The Obama administration has prosecuted journalists and leakers at a far higher rate than before.
Resorting to hyperbole to make a point? Let's look at the facts, The espionage act was used eight times:
Thomas Drake -Allegedly retained classified information about the NSA's program of wiretapping without warrants. Charges were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling government information
Shamai Leibowitz - Charged for "knowingly and willfully disclosing to an unauthorized person five FBI documents classified at the 'secret' level that contained classified information concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States.
Stephen Jin-Woo Kim - For leaking information about how much the US knows about North Korea's nuclear program.
Chelsea Manning - Disclosed classified documents to WikiLeaks.
Jeffery Sterling - Disclosed what the US knew about Iran's nuclear program.
John Kiriakou - Former CIA agent disclosed the identity of CIA agent working in the CIA interrogation program.
James Hitselberger - Charged with retaining classified information and shipping it back to Stanford University which contained "sensitive information about troop positions, gaps in U.S. intelligence and commanders' travel plans."
Edward Snowden - disclosed the existence of U.S. government surveillance programs to The Guardian and The Washington Post.
use the power of tagging to harass specific organizations based on political leanings.
That's Twitter's job! Just ask Mozilla.
I disagree. Cite authority figures if you want, but their mere opinions will not change my opinion.
You are entitled to your opinion. I however disagree.
Now who's talking about personal desires? You seem to be suggesting that freedom doesn't matter, and what the constitution actually says doesn't matter.
I said no such thing. I like the constitution and think it should be interpreted correctly. All I said is that not everything you mentioned can be considered a freedom. You however want to create a fiction that I'm somehow against all freedom or the constitution in order to build some preposterous argument.
Judges' interpretations can (and have been wrong), and saying otherwise is paradoxical and an appeal to authority. I disagree with the judges.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason. In addition we have an appellate system in place so more than one judge can look at the issue.
What I personally want people to do is irrelevant, but I do want people to have certain freedoms, even if I disagree with their actual actions. You are no different, and saying that certain things are not "human rights" doesn't make you objectively correct, but nor would me saying that they are human rights.
This looks like one of those preposterous arguments I was talking about earlier.
Copyright infringes upon fundamental private property rights and free speech rights (which I consider a fundamental right), so it's intolerable. Patents infringe upon the former, so they're intolerable. Both create artificial scarcity and government-enforced monopolies for certain people, which I also find intolerable.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech. However, I do find the longevity of copyrights objectionable.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright. There is nothing wrong with patents in general, but like a firearm (which is the original subject btw) it can be used to infringe someone else's right. Examples include a farmer's right being infringed by a corporation because patented genetically modified crop growing nearby tainted his goods, or a business being sued into non-existence because another business obtained a patent on a very obvious business method. I blame the patent office for incompetence more than I blame the existence of patents.
You know what else isn't a "human right"? Safety at the expense of freedom. In a country that is *really* "the land of the free and the home of the brave," we would not so haphazardly sacrifice freedom for safety like a pack of worthless cowards. Freedom has risks, and they're worth it.
The United States was never meant to be a land where IonOtter can do as he pleases. The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors. I do not agree with the heavy handiness of the patriot act, but an overwhelming majority of congressmen responded to the fears of their constituents and passed it. I personally believe it outlasted its usefulness. In fact, I didn't like its passage.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.
Singling out freedom of speech doesn't make the rest of your list worthy of being a "freedom".
The ability to defend oneself is a human right. The ability to purchase anything to further the goal of self preservation not so much. The courts have already established that regulations are warranted and constitutional. I can see their point, you don't want an arms race in self preservation especially since what could be used for self preservation could also be used to harm someone else.
Freedom from copyrights and patents is not a human right but you (and most of slashdot) may find it desirable.
What about the folks who prefer Hulu?
You mean that service that Comcast is part owner of and uses to show their own demand content on the internet?
It's about locking out competition.
You have it backwards.. Netflix is paying so that it can keep itself from being lockout.
That's odd. Usually there are two broadband options: DSL and Cable. Are you saying that Comcast owns both?
I think he wants FAST broadband.
The appearance of her being singled out may simply be a result of her publicist trying to distance her from the recent outbreak of measles in New York City which generates articles on the internet (like this one on Slashdot) that creates an opportunity for her critics to voice their disdain.
This is a prime example of living by and dying from the sword.
I think the stories from parents come not from the vaccines doing actual harm but from the fact that coincidentally the age when symptoms of autism presents itself is the same as when the vaccines are scheduled to be administered.
Other factors that adds to parents concerns are the rate of autism being diagnosed appears to be rising exponentially based on the graph presented by AutismSpeaks: The rate for 1985 was 1 in 2500, the rate in 1995 was 1 in 500, and the rate for 2009 was 1 in 110. If you looked at the text rather than the very prevalent graph you would have read that the criteria for positive diagnosis of autism has changed and public awareness increased significantly during the time period graphed which can make the graph a little misleading.
AutismSpeaks also gave another possible reason for the increase over the years being attributed to the increase of the average parental age. Several research papers have demonstrated a link between autism and parental age and have concluded that the chances for a child being born with autism increases with parental age.
I have not seen any direct quote from her that indicates an opposition to the principle of vaccines or the efficacy of all vaccines. She is misguided in insisting that vaccines cause autism, but that is not the same thing as being against vaccination in general.
Actually here is a quote from her given during a Good Morning America interview in 2008:
McCarthy and Carrey said that while they do support immunization, they and their allies believe children receive "too many vaccines, too soon, many of which are toxic."
"We are not here to destroy the vaccine program. We're here to lend our voices for the millions of people calling for balance and moderation when it calls to substances that we give our children," Carey said. "They are not bottomless pits that you endlessly pour the substances into. You have to consider the cumulative effect. Not only that, the possible interaction. Every other drug has interaction with other drugs and yet they assume vaccines won't."
She is basically straddling the fence. Being enough anti-vaccine to encourage parents from having their children vaccinated yet not enough to where she doesn't have an exit strategy which will not threaten any product endorsements, possible TV/movie roles or make it impossible for her to simply say she was misunderstood when she is proven wrong.
Notice how she didn't say which vaccines shouldn't be given to children. She just basically said don't trust your pediatrician and just left it to the parents' fear to figure that out.