuted, too. The KKK has been around a long time, and unfortunately, they know how to toe the legal line.
There is a lot more behind the speaker that you don't not understand. I spoke with his friends and him later on and I'll just say this, you don't understand.
You're bloody well right we don't understand. So enlighten us. What did they say? How did they justify his speech?
BTW - free speech works both ways. The same rights that protect CrimethInc protect the Republicans as well. Let's play shoe-on-other-foot for a moment. What do you think would happen if the Republicans encouraged their attendees to deface the CrimethInc web site, to launch denial of service attacks against their server, and to harass members in the street? Considering that he called being esco
Ever think that there's privacy issues to be concerned with? This young speaker's video was confiscated by the feds after his speech. Any discussion could just hurt him more, plus I don't want to have anything to do with it. I shouldn't even of posted anything.
So the guy who spoke at Defconf and argued for giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time. So what?
Giving them a hard time? Telling the audience to 'fuck up their shit' is your idea of giving the RNC a hard time? Defacing and DOS'ing their websites? Harassing delegates? You have a pretty loose definition of giving them a hard time.
Joe Barr was there to report on the convention, not to advance his own beliefs on any of its subject matter. Whether he thinks Crimethinc should have be
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected in his person for his own speech?
From the article:
But CrimeThinc continued to ask attendees to deface the Republican National Committee Web sites, to launch denial of se
I've heard of "hactivists" targeting child pornography sites. This makes a little more sense. But vandalizing a legal website, even one you disagree with, seems childish and malicious.
Crimethinc (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus. No wonder he looked like he was expecting to be arrested.
Re:Crimethinc (Score:1, Insightful)
Idiots like this may as well go on the Republican payroll. It's all fine to be a mindlessly enthusiastic twit, but when you have the skills and ability to do serious damage to things, you lose that option and have to THINK seriously about the consequences of your actions.
What did he think would be likely to happen in the wake of acts of political vandalism, such as he advocates? Reductions in police powers in the governtment? Reduced government action against hackers? A more permissive government atti
Re:Crimethinc (Score:1)
This country's language has been co-opted by the hard right to such an extent that even progressives like you often have had your consciousness arrested.
Other than that, I am with you about the importance of sensible tactics.
Re:Crimethinc (Score:1)
Depends on your point of view...or lately, your ethnic background.
Makes you think now, doesn't it?
Re:Crimethinc (Score:1)
Ultimately, murder, vandalism, and other assorted crimes are not necessarily terrorism. What makes an act "terrorism", is the reason behind the act. If I kill you for your watch, it's not not terrorism. If I kill you as a warning to others not to say what you're saying, or do what you are doing, it's terrorism.
Likewise, if I destroy your property, harrass you, and restrict your ability to freely move about, all in an effort to make you afraid to
Re:Crimethinc (Score:0)
Yep __LINT__ - that's exactly what I meant. Sorry if it was ambiguous enough to be misunderstood by the other poster.
Crimethinc is advocating destruction of property, which I took to be vandalism, even if it is 'merely' digital property, in order to prevent the political participation of that group. That's terrorism folks. If I threatened to spray Stallman (who is a hydrophobe) with water whenever he says 'GNU/Linux', that'd be terrorism, even if on a small scale. It isn't the crime, but the political
Who's the assclown? (Score:0)
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected in his person for his own speech?
As far as I can tell from
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
You do not have the right to interfere with the rights of others.
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:0)
It is not what you say (except as in the case of a crying fire in a crowded theater), it is what you do.
Unless you are foreigner, in which case,they can lock you away without access to counsel by declaring you an "enemy combatant". Ain't it lovely to live in the land of the free?
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
The KKK, and many white-supremacy groups, remain legal because they, unlike Crimethinc, are very careful not to openly advocate illegal activities. If any individual KKK member came out and gave a speech to the general public, in which he advocated stringing minorities up by their toes, they'd be prosecuted, too. The KKK has been around a long time, and unfortunately, they know how to toe the legal line.
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:0, Troll)
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:2)
BTW - free speech works both ways. The same rights that protect CrimethInc protect the Republicans as well. Let's play shoe-on-other-foot for a moment. What do you think would happen if the Republicans encouraged their attendees to deface the CrimethInc web site, to launch denial of service attacks against their server, and to harass members in the street? Considering that he called being esco
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:1)
Giving them a hard time? Telling the audience to 'fuck up their shit' is your idea of giving the RNC a hard time? Defacing and DOS'ing their websites? Harassing delegates? You have a pretty loose definition of giving them a hard time.
Joe Barr was there to report on the convention, not to advance his own beliefs on any of its subject matter. Whether he thinks Crimethinc should have be
Re:Who's the assclown? (Score:2)
From the article:
Hacktivism (Score:1)
Re:Hacktivism (Score:0)
(thats one segment of people i have no tolerance for)
Re:Hacktivism (Score:1)