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.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday August 03, 2004 @01:37PM (#9869934)
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?
As far as I can tell from their web site, Crimethinc does try to shake people out of apathy, but their most important weapon is language:
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.
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.
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
Crimethinc (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus. No wonder he looked like he was expecting to be arrested.
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 their web site, Crimethinc does try to shake people out of apathy, but their most important weapon is language:
http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/conte
http://www.crimethinc.com/library/english/libse
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: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: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: