Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China 642
gexen writes "According to this article in The Guardian, 'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'."
Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Microsoft doing the violating, it's the people using their software.
Is open source software never used for anything bad?
fp! (Score:5, Insightful)
How MS is responsible for that, I can't figure out...
Prosecute the criminals, not those who make a product and have that product abused by criminals..
So? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Amnesty Inernational (Score:2, Insightful)
They are against Nixonian engagement (trade with China), against embargos/sanctions (Cuba), and against military intervention to overthrow murderous dictators (Iraq).
Too bad Amnesty just likes to whine and doesn't have any solutions.
I dont blame microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft Dissident Tracker (Score:2, Insightful)
Thanks for the amusement, hippies of the world (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
An Amnesty International report has cited Microsoft among a clutch of leading computer firms heavily criticised for helping to fuel 'a dramatic rise in the number of people detained or sentenced for internet-related offences'.
So pretty much Gates an MicroSoft are evil because they made Windows and people use it to go on the internet sometimes, and some of those people commit crimes on the internet.
Can I mod the article as flamebait? (Score:5, Insightful)
MS may have a lot of problems, but I don't know how they are supposed to know a priori that certain software they sell is going to be used for human rights violations. And frankly, I think the software would be pirated even if they refused to sell it.
Inflamatory Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Also this headline violates the "too many pointless capitals in a sentance" rule, me thinks.
You are correct! (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, that's why I have concerns with Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon CPU chip; the Chinese government might have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that could make tracking of Internet surfers even easier than many people think. (wagging fingers)
Microsoft Shouldn't Be Held Liable (Score:5, Insightful)
"...United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure..."
The UNHR code says businesses SHOULD seek to ensure their products will not abuse human rights. It doesn't say is they HAVE TO.
I also have to agree with Microsoft when they say that they shouldn't be held liable for the way people use their software. It is like suing a golf club manufacturer because china uses their specifi c model to beat dissidents.
---------------
you say "guns don't kill, people do" ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody can demiss the right to anybody to use free software, but Microsoft can control it sales. I guess it's two very different thinks to let a country develop a repressive politic or to sell them software that help them to do it - and make profit with it.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
How we, as 'liberators' have seeemed to ignore China after Tiananmen Square confuses and alarms me.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you feel if they were building those networks of censorship here?
Re:fp! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not the current USA policy in this matter.
Mindless M$ bashing? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGASA170052004 [amnesty.org]
"In its report, the organization also refers to several companies, including Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems, which have reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China. Amnesty International fears that by selling such technology the companies did not give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments."
Things to note:
1. There are many other companies mentioned here too.
2. If they did not buy the technology from these companies they would have gotten it from OpenSource for free.
3. Its not about profits. Its about using technology for "evil", which OpenSource stuff can do.
China must decide for itself... (Score:3, Insightful)
What should the USA do? Ban the sale of any product which could be used to violate human rights? Or change the software so it opperates differently? I think this is a problem for the Chinese people, not USA companys.
If we were selling guns, then the solution would be to stop selling them. But software is not the same. The end user has to decide how to use the software. There are choices.
I also think soverign countries have a right to decide their own values. For change to occur, those who want change must vocalize it in the open, not wisper it in the dark. Then the rest of the country has a right to decide if they want change. Who are we to decide that for them, and treat them like a child? If the people of China want change bad enough, they will fight for it.
Or maybe we can just get Miscrosoft to tweak the EULA. ;)
no good.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The title made me skip a heartbeat and prepared me to grab a gun and start screaming, but all it actualy said was that Micro$oft $oftware was used to abuse rights in China.
Duh, someone wanted an article about nothing and he got it!
If Microsoft abuses human rights because its product abuse human rights, then what does H&K and other weapon producers do? What about Nike which pays 14 cents an hour for shoe manufacturing in Malaysia, without giving a shyte about enviromental damage.
Dont misunderstand me, im generally as anti-Micro$oft as it gets, but this is absurd.
IBM and the Holocaust (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem with all these large companies is their choice to hide behind the almighty buck. Capitalism reigns supreme. `Hey, what is it any of my business if you use my product to harm or kill people? Just as long as you pay up.'
I'm not implying that companies are responsible for finding out every last detail of how their product will be used when they sell it to a customer. However, I do think that turning a blind-eye to how their product will be used when it's fairly obvious that it will be employed in unethical ends is wrong.
