>Which ISP has been granted a monopoly? If they have, why are there so many of them to choose from? Warner-comcast. While they have not yet officially merged, they colluded to divide up total control of the nation's cable internet service between themselves. Yes, they left a few small mom-and-pop shops to point to as competition, but so did Standard Oil and Ma Bell. As far as other choices? DSL has low coverage area, and can't even meet the definition of broadband for most of that. Wireless has low data caps and high usage charges, slow speed, and reliability issues. Assuming it's even available. Sat is high-latency, low bandwidth, and outside the price range of most people. Where I live I have exactly two choices for internet service: Warner, or nothing. Even if I wanted to use dial-up, I would have to pay long-distance charges. Your notion that there are 'so many to choose from' is clearly based in a delusional fantasy world.

Even if Valve intended outright evil things their work would still result in better linux drivers, and everything I've read on this suggests that they're strongly pushing the open-source driver angle. The worst harm Valve could do to Linux would be abandoning this project; even if it fails Linux would still be better for the work accomplished.

He wasn't charged with anything because that comes [i]after[/i] being arrested. He was, however, [i]suspected[/i] of many things. I would like to note that I am not taking a stance on those events, I am simply showing flaws in your arguments.

Unless I'm mistaken, the US tried to kill Hitler too. Many times. Then there's how possession and dissemination is legally distinct from authoring it, plus the historical significance of the work itself. Then there's the distinction between advocating policies and calling others to direct action.

Ah, see, there's a flaw in your argument. Specifically, it's your implication that protected and legal are the same thing. They are not. All protected speech is legal, but not everything that's legal is protected speech. While it may be legal for an authority figure to tell a soldier to kill somebody, it's not protected speech.

Those partisan videos called for people to commit acts of violence against US citizens. I'm pretty sure telling people to kill other people has never been considered protected speech.

Clearly, that trilogy was the pinnacle of 80's SciFi.