Why Richard Stallman Was Right All Along 807
jrepin sends this excerpt from an opinion piece at OSNews:
"Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities. Initiatives like SOPA promote diligent monitoring of communication channels. Thirty years ago, when Richard Stallman launched the GNU project, and during the three decades that followed, his sometimes extreme views and peculiar antics were ridiculed and disregarded as paranoia — but here we are, 2012, and his once paranoid what-ifs have become reality."
To be fair to Obama... (Score:3, Informative)
For the record (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Occupy != Terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
Business Insider: British Police Label Occupy London Terrorists [businessinsider.com]
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Stallman said:
prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia ... should be legal as long as no one is coerced.
I found Doctorow's quote more powerful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Okay. I think you'll find I was perfectly true to the meaning:
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness.
Re:Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not getting into this argument myself, but here's your cite [stallman.org] ... Stallman wrote it on 28 June 2003 (and the poster's paraphrase seems valid, though I doubt the statement represents the full breadth of Stallman's views).
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:5, Informative)
How about this: The messenger in this case [RMS] has nothing to do with the current state of affairs. There is no correlation. No prognostication.
Is that a satisfactory summary?
Re:Occupy != Terrorists (Score:5, Informative)
Yes because we all know no one ever got shot in the head @ occupy.
Iraq veteran seriously injured by police projectile is lucid and responding but brain swelling still a risk, say doctors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/27/occupy-oakland-scott-olsen-surgery [guardian.co.uk]
Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, I don't think there have been any Tea Party protests where the cops have turned up and pepper-sprayed people for having the audacity to sit still - actually, have there been any Tea Party protests at all? I know they've had the odd rally, but I can't think of any actual protests.
Point being, it's not really an apples to apples comparison.
Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Didn't the Tea Party bring guns to some place or other? I remember hearing about that somewhere on here. Or was that a ./ myth?
Sure. In America, it is still legal to own guns and carry them in most public places (usually requiring a permit if the weapon is concealed). It may be important to note that of all the Tea Party rallies, no weapons were ever fired, or at least nobody was killed. Going out on a limb here, but I think terrorists usually use their guns to kill as many people as they can, so maybe the term "terrorist" is misapplied to Tea Party people. There were actually a few cases of rape and even murder among the Occupiers, but it's just as ridiculous to call them terrorists.
Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (Score:2, Informative)
That's because the media has been instructed to paint them positively, since they serve the same master. Occupy, too, will either be snuffed out or subverted by those in power. Hard to imagine "small government" folks voting republican after colossal fuckups like nixon, reagan, and bush II isn't it? Amazing what a little propaganda will do.
Re:NDAA does not have that provision (Score:1, Informative)
As I explained, [slashdot.org] and as people immediately showed that I was correct in assessing that MSM confused the public on this issue, [slashdot.org] I bring [slashdot.org] towards you this information [youtube.com], no matter how confusing it all seems.
Yes, it is true, Obama specifically fought to make sure that the US citizens are in fact included into the bill and are now just as much of a target for the US administration as any funny looking foreigners.
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:5, Informative)
Really, you shouldn't make comments about logical fallacies if you don't know what they actually are. There is no argument from authority. He points out the fact that nothing Stallman has said or done would have any effect on the legislation nor on what is being said about the Occupy protesters. He also points out Stallman's obviously poor thinking in numerous things.
At best he engages in some ad hominem.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Come someone challenge this : (Score:5, Informative)
As our society grows more dependent on computers, the software we run is of critical importance to securing the future of a free society. Free software is about having control over the technology we use in our homes, schools and businesses, where computers work for our individual and communal benefit, not for proprietary software companies or governments who might seek to restrict and monitor us.
stallman said this. and it is happening - private corporations and governments are separately and in conjunction trying to control everything.
so far so good, right ? and you are asking, 'what does this have to do with free software', right ?
are you idiots ? what are we turning to, as this trend gets more serious ? software that is free, and uncontrollable, and circumvents any kinds of bans/gateways/filters ? from tor to proxies, to free oses that thankfully run these ? imagine what would have happened if instead of linux, some jacked up windows nt server was the basis for the web at large today ? all it would take microsoft to twist us in the balls would be to prevent certain software (proxy, vpn) from running on their servers with a 'security update' when local governments requested it and voila !
dont at a moment think that 'they wouldnt do that'. they DO that. we have seen endless cases of repression cooperation, user-busting, shady dealings get to news in slashdot and we discussed under their summaries here, altogether. so, dont at a moment dumb down and think they wouldnt - they ARE doing it.
and what would happen if stallman did not come with those 'radical' ideas, and relentlessly pushed for them ? we would be living in a more closed, private internