Would you stop cyber-bullying and the resultant suicides by taking away computers?

Battleground: Election 2012 - Obama vs Romney
This was political in nature and solely targeted a real government. Wasn't banned.

Would you say it isn't anyone's job bring censorship to light, and that it's up to Americans individually to understand, and to obey or rebel as he/she sees fit? I'm quite certain in that case you'd disagree, and you'd likely counter-argue that the individual's attempt to enlighten him/herself without help is a futile act in the presence of a state which has so much control on media and information. If that could be true of the US, why would that not be even more so of China?

Check your non-American privilege bro.

Let's be careful to not be over-enthusiastic here. People have a tendency to regard new challengers as the bringers of light against the establishment. But history tells us that true change is rare, and more often than not it is just another group of liars for another group of tyrants.

I hope we will regard them as critically as we regard any news outlet.

It's just another way of thinking about it. I'm not preaching gospel here -- just guessing. If the hypothesis holds, then I think this would probably fall into the "preventing mass hysteria" category since the building facility itself isn't as important as the fact that it was a popular event broadcast live through national television.

Shoot down drone. Free money/drugs!

I don't think the TSA is used to catch terrorists (doesn't the FBI do that anyway?) as much as it is used to displace potential acts of terrorism to lower profile targets/less critical infrastructure, in order to mitigate 1. public hysteria and 2. economic fallout. The latter probably being the more important consideration. A terrorist could bomb an office building or super market right now and still kill a lot of people, but the economic impact wouldn't be as great as that experienced by the airline industry in first few months following 9/11.

And also, "milking" implies coaxing/persuading stuff out of people. This is just data theft (or "fraudulently gaining access to other's private information", if you're anal about that)

Knowledge isn't ethics; knowledge is power. I doubt he founded his AV company as a personal moral crusade, but did it like everybody else to make money in a niche in which he thought he could excel.

We seem to be looking at private gun ownership as a cure to dictators. What if look at it as preventive medicine whose very presence dissuades those with such aspirations?

But isn't that one of the arguments we hear from the pro-gun side -- that gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, and leaves criminals and an ever more authoritarian state untouched? Gun control would be a type of UNILATERAL disarmament, and NOT a mutual disarmament (which, when you think about it, is a utopian impossibility).

No wonder gun owners want to hold onto their guns.

make it like Wall-E. with expressive hands.

Wouldn't the ACLU be a better cause, since they send legal observers to ALL controversial protests, no matter their politics? When is the last time these politically affiliated organizations did anything to protect the rights of those with whom they disagree?

You mean a group of scientists and engineers whose funding has been diverted from resources that could have been used to feed people has succeeded in its ambitions. How many tons of food aid did they have to sell on the black market to achieve this? It's not a victory for North Korea, its a victory for the rulers. On slashdot, we're critical of even democratic countries in their degree of representation, and of the disparities between the will of the people and the will of the government, yet I often see this willingness to present totalitarian rulers, their people, and the concept of nationhood as a singular indivisible entity (especially on the concept of "sovereignty", but that's for another thread...).