A Comparative Study of Internet Censorship

An anonymous reader suggests we visit the home of the watchdog group Global Integrity for a breakdown of online censorship: "Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a US court's recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: This is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn't work very well... The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."

Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[anthonys_junk (1110393)]

WikiLeaks is available at it's IP address: http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] also a mirror site: http://wikileaks.be/ [wikileaks.be] For the docs at the centre of the controversy, you can get them at http://cryptome.org/wikileaks-bjb.htm [cryptome.org]

Re:Alternate Access to Wikileaks

[fahrbot-bot (874524)]

I cannot believe how many articles there are, like on Boston.com [boston.com] that report the judge ordered the website shutdown:

Website ordered closed over documents dispute
A federal judge has set off a free speech tempest after shutting down a US website ... Dynadot agreed to shut down the site and bar Wikileaks from transferring the domain name to another host.

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

Re:

[Raphael (18701)]

A federal judge has set off a free speech tempest after shutting down a US website ... Dynadot agreed to shut down the site and bar Wikileaks from transferring the domain name to another host.

When will people learn how the Internet actually works?

They do understand how the Internet actually works. The issue is that Wikileaks has servers in several countries. Countries that have laws protecting freedom of speech and legal procedures that prevent or slow down attempts at censorship.

The bank knew that

Silly

[Shihar (153932)]

This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does make law. If there was actual precedence set by having this work up the chain of courts, you might have an argument. Until that time, this is just one crappy judge who can have everything he says promptly overturned by the many layers of judges higher than him.

If you want to look at real censorship in the west, turn your eyes outside of the US. The US has no censorship laws around hate speech and almost no libel laws. Almost anything short of conspiracy to commit a crime is a-okay in the US. You can safely write or speak that you think the Holocaust is a hoax, that all the should die, and that is a whore who fucks pigs and goats. None of the above will get you in trouble with US law. All of the above would get you in trouble in more than one European nation. I am not saying that extremely weak libel laws and a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing, just that it decidedly tips the US over on the "free speech" spectrum farther than the vast majority of other nations out there.

There are a lot of complaints you can level against the US like starting wars, kidnapping and torturing people, extra judicial prisons, warrantless wiretaping, etc. That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do.

Correction

[Shihar (153932)]

*This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth. Further, the rulings of one low level judge does NOT make law.

The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 judge.

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

Shihar, I agree with what you said. However, it seems to me that people, including you, don't deal with abuse very well.

Note that the grandparent comment to this one, which is your extremely sensible observations, is moderated 0, Flamebait, and the parent comment, which is a minor and obvious correction you wrote, is +3, Informative. That's crazy.

The "one minor judge" has succeeded in stopping most access to the WikiLeaks site, except for technically knowledgeable people. That shows the mood of the U.S. government. There is no cry from the U.S. government to restore free speech.

The problem is not just "one minor judge". It is an entire governmental culture of corruption. See this thread in another Slashdot story (which includes comments I wrote): The U.S. government is too corrupt to investigate corruption. [slashdot.org] That comment is moderated "60% Insightful, 40% Flamebait" as I write this. Perhaps 60% of the readers understand the issues, and 40% want to avoid thinking about abusive situations.

In actuality, the U.S. Constitution says that Congress can make no law against free speech. It doesn't say that the U.S. government cannot allow misleading speech, or do other things to prevent free expression. The governmental guarantee is much weaker than most people realize. The power of the rich who want corruption is much stronger than most people realize.

Re:The issue is a culture of corruption, not 1 jud

[Yaa 101 (664725)]

Yes, part of the problems of the US people is that they can't stand critics and intellectuals, it's their own fault that they are in such a mess.

Re:

[whoever57 (658626)]

This is a silly article. That court order was one minor judge, and he backed off it almost the second he let the words slip from his mouth.

Huh? Whois on wikileaks.org still shows the domain as "inactive", so, even if he backed off, the effects of his judgment are still in place.