Article is a large hairy TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Chinese violate human rights using MS software, well, it's not MS's fault. The Chinese are said to be heavy proponents of Linux and are developing their own distro. What happens in China is not Linus' fault either! Slashdot folk wisdom is right on this one: blame the person, not the tool. I can barely imagine the next article... "China uses gloves to slap dissidents; glove manufacturers blamed"
I know human rights abuse is a very serious issue and people die over such things. I think it's irresponsible to trivialize it by blaming a software manufacturer, even if it's MS.
OK, rant done. Go ahead, mod me down
Software is a tool.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's unfortunate that the Chinese government chooses to use Microsoft's product to track down and punish people who don't think like they do. But, never thought I'd say this, it is NOT Microsoft's fault that the Chinese government has chosen to use their products in this fashion. Just remember that they could have chosen to use OSS instead.
Re:It's hard to see how Microsoft can win (Score:2, Insightful)
What's your point? That very same argument can be applied to any sort of trade, and nobody is arguing that gun manufacturers are being discriminatory by not selling to known bad people (except of course, that they are)
If your latest "weaponry starter pack" doesn't include cattle-prods and antipersonnel mines, then it might be hard to sell it to the Burmese. Doesn't make it right to adapt your product so that such markets will be more likely to purchase.
In the end, it's a "manufacturer/user" argument, which has been discussed to death (hopefully not a pun) in the US where every shop will sell machine guns to anyone who wanders in, and claim "it's not my fault how they're used". I belive the conclusion was that legally, it didn't matter because the gun-manufacturers owned the government. But this case is in the UK, so those arguments don't apply the same way.
It's not just a case of developing multi-purpose tools is it though? Plenty of open-source tools too, are useful for censorship, from transparent proxies to password-guessers to network sniffers and analysers. But the problem is when companies such as Cisco are making special efforts to create features they know will be used to put people in prison for speaking their mind. "You want this proxy adapted to log all transactions from anyone sending a POST request to slashdot? sure, no problem, our engineers will spend a few months incorporating that into the product for you"
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
People needs to be able to make a distinction between by a producer making a product that might be abused, and a producer that tailor a product for human right violations.
I do not claim that Microsoft does that, but bear in mind that Microsoft is a champion of DRM (under various names) to control and monitor users. So I would not put it past them to do what Amnesty International suspect them of doing.
DRM is all about producer control using private keys that you, the user, has no access to. Contrast this to Cryptography [openbsd.org] where strong cryptography can be used to ensure your privacy and that you are in control.
Is Free Software Innocent? (Score:5, Insightful)
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, but they have a history of monopoly abuses, and are in fact convicted as such. In France they're even convicted for IP theft.
Bear in mind that both MS and Bill Gates give millions of dollars to worthy causes round the world.
Bear in mind the hefty tax breaks they get as well. Nice PR at US taxpayers expense.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
AI has been attacking the Chinese government for decades. And don't be a complete moron here man; no one is trying to stop MS for creating good technology, only for selling it to a poli/econ system that MS wouldn't want be constrained by in their wildest dreams. The hypocricy is ludicrous. MS wouldn't exist if the US had similar laws and systems that China has.
The worst part is, its profitable for Western companies for China to remain communist, because it makes it easy to engineer sweetheart market deals with a nicely centralized economic engine such as the Chinese government. I'm all for free trade and such, but if you knowingly sell technology that will be used for human rights abuses, regardless of the legal status of the move, to me that doesn't make that company much different from the government that requested it. They are apparently both morally A-OK with the concept of human rights abuses if it furthurs their individual agendas, and thats precisely the mentality and value set that the UN sets out to combat, whether you're company or government.
But don't worry, I see your point. Going for self is the agenda we should all protect with every once of our beings. You can't blame somebody for trying to get richer or more profitable, just because it involves squashing political thought and human rights
Here's an easier solution: all parties involved are guilty to varying degrees. There's a reason why we have laws that punish those who knowingly help people to commit crimes.
But don't let that stop you from pouring energy into fighting an organization that wants to help stop human rights violations but lacks your wisdom and knowledge. Now *theres* a group of people who deserve to be on the receiving end of your activism.
Stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Or,
"Wah wah wah, somebody is complaining about authority figures in my life! I hate criticism! I'm a 'YES' man!"
Red Flag Linux? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps this is an opportunity for Open Source-as a community, we should press for independent review of government distros of free software to do a free speech/privacy check on it.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
But the *whole point* of OSS/Free Software is that they won't need to. They can just hire a bunch of programmers, who can take as much Free code as they need, make whatever modifications or additions as they need, and create the tools themselves.
There are a great number of applications, frameworks, toolkits and libraries available under open source-type licences. The goverments don't have to "approach the open source community", the open source community is supplying all the building blocks right now.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that it should be the user of the tool, and the use to which it is put, that is judged, not the maker of the tool (with obvious exceptions for extreme cases). I'm just pointing out that open source software can be used for this sort of thing just as easily, in part because of its principles of openness and freedom. Kind of ironic, really.
There are times when I despair.... (Score:2, Insightful)
For the record, Amnesty International is a pressure group. It's not one I support, but I acknowledge its right to exist. And, contrary to the belief of the posters who think they have no solutions and simply whine about everything, they have a belief and a method. The belief is that the world can be made to be a better place by putting gentle pressure on unpleasant governments to treat their people better, especially the ones who dare not to toe the government line. The method is by writing to individuals and corporations encouraging them to behave better, and by publicising what they see as abuses. You may not like this, but they are free to hold this view and to propagate it.
In an earlier age, before Mammon bought the rights to mainstream Christianity, priests used to preach sermons attacking bad rulers. They tried to shame them into behaving better, or make them think that the long terms consequences could be personally unpleasant (Hell.) Alongside them we had philosophers and teachers trying to propose ways of improving society. This probably takes some of the credit for why nowadays we rarely kill people for minor crimes, why you can criticise the government without being tortured to death, and why on the whole you can get through life in most Western countries without ever carrying a gun or a knife and without ever being seriously attacked. Even in the US, a substantial proportion of the population do not possess guns, and I do not believe they only stay alive and healthy because our friendly local NRA members are standing on the street corners protecting us.
Amnesty International tries to bring about change by a similar approach. They may feel that there is an inconsistency between William Gates III giving away large amounts of money to charitable causes - which he does - and Microsoft doing business with the Chinese government. They may feel that, if the Chinese government wishes to oppress its people, attack the people of Tibet, and threaten the successful and rather more democratic government of Taiwan, it would be nice if the rest of the world did not encourage them in this for the sake fo a few dollars. As I say, you may not like it, I may think they are impractical, but they are entitled to their views.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:4, Insightful)
The actions of "gun-nuts" usually involve trying to decrease the possibility of dangerous weapons making it into the hands of those idiots and morons you mention. For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities. Does that say something about your self-image?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
You people are scum and I'm glad we're not aligned with you anymore.
See how easy it is to spout crap?
Re:UN vs. Human Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Well for example, let's just say my right not to be "subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" stood in the way of one of the UN's stated purposes, namely "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" or "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples", then I would be fair game.
Given n rights, and m vauge "purposes and principles", there exist n*m exemptions for any organization claiming to act on behalf of the UN to do things to me I'd rather not have done.
If they are so high-minded, why did they feel a need for such a disclaimer at all? Notice that it doesn't exempt any organization other than the UN itself from such observing human rights. What scenario were they envisioning where it would really be necessary to violate basic rights like that? For example, the US Bill of Rights does not contain any such exemptions.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
So are you arguing with the tax law that allows charitible contributions to be deductible? Or just when it is used by Bill Gates?
This is one tax law that makes sense to me and should not be demonized.
Paying taxes is similar to giving to charity: you are contributing part of your income for the benefit of others. Donating to a charity gives you more control/choice over how those funds are used. It is not a "tax break"; the net amount given to others is still the same.
The world isn't black and white, and Bill Gates is not 100% evil. You may disagree with almost everything he does, but it is simple-minded to classify his every action as "bad".
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that a few "good" actions justify the many "bad" actions. I'm just saying that they exist.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Its been a growing trend (Score:5, Insightful)
Its easier turn a blind eye to personal accountability when there's a highly visible (evil) corporation to blame.
(No, I don't intend this as flame-bait, and I don't know Bill Gates personally.)
Guns/knives/WinNt/burgers don't kill people, people kill people.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because MS supports DRM doesn't mean that they are an evil company. Bear in mind that both MS and Bill Gates give millions of dollars to worthy causes round the world.
And what, I wonder, is your opinion about the pedophile who gives away all those lovely lollipops?
Count me among those who think it is inappropriate to use bookkeeping metaphors in place of ethical standards. There are no books where wrong actions can be balanced by right actions. Evil behavior is evil behavior and must always be opposed, even when done by someone who does Good Deeds too.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Face it, per capita doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot when, on one side, the number is 1,000,000,000.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
I never tire of hearing about the 'generosity' of a 'rich person' - i.e., movie star, CEO, you name it - who gave $5000 to a charity - while pulling away from the curb in a car that costs $150k. Not that he/she shouldn't be able to buy that car, I'm just pointing out that $5k from that person is like $5.00 from me (who drives a $5500 truck) and nobody is crowing about my philanthropy.
