Remember that it wasn't so long ago that everyone "knew" the world was flat and you were a whackjob if you believed any differently

Ancient Greeks had already calculated the Earth's radius. In medieval Europe, educated people knew the Earth was round.
Columbus did *not* face resistance because people thought the Earth was flat. He faced resistance because people correctly pointed that the Earth was about 40000km in circunference and that his ships could not reach Asia by traveling West. Columbus based his expedition on faulty calculations.

Columbus was lucky that America was in the way.

I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela

Because "not renewing the license of a radio station that backed a freaking coup is so "authoritarian".

See http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Chavism:
1) Turned the Supreme Court into its puppet.
2) Directly controls a large part of the media, and harasses much of the rest into submission.
3) Threatens, promotes hatred against, harasses and sometimes arrests, political dissidents.

Venezuela still has elections, yes. So did the Soviet Union. Elections are not enough to guarantee freedom; the elections need to be free and fair, and there needs to be freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and generally the majority must respect the rights and liberties of the minorities and individuals. Also, the current government must never entrench itself. These guarantees were violated by the Soviet Union and are violated by Venezuela.

By the way, Chavez attempted a coup d'état himself, and constantly licked the boots of Fidel Castro and other dictators who were his heroes. A chavist complaining of "golpismo" is like the Ku Klux Klan complaining of racism. It is beyond incoherent.

When has the U.S. sold large amounts of weapons to Cuba, Vietnam, or China?

I don't get your point.

Absolutely correct, however a dirty bomb isn't really a weapon of mass destruction, it's a weapon of terror.

Unfortunately it would be a very effective weapon. The more the government tried to explain that the radiation was relatively mild, the more people would say "the government is lying to us to avoid a panic, and to cover up their incompetence" and panic. Many people would flee, but they would be labeled as "radioactive" and would be violently expelled from wherever they tried to settle in. And general lawlessness. It would be ugly.

I don't necessarily advocate the capital punishment. And I support human rights for criminals.
But
1) Mexico has a HDI of 0.775, almost tied with Portugal at 0.816.
2) These guys were not stealing food. They performed an armed robbery. Don't portray them as victims.

The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.

I heard the same thing with respect to Fidel Castro. "He wasn't a communist, he turned to the Soviet Union because he had no alternative".
He then installed a one-party oppressive dictatorship and continues oppressing his people long after the end of the Cold War.
I have not formed an opinion on Mandela, but that kind of argument is suspicious.

I hope that, for consistency, you are a staunch critic of Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam and China.

The USA has its flaws, but many (maybe the majority) of its critics turn a blind eye to socialist atrocities, and often actively support it. I ask for consistency.

By the way: if there was a worldwide poll asking "if you could immigrate legally to any country, where would you go?". The USA would be in the top, likely #1. If you complain of economic disparity, then restrict your poll to poor people. The USA would still be at the top, because it has far more opportunity to poor people than most of the world.

Then do another poll: "in which country would you prefer to be treated as a political dissident?" The USA would be among the top.

Criticism of the USA must acknowledge its upsides. And make sure to criticize uniformly.

I'm confused because you brought up discriminatory laws around abortion protest when it has nothing to do with the article or my response except being barely linked to my comment about protesting in general.

I may have failed at reading comprehension.
Your original post said:

A DDoS should be punished with community service; its no different from protesting a store you dislike and making it hard for customers to get in.

I interpreted it as meaning that blocking entrance to a store is an acceptable way to protest. I strongly disagree with that and it opened a can of worms in my head. I then mentioned abortion and animal rights as examples of double standard. I just wanted people to be as gentle in their own protests as they demand from protesters they disagree with.

But reading your post again, it does not say that coercion is acceptable expression. Community service is not necessarily trivial.

Yes, lets bring up abortion because its incredibly controversial

Being controversial does not justify restricting peaceful protests. Would you accept this justification for restricting protests for a cause you agree with?

and one of the only situations that has its own laws for protest.

I am precisely complaining of double-standard. These discriminatory laws should not be in place.

Would you support direct action against abortion clinics? Or it is only "freedom of assembly" if it is politically correct and trendy?

On Slashdot, one can get modded "troll" for pointing out that people shouldn't be considered guilty without at least _some_ evidence. "I bet" does not count as evidence.

A DDoS should be punished with community service; its no different from protesting a store you dislike and making it hard for customers to get in.

Double-standard: if it is done against abortion, then it is fundamentalist bigotry and we need stricter bubble zones, even if it is peaceful and non-coercive. If it is done in support to a trendy, politically correct cause such as animal rights then it is freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, even if it is coercive.

I bet if the "suspect" was named "John Smith" and white he might not have been arrested.

You say that based on what evidence?

I'm surprised that didn't make it into the summary.

I thank Slashdot for not click-whoring that badly (at least this time).