Re:

[Shihar (153932)]

The judge later amended the court order to state that the bank documents need to be removed and took out calling for the domain to be taken. The domain is still down, but the site is still exist with its IP and is mirrored just about everywhere. The larger point is that one silly little low level court judge made a really dumb order that is going to stand for about 30 seconds before he gets smacked around by a bigger judge with a bigger beating stick. Further, this type of action is pocket change compare

Re:Silly

[Jah-Wren Ryel (80510)]

That said, free speech is one places where the US is about as liberal as one can possibly be and takes it to extremes that few other nations do.

Just don't say the name of one of the acts of the vagina monologues on television.

Re:

[MadMidnightBomber (894759)]

This also makes it impossible to read e.g. The Female Eunuch [wikipedia.org] - an important political work, whatever you think of the author - on television without censoring the text. Nice going FCC.

A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), then even a municipal judge can "change law". Further, it does not even have to be a judge. A jury can change law, and that decision too would have to be overturned by a higher court in order for that change to be invalidated. [http://www.fija.org/]

Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States. Having said that, I will add that I personally believe "hate crime" to be among the most ridiculous legal concepts so far devised by man.

Third, the United States has very strong libel laws. The difference is that unlike in many nations, libel must generally be proven before it can be punished. Also, libel against "public figures" is much harder to prove... but that is by design, and for very good reason. (In many other places, speech against politicians or other "public figures" is punished much more harshly than speech against other citizens. But that does not mean that libel laws do not exist in the US. They do... they are just fairer than most.)

And finally, the fact that it is worse elsewhere does NOT mean that it is good here. That is like saying to one man in line, "Look, you only got a broken finger! The next guy in line has a broken leg!"... and then using that to justify breaking fingers. Sorry, but it is not a valid argument.

Re:

[Atario (673917)]

I have no problem with most of what you said...but...

Second, the US *does* have laws regarding "hate speech" and other "hate crimes". They might typically be state laws rather than federal, but that does not negate the fact that they exist in much if not most of the United States.

If by "hate speech laws", you mean US laws prohibiting certain subjects in speech, I'd like to see a list. I'm having a mighty hard time finding any. Are there, in fact, any laws (still standing) at any level in the US saying t

Re:

[twizmer (1206952)]

So I should assume you are against the different levels of murder and manslaughter? That you advocate that any wrongful death should be punished exactly as any other?

This is really a straw man. The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?" The difference between intentionally and unintentionally causing death is not the same as intentionally killing someone because he was an [epithet] or because he slept with your wife or whatever.

Re:

[Atario (673917)]

The difference between degrees of murder and manslaughter is the level of intent: did you plan ahead of time to kill him, decide to kill him on the spot, or not even mean to kill him at all, etc. That distinction is quite different from asking "why did you intend to kill him?"

And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s the

Re:

[Curunir_wolf (588405)]

And likewise, the difference between beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar is vastly different from beating the hell out of a guy because he bumped into you in a bar and we got to show them damn _____s they got to learn their place. One is an attack; the other is an attack intended to intimidate everyone like him.

So certain people get "special" protection. Because they are "special"? Because it's really difficult to determine motivation in these circumstances. If a guy gets beat up in a bar, and it comes out that the assailants were using terms like "baldy" and "slaphead", then they get a harsher sentence, right?

Oh, wait... bald people are part of a "special", "protected" class. Well, that's just wrong, and it's the start of a ordeal where people clamor to be part of a group and lobby for special protections

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

No, to your first point I will answer that we have laws that provide for harsher punishment for certain crimes (including slander, libel, etc.) *IF* they were committed for certain reasons, such as race and so on. That is commonly referred to as a "hate crime", even though the actual crime is a "normal" crime. The distinction (as pointed out by the other reply) is the motivation behind the crime.

To your second point, I will answer: THAT is why it is ridiculous. If someone shoots you, does it really matter to you (or society, for that matter) WHY it was done? As far as punishment is concerned, that is. Historically, in order to find someone guilty it was sufficient to show motivation... it was not important what that motivation was. It is already a capital crime. Why should you, as a minority (hypothetically speaking of course) be able to punish your attacker more than I, a member of the majority? Are you worth more to society than I? Who says so?

ISN'T THAT RACISM??? (You need not answer. Of course it is.)

By their essential nature, "hate crime" laws are hypocritical and discriminatory. Those reasons alone are sufficient to remove them from the books, just like the other hypocritical and discriminatory laws that favor the "common folk" over minorities. You don't fight racism with more racism, no matter which direction it is pointed. You fight racism by getting rid of it, in whatever form it assumes.

Your final comparison I will just ignore. It has no bearing on the discussion at all. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just presume that you simply misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Re:

[twizmer (1206952)]

Decisions of a court are only precedent in the formal sense in courts below that which made the ruling. One might of course cite a favorable ruling in legal arguments, but it is not binding on other courts.

The US does have hate speech laws, but they are very limited in scope by the application of the First Amendment. See for example R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul where SCOTUS overturned a hate speech law because it amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The classes of speech which can be constitutionally rest

Re:

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

Decisions of the court establish precedent, which can be cited in court at any level. What I was saying was that at least theoretically, the principle of stare decisis should hold UNLESS there is reason to contradict that precedent at a higher level. I.e., while the higher courts are not bound, if they are aware of a past decision that bears on a current case, and they disagree, they are bound by principle, ethics, and tradition to show why that decision should not hold. That is the way they are supposed to

Re:

[Free_Meson (706323)]

First, a "lowly" court judge in the United States CAN "make" law. If his/her decision is accepted as precedent (as it MUST, unless reason is later demonstrated to overturn it), then even a municipal judge can "change law". Further, it does not even have to be a judge. A jury can change law, and that decision too would have to be overturned by a higher court in order for that change to be invalidated.

Wow. Rarely have I seen such wildly inaccurate information, even on the internet. A court's decision is onl

Re:A couple of corrections...

[Enlightenment (1073994)]

Nah. Juries can also decide that they won't convict regardless of the facts. It's called jury nullification.

Re:Silly

[jo42 (227475)]

The US has no censorship laws

Just try to say something against the brain fuckery known as The Church Of Scientology - see how long before their lawyers bend you over a couch...

Re:Silly

[mcrbids (148650)]

The US has no censorship laws

Just try to say something against the brain fuckery known as The Church Of Scientology - see how long before their lawyers bend you over a couch...

Brain fuckery may be an excellent term for it - but in this case, although the Co$ may harass you for being truthful if it's inconvenient, it's not illegal to say that, in your opinion, they are all a bunch of rodent wankers.

Just because the police don't come and get you for calling your daddy a loser, doesn't mean that your momma won't.

Oh, and the Co$ is one SCARY bunch. Anonymous marches on March 15...

Re:Silly

[damburger (981828)]

Rubbish. The US has less freedom of speech than most European countries. Don't just take my word for it though:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

The fact you think you are freer just makes it even more disturbing.

Re:

[Ardaen (1099611)]

Many sources such as the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index seem to be showing a trend of decreasing freedom in the USA over the last few years. I'm guessing that trend started somewhere in 2000-2001.

People tend to lag behind reality with the image they have of themselves.

The USA is still a very free country, generally a pretty nice place to be. It would however, appear to no longer be a leader in freedom, liberty or human rights.

Re:

[TuringTest (533084)]

On a related note, I'd like to attract your attention to the statistical inverse correlation between global warming and the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s [venganza.org]. You know this implies that either global warming kills pirates, or that pirates cause a descent in global temperature - and the lack of them leads to this raising.

Re:Silly

[aproposofwhat (1019098)]

The correlation is real (and perfectly calculateable, and as you know this implies that either rapes make someone muslim, or that muslims rape (a lot) more than othres).

Leaving aside your appalling spelling, your 'either or' logic is impeccably wrong.

European cities with high Muslim populations also have high unemployment, especially amongst Muslim youths. Unemployed, feckless youths tend to gravitate towards gang behaviour, whether they are Muslim or any other type of flying spaghetti monster worshipper.

It's the gang behaviour that leads to the increase in rapes, not the religion.

Now I do have issues with the way that some cultures treat women - Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Saudi Arabia..., but that is a cultural matter and has nothing to do with the religion - it's more a case of ignorant goat herders not knowing how to behave in a modern civilised setting.

