Amnesty International vs. Internet Censorship 287
An anonymous reader writes "Amnesty International has a new online campaign against governments which censor websites, monitor online communications, and persecute citizens who express dissent in blogs, emails, or chat-rooms. The website, Irrepressible.info contains a web-based petition (to be presented at a UN conference in November 2006) and also a downloadable web gadget which displays random excerpts of censored material on your own website."
Re:official? (Score:4, Informative)
Good luck with that UN thing... (Score:5, Informative)
The UN has a lot of evil members. Don't forget that.
AI ain't what it use to be. (Score:2, Informative)
Should really clean house before going abroad.
Not a short term solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Petition vs. Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sign the damn thing! (Score:1, Informative)
Shi Tao received classified information from his employer, a newspaper. He was told it was classified, and he was also told not to take notes of what was said (he did anyway). He was completely aware of the consequences of disseminating the information.
He spread the information from his workplace, the newspaper, using the newspaper's computer. By Chinese law, he committed a crime. By Chinese law, he deserves to be in prison, and by Chinese law, the punishment was accurate.
Therefore, the petition will not free Shi Tao.
On a more personal note I would like to say that I have never heard of such a stupid dissident before. Not only did he openly take notes, ignoring his bosses, but he also used his employers equipment, using an emial address with the account name huoyan1989 (1989 flame), sending the info unencrypted to foreign addresses that were sure to be monitored by the shield.
That stupidity alone should give him ten years.
Re:Good luck with that UN thing... (Score:2, Informative)
John Bolton: There is no United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States. When it suits our interest, and when we can get others to go along. The United States makes the U.N. work when it wants to work, and that is exactly the way it should be, because the only question, the only question for the United States is what's in our national interest. And if you don't like that, I'm sorry, but that is the fact.
Stan Correy: John Bolton is now the US Ambassador to the United Nations, an organisation he's publicly disdained for almost 30 years.
Download Audio - 21052006 http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/bbing_2006John R Bolton may be called 'the ugly American' and be widely disliked, yet his pivotal role as US Ambassador to the UN makes him extraordinarily powerful and important in world affairs. Obsequious, arrogant, doctrinaire and above all, Americanist - but no fool, neocons hope he may save the Bush administration.
Show transcript http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stori
Re:Are they genuine or hypocritical? (Score:3, Informative)
This is, quite simply, false. The law you're refering to does not prevent anyone from marrying anyone.
What that law does state is that Palestinians who marry Israeli citizens would not be automatically granted Israeli citizenship.
So first of all, that's hardly a human-rights violation; it's a rule about who can and cannot become an Israeli citizen, and how. Japan, for instance, does not grant a man citizenship if he marries a Japanese woman. Every country has the right to determine who can and cannot gain citizenship, and many do enforce strict laws.
Moreover, you can hardly call that rule unreasonable. The Palestinians are currently at war with Israel. Many of them state their commitment to wiping us out of the face of the Earth. Are we out of line by denying them the ability to become citizens of our country? Can a country not prevent its enemies from gaining its citizenship? I think the answer to these questions is obvious.
And one other important fact. That rule was only established recently. After 5 years of intense conflict, during which 25 Palestinians who gained Israeli citizenship by marriage were involved in suicide bombings againt Israeli population. Each such bombing causes on average 10-30 casualties, and the order of 50-300 wounded. I believe the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves.
For those who don't know (Score:3, Informative)
What do people here think about this? Is it over-stepping their mark?
Not knowing what we can't know (Score:2, Informative)
This url refers to newsgroups that are blocked: http://www.internode.on.net/content/premium-news/