Add to that the fact that one would be hard-pressed to find any corporate entity that doesn't donate money to charity, and it's easy to see that there is some benefit in monetary terms, be it through the percieved goodwill of the populace or tax deductions based on those contributions.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't care about liberating North Korea, who most likely do have nuclear weapons, while Iraq is important because their military was severely decreased since Gulf War I, their WMD programs scrapped, no ties to al-Qaeda, and Saddam appointed president by USA in 1978. Interesting.
Tell me, why is SaudiArabia your allied in the middle east? Most of the 911 hijackers came from there, Osama was born there, it's a dictatorship who harbored terrorists as well as dictators in exile (Uganda's Idi Amin).
You also thought it was a good idea, and not hypocritical at all, to cooperate with Pakistan, a dictatorship full of extremists and terrorists, in order to attack Afghanistan.
If you think that Europe are hypcrites, maybe you should look at your own country. You support Saddam and Osama for your own purposes and you sponsor and support a regime change in Chile so that it became a military dictatorship, ironically that happened on sept 11. You sell weapons to Iran and tell others not to do that because they are terrorists. You sell weapons and provide training to Osama and Saddam, yet today, you imprison people on mere suspicion of being terrorists, on indefinite time and without lawyer. And then you liberate countries who mean something to you (oil, anyone) while claiming to be the beacon of freedom. Both Europe and USA are hypocrites.
And I am sure that when you have learned some history, you will see that alliances change, for example I am SURE that you know that France was once your friends and Britain your enemy. You will change again, as you are fickle like children. And you will see, after studying history, that your country is not necessarily as you thought it was. For example, did you know any of the things I told you in this post? Why do you complain on others and not yourself as well? Surely you know the history of your own nation...?
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:4, Insightful)
But if you're one of those simpletons who can't see beyond their own time and their own borders, then comparing the great AMERICAN state of Texas to China with regards to human rights might actually seem sensical. If you were an idiot, I mean. It's too bad this country seems to be filled with the sort of simple, non-logically-thinking, irrational, US-centric, self-righteous voter that would make such asinine comparisons. And to think - they're otherwise fairly intelligent. Check out the Slashdot community, for instance. It's filled with such politically naive and unnuanced people who really are otherwise intelligent.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:2, Insightful)
Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things, and are lethal in the wrong hands. It's hard to say the same about operating systems.
As for gun nuts, I would say the people that own them are nuts, rather than the people that campaign to make them illegal. Here in the UK it's not generally acceptable to own a gun. I know the culture is different in the US, but the chances are that if you feel the need to own a gun and you're not a farmer, you're a pretty insecure person.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You are correct! (Score:3, Insightful)
All I can say is that if I were a Chinese dissident I would spend a lot of time compiling my software from source code (and from non-Chinese repositories as well).
The fact that Red Flag Linux is based off of Free Software does not mean that the version of Linux pre-installed on the computer has been hacked with a back door. In fact, who exactly is going to enforce the GPL against the Chinese government? Do you honestly think that RMS is going to waltz up to the head of the Chinese state and say, "we believe that you are including backdoors in your binary-only versions of Red Flag Linux, and we want you to turn over the source code to these back doors in accordance with the GPL."
That's ridiculous.
In many ways Linux would be easier to backdoor than Windows. To put backdoors in Windows you essentially need to have Microsoft's help. To backdoor Linux all you need is some knowhow, a compiler, and access to the means of distribution.
Heck, even in America it wouldn't be that hard to backdoor a Linux distribution (with the right connections). How much source came on the last Linux CD that you installed, and what guarantee (besides the developers word) is there really that the binaries you are installing come from the source code that you are looking at?
Re:WHAT ?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfounded Allegations -- Open Questions (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, why doesn't China just take Open Source products or Copyleft or GPL source and just do whatever the hell they want with it? They could put in whatever secret patches they want and distribute binaries free of charge as a great Communist benefit to its masses (China still claims to be Communist I believe, even it falls short in many of the details). It's hard to see how we could retaliate trade-wise, since this would not be directly stealing products from corporations. Granted we are unhappy about various other copyright infringements, but only where salable products are involved. Companies like Microsoft have made such a big deal about accusing Open Source of being communistic in nature, I'm not sure we could bring action to bear if China choose to abuse Open Source. Microsoft and others probably consider this a future possibility if they don't cooperate with China to some degree on customization. Then again one has to wonder what things our government has Microsoft put in for both foreign and domestic consumption.