Bet you'd get upset if I posted a similar comment about Jews - I'm sure statistics exist from the 19th century that highlight the increase in crimes in the East End of London and the prevalence of Jewish loan sharks, murdurers, baby eaters, etc.

Re:Silly

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

More details on the reason for the poor US standing is here. [rsf.org]

RSF methodology has issues

[MyNameIsFred (543994)]

I have issues with the RSF methodology. They conflate two problems, government suppression of speech and other groups suppressing speech. For example, Italy fares poorly not because of government action but because "journalists continue to be under threat from mafia groups." And one of the strikes against the US is the murder of Chauncey Bailey, which appears to have been a criminal act due to his investigation of "Your Black Muslim Bakery," and not due to government suppression. Only a fraction of the

You're wrong... it *is* a good ting

[tkrotchko (124118)]

"I am not saying that [...] a lack of hate speech laws is a good thing"

Oh, I would say that.

"Hate Speech" is not defined. It simply means speech that is offensive to someone. Almost by definition, this type of law runs counter to the idea and ideals of free speech. It can easily be abused by political enemies, by a government that doesn't want criticism, or by one group to silence another.

Re:

[kaos07 (1113443)]

We can only hope.

Re:

[MillionthMonkey (240664)]

If other western countries all jump off a cliff does that mean the US government should jump off the white house roof?

If all the other Western nations are jumping off a cliff, you'd think that would be a clue, hmmm, maybe there's a reason why they're jumping off that cliff.
But noooo, we have to be different and jump off the White House.

Once again...

[zappepcs (820751)]

The courts demonstrate their inability to understand the Internet as well as other technical matters. It no wonder that CSI is popular? I'm certain that lawyers are watching it to find out how crime scene science works.

Seriously, the court had to have some understanding that what they ruled on was TOTALLY ineffectual, right? If they did not know, then perhaps they should be encouraged to recuse themselves from future cases involving anything to do with the Internet, computers, or ... well, anything.

Yes, IAN

pendulum

[globaljustin (574257)]

it's time to recontextualize and essentially reboot our understanding of privacy, freedom, information, free speech, and similar civil rights

in other words, Americans as a whole need to learn what the internet does, and take a fresh look at how our freedoms are being shit on by the US government. we must demand the same digital freedoms and privacy protection that we have in non-digital media and more.

looking through this wikileaks story and a previous story about FOIA documents that show torture devices the government has been developing motivates me to seek a true change.

the American people must claim their rights or they will be taken

The Writing Has Been On The Wall

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

for quite a while now. Years. But most people didn't listen: "I'm confortable in my job for X Corporation. Nothing seems wrong to me!"

Wake up, people!

There is really not much else to say.

Nonsense

[mosb1000 (710161)]

"The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests."

People always spout this kind of nonsense when they're trying to argue for more government controls. The government is corruptible. The problem is not that the people in charge are corrupt, this can/will/has be/been true for any entity with any kind of authority that has ever existed, does currently exist , or ever will exist. If you don't want a corrupt government, you're out of luck. The best you can do is to give the government as little authority as possible.

In the US, anyone can sue anyone for anything. This is the best possible arrangement of affairs, but it invariably means that you will end up with rulings like this one. If you read up on the case, you will see that the bank is claming that their ex-CEO is trying to use the website to influence the outcome of a separate legal case. So whose right would be more important, the right of the ex-CEO to leak confidential documents, of the right of the bank to have a fair court case in Sweden? People like to make these things seem cut and dry, but they're not.

Re:

[yndrd1984 (730475)]

Are you saying "Republicans used corruption to sell government downsizing as part of their party platform, therefore it must be wrong?" How would you respond to "Democrats used people with health problems to sell government-run healthcare as part of their platform", with the implication that that was an argument against it?

Our government was designed to be the most transparent and least corruptible government that has ever existed.
Do you really think that the way the Constitution is currently interpre

Compensation?

[corsec67 (627446)]

When the wikileaks.org url is put back online, could they seek compensation for the lost time that they suffered as a result of that ruling?

Or could I short [wikipedia.org] some stock in a company, sue them for hosting sensitive/"evil" information, and then buy the stock back when the domain gets turned into a blank page? (Use any online company here, something like child-porn on flickr would be an easy target)

Reaction

[Animats (122034)]

This is not going well for Bank Julius Baer.

Press reaction is very favorable to Wikileaks. The New York Times even published the IP address of Wikileaks. [88.80.13.160] There's favorable coverage in The Associated Press, the British press, the Australian press, etc. Since it's on the AP feed, it's going to be in papers across the US tomorrow. Not much TV coverage yet.

Bank Julius Baer is trying to take their US business public. [juliusbaer.com] Their proposed billion dollar IPO [sec.gov] could be derailed by these disclosures.

Seems everyone is misinterpreting the two orders

[by Anonymous Coward]

Posted anonymously for legal analysis. The following is my opinion and my opinion only.

Every lay discussion of the orders in this case have gotten it wrong about what happened. The judge did not have second thoughts about granting the injunction. There are two orders, and they are directed at separate parties, even though they are part of the same case.

The first order [wikileaks.cx] is the settlement with the registrar. The registrar Dynadot settled with Bank Julius Bear to dismiss any claims BJB may have against it, in return for the permanent injunction that you see there. Dynadot agreed to do, among other things, lock the domain, disable it, preserve all DNS data, and produce all information it has about who registered the hostname and who had access to it.

This permanent injunction, between BJB and Dynadot, is not binding on Wikileaks, because Wikileaks was not a party to it. I think this is the big story here. Essentially Dynadot rolled over and settled with BJB without letting Wikileaks participate in the process or have any say whatsoever. Depending on the terms of its registration agreement, Wikileaks could very well file a complaint against Dynadot for unjustly terminating its service. Be wary of your registrars and internet service providers, because if this stands, they can agree to terminate your service without your involvement.

The second order [discourse.net] is a temporary restraining order against Wikileaks, prohibiting them from publishing the documents at issue. They are listed at the end of the order. Unfortunately for BJB, due to the the way Wikileaks is architected, the operators of Wikileaks do not host the documents themselves, nor can they order their removal. Is Wikileaks concerned about any legal consequences? [wikileaks.cx] The answer is no. "We design the software, and promote its human rights agenda, but the servers are run by anonymous volunteers." That's why those who run the company have nothing to do in response to the injunction and why the documents are still online. Wikileak's response is due tomorrow Feburary 20th at noon, and the hearing will be on Friday February 29th at 9:00am at 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California 94102 [google.com] at the US Courthouse, so be sure to show up!

Grim future

[thatblackguy (1132805)]

Kazakhstan....rather than block sites, it slows them down, frustrating the users of political content into looking elsewhere.

A practical example of why we need net neutrality and what happens without it.

The court order that muzzled Wikileaks.org (covered here) was prompted not by the government but by a bank registered in the Cayman Islands.

That just adds insult to injury. As if the local corporations weren't enough, other companies can mess with your freedom of speech. I also like how they quote it's still available from the link http://88.80.13.160/ [88.80.13.160] or the other http://www.wikileaks.be/ [wikileaks.be]

Knowing fondness for defense of free speech

[mapkinase (958129)]

Knowing fondness for defense of free speech of Western media one would think that all the material at Wikileaks would be immediately copied on the front pages of all major Scandinavian newspapers. Anybody had any links to those newspapers?

Re:

[darkhitman (939662)]

Why do US people believe their country is a leader in everything, when cold, hard numbers eminently suggest otherwise?

You have cold, hard numbers regarding the "rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place"? Numbers which are capable of eminently [reference.com] suggesting things? I would love to see those. Personally, I can't even figure out what that's saying.

Re:"World leading"?

[p0tat03 (985078)]

Because they are? Hell, I'm Canadian, I love my country, and even I have to admit that the USA does an immense number of things extremely well. Technology, for one - there is a reason that the majority of the world's tech R&D occurs in the USA, or is funded by the USA. The Americans have a strong history of "stealing" the best and brightest from all the countries of the world, and making them work for Uncle Sam. With promises of a better quality of life, freedom from persecution, and a culture where performance is rewarded, the US *is* the world leader in these things.

Of course, that is all changing somewhat suddenly now. Recent administrations have sabotaged scientific research funding for religious and partisan purposes, skilled immigrants are now the target of hatred, instead of being welcomed with open arms. Millions of Muslims are being socially ostracized and targeted for doing absolutely nothing except being non-Christian.

Don't get me wrong, America still does a lot right. But if you guys want to maintain your position as the grand superpower of the world, you need to seriously turn some of that shit around. It's already going to take DECADES to fix your foreign policy disaster, your economic fuckups, and restore scientific and technological integrity to your academia... so get started.

Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse.

Re:"World leading"?

[coaxial (28297)]

Oh, and more to the point, the USA *is* still among the best in freedom of speech. You know, they're the country where displaying Confederate flags is legal, KKK rallies are legal... whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail. This isn't a value judgment, just an observation that one land is clearly more free than the other, for better or for worse.

Or as the saying goes, "Freedom of Speech means nothing, if only the people you agree with are free to speak." Or as I like to put it, "It's everyone's inalienable right, to make sure that everyone knows just how stupid you are."

Re:"World leading"?

[Tom (822)]

whereas in, say, Germany, displaying any sort of Nazi symbolism is a good way to get hauled off to jail.

Actually, it's a good way to get a lawsuit against you, with all the proper proceedings of a fair trial but that's beside the point. The point is that those laws were set up by the allied occupation forces after WW2. They're not really a german idea, though we've found them useful and decided to keep them. But saying the US is the champion of free speech and then using a contrast where it was them who caused that contrast to exist in the first place is a little cheap.

Re:"World leading"?

[flyingsquid (813711)]

Why do US people believe their country is a leader in everything, when cold, hard numbers eminently suggest otherwise? Mass-hypnosis?

Because, obviously, the US is leader in free [CENSORED]. Concerning news and political discourse, I think if you compare our [CENSORED] to the [CENSORED] of any other [CENSORED], you will find that our [CENSORED] is head and shoulders above that of any other [CENSORED]. Admittedly, certain alarmist elements, such as the [CENSORED] and those of the [CENSORED] party may lead you to believe that our government engages in [CENSORED] but the reality is that intellectual debate and news reporting in this country are [CENSORED], [CENSORED], and most important of all [CENSORED]. Really, all of this concern is just alarmism. We have nothing to fear except [CENSORED].

Insular American Media

[jnelson4765 (845296)]

Propaganda, ignorance, and no mass media reporting on how the rest of the world thinks. That's why the movie Sicko was such a huge shock to the American people - the vast majority of Americans have been fed nothing but negative propaganda about socialized medicine (circa 1950's anticommunist, with updated graphs), but never see any of the positive aspects, like not going bankrupt after breaking your leg.

I'm quite sure the Romans said the same thing until the day the Goths sacked Rome...

Re:"World leading"?

[halycon404 (1101109)]

God I hate this debate. Are we as a nation arrogant. Probably, yes. Are we as individuals, arrogant. Nope. Most of us have long ago learned we've lost our edge in several areas, if we ever had an edge to begin with in those areas is still under debate. But if we aren't world leading... why is so much of the world bound and determined to follow our lead? Iraq? Guess who Europe followed there. Afganastan. Guess who Europe followed there, again. Patent laws? Well, the rest of the world seems hell bent on adopting American versions there of. Copyright? Same thing. If you want us to stop thinking we are world leaders, simply stop following. Its that simple. Our research base may not be what it was, our education system may be in the crapper, and our manufacturing may as not well exist. But if the rest of the world keeps following us into our doom... Then like as not, we are world leading. You got a couple choices, China and India have the potential to be, hell, for that matter Russia still has the potential to be.. But you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault.

Re:"World leading"?

[Mr2001 (90979)]

Patent laws? Well, the rest of the world seems hell bent on adopting American versions there of. Copyright? Same thing. If you want us to stop thinking we are world leaders, simply stop following. [...] you keep choosing America. Its your own damn fault.

Er.. you think the people of those other countries are rising up and demanding to follow us into granting more power to copyright and patent holders?

You don't think, maybe, American corporations are pushing those countries down the same path they've already pushed the US down?