Are you freaking kidding me? In France, you can't even wear a small catholic cross around your neck to a public school, unless it's well hidden under your shirt.
I'll go out on a limb saying that this isn't necessarily a symptom of the lack of freedom of speech. In the Netherlands (where I'm from), politicians are debating whether to ban certain symbols of muslim value, because of practical considerations but, alas, also because certain people experience discomfort seeing other people display these symbols. Would a ban be instated, I'd find it only fair if other such symbols would be banned as well. After all, why only go after muslims? (I'm not exactly in favor of banning religious symbols for other than practical reasons, mind you)
And in both France and Germany, books like "Mein Kampf" and so-called nazi paraphernalia are banned (not that this does any good mind you, it only makes the extreme right feel more victimized and it drove that kind of market for that stuff underground).
As it is in the Netherlands (for "Mein Kampf" at least). A little nuance though: I'm not sure about Germany or France, but in NL it's forbidden to replicate the book. Government hasn't got anything to do with what I own, so owning the book isn't forbidden. In fact, even the ban on replication is being discussed because of exactly the issue regarding freedom of speech you address.
Also, considering WWII, I don't find it strange that extreme measurements are still in place. That's not to say it isn't about time they're dismissed, though.
announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants
No idea why I have missed this in the news. Do you happen to have a link or so? Seems about time to write some MP's.
And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.
There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.
Your comment was modded up, though you completely miss my point. I wasn't talking oppressive countries here. For example, where I live arms are allowed but the right to them is not constitutionally empowered. You'll need a permit for them, and weapons are only available at special shops (as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores). This results in the general public not owning firearms. People that hunt do, as do people that collect guns. And that was exactly what I said, right? Restricted access to lethal arms.
And frankly, I'm quite content with that. Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.
Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence? If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own, not to mention his/hers ability to use it. I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.
However, it's not the restrictions they propose that matter. You might not care about them, and neither do I. What I do care about however is the trend of taking idiotic measures to prevent... Well, what actually? Bad stuff from happening? I know cars cause bad stuff to happen to people wandering at the wrong time in the wrong place, and yet cars aren't prohibited, nor is there some kind of 3-strikes-law in place. Yet, on the internet we have the file sharing thing, oh and we also have child porn. So let's cut people off internet and ban a load of websites from our country, and then some things will stop.
However, the trend will be set, and corporations will find their way to the ones writing laws. And of course someone will think of a way in which more money can be made. One might be curious as to what to expect, but it won't be pretty, I'm sure.
The idea that these people are somehow in the wrong for trying to exercise control over their own works is a bad mind virus, and I'm afraid that the tenor of stories like this are indicative of a fatal infection.
When I was young and we copied our friends' games on floppies (bad, bad me), we knew that this was illegal. However, we also knew that we'd never experience punishment, mostly due to the small scale at which our file copying took place. Bad mindset? Sure thing. I've grown up and buy my games now. Same thing for music.
Most people will agree that going after people illegally sharing their music for example isn't a bad thing. What IS bad is the draconian solutions being proposed. The fine rate in the US is way out of line. In France, you had the 3 strikes law (struck down for the moment). You have all kinds of guilty until proven otherwise nonsense. THAT is bad.
What's downright unacceptable is the way in which governments are apparently influenced by the large corporations. That's not called democracy but plutocracy. I personally find that indicative of a far more fatal infection.
If you aren't terrified of the average citizen than what argument can you come up with for disarming him?
Plenty, as any country in which the possession of arms is more sternly regulated can attest to. No need to be scared shitless of your citizens to deny them free access to lethal arms.
If the shit ever hit the fan to the point that an actual rebellion was underway it's a reasonably safe assumption that a large portion of the armed forces would side with the citizenry and not the government trying to oppress them.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Soldiers are instructed to obey commands, and not so much to question them. By the time a sensible number of them will start questioning their superiors, damage will already have been done. Or a schism between army and citizens will have been created. Just look at all those countries whose armies do suppress the people.
Even more important: things just won't work that way. People won't start crowding the streets and the military won't be fighting them, as is the case in Iran, for example. Protests will be silenced long before that. This isn't an age in which armed conflicts will be fought out in a chivalrous manner.
So, where was your need to bear arms again?
...As opposed to people who would have died during Saddam's rule? Yes, the intelligence Bush got was faulty about the WMDs in Iraq, but you have to remember this is a dictator who not only invaded other countries but launched chemical warfare on his own people.
So let's try to get rid of this evil dictator by means of war, what a splendid idea! I see an awful lot of opportunities where Bush could have started a trend to police evil nations worldwide. Well, maybe another American president will...
The invasion of Afghanistan really should have happened sooner and with a more powerful attack. But after the 9/11 attacks, you couldn't exactly ignore a huge terrorist group that very successfully attacked the USA.
Terrorists aren't really locatable in one region or another. That's one of the reasons terrorism keeps reoccuring: it's just such a good strategy. Throwing large numbers of soldiers at it won't really work. I don't quite understand why the USA keeps trying to solve this kind of problem with military action only.
but at least GIF and JPEG are under patent.
The patents on the LZW algorithm employed in the GIF file format have all expired now. The claim about the patent on the JPEG format was never found to be fully valid.
Nonetheless, corporations seem eager to start patent wars over technology potentially involving a lot of money. Which goes to show that careful choices have to be made, so as to avoid patent troll issues as much as possible.
The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both wins and losses. The Guru doesn't take sides; she welcomes both hackers and lusers.