To my shame I use Microsoft products at home and work, but ever year I spend more an more work keeping my platforms stable, and I really don't trust what's going on under the hood. I don't think Open Source will solve human rights violations in China (they'll do whatever they want with their software), but more and more I see it as the only long-term viable Operating System option for the world.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:0, Insightful)
OK troll, I'll bite.
The difference is - and I appreciate that this may be just too complicated for you to grasp - that the people executed in Texas by the nasty vicious Republicans tend to be murderers, rapists, and drug dealers.. whereas the noble, civilized Chinese authorities tend to execute people who say things like "wouldn't it be nice if we had a different government?" or "I don't think that shooting all those students in Tianenmen Square was right". Something to think about, heh?
What about Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Amnesty (Score:2, Insightful)
Its either that they are just mentally retarded or that MS marketing is preparing to pitch congress with the idea that, they can ensure their goods are well used if they are protected as a monopoly, whereas we (FLOSS) cannot.
By god, i just saw the flick "Kill Smotchie". If you saw it, youll remember they paint charities in a somehow different light (strong charities are mafia-like).... i see an analogy between that and amnesty and other Non Government Organizations (think greenpeace, which sells protesters to anyone with enough dough).
Lets be carefull with this and strongly oppose any attempt to scorning any software because of the way its used.
I mean, the analogy is simple. Knife companies in the US are also in violation of the UN HRC since their knifes are used in torture in China. Same goes to baseball-bat makers, golf club makers (yes, i see a couple of ways to cause pain with those), and maybe even the record house of Britney Spears (imagine 1400 watt gear in a 2x2 room with 364 days of the blonde bitch singing at you, put in some 60 in. HDTV sets with her videos...you get the idea.)
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline (Score:1, Insightful)
Thay would get sued for discriminateing the bad chinaze dictators.
Re:Misleading/slanderous headline - typical (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes. Any legislation aiming to restrict the sale or possession of firearms to those who should* be allowed to have them will necessarily inconvenience those poeple somewhat.
In attempting to secure any sort of system, there is always always a tradeoff between effectiveness and ease of use. Many of us on Slashdot accept the inconvenience of keying in an eight-character password (upper- and lower-case letters and numbers, no words please!) one or more times per day to control access ot our computers.
I spent some time in the United States as a student a few years ago. I had to make three trips to the local Social Security Administration office (and fill out copious amounts of paperwork) to acquire a Social Security Number so that I could report my scholarships correctly to Uncle Sam. Again, an apparently necessarily inconvenience to ensure that taxes are paid and that visiting students are legally in the country.
"Gun control" legislation has similar aims. The laws exist to restrict the sale of weapons to appropriate individuals (not insane, underage, or a known criminal; other restrictions may exist by state). Legitimate buyers are inconvenienced, but it is nominally the price of making the system more secure.
Whether this goal is achieved is another question, and whether the system is particularly efficient yet another. To abandon all attempt at gun control isn't the solution--it would be akin to the Social Security Administration giving up on checking ID when issuing SSN cards (because identification can be forged) or to Microsoft responding to exploits by announcing that they were removing all password-checking from their operating systems.
*I will leave the discussion regarding who should have access to firearms for another post.
Re:The other side of reality? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is off-topic, I know, but tell me what the following all have in common:
Here's a hint: In all of the above, the US government met a lot of well-armed locals and beat them completely.
As a thought experiment, ask yourself: Under what circumstances could the US population be persuaded to rise up against its government? Arresting large groups of people and holding them without trial? Nope, it happened to people of Japanese descent held during WW2, and is still happening today in Gitmo Bay, Cuba. How about widespread illegal search and seizure? Nope, the "war on drugs" is still alive and well. How about restricting freedom of speech? Nope, we're fine with putting you in a "free speech zone". How about removing the right to vote? Prepare for a repeat of Florida circa November 2000 later this year. After all, it was the pro-gun guy who won, right? Not even the Patriot act, the most over-reaching insult to the Bill of Rights to date, has caused even a hint of a threat from gun owners that I've seen.
The only thing which would motivate gun owners to act is the one thing that they have in common: they would act if the US government tried to take their guns away.
Ye have heard it said in the past: Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Verily I say unto you: Guns don't protect civil rights; people protect civil rights. This is something that gun owners as a whole appear to have no particular desire to do.
This reinforces something that I've believed for a long time: Gun owners don't, as a whole, care about civil rights. At best, they care about one civil right. So long as the US government doesn't tread too far on that particular "right", they can get away with pretty much anything else. Take my free speech, take my free assembly, take my vote (it's not like I was using it anyway)... but you'll have to pry my gun out of my cold, dead hands.
Worst Slashdot headline in history? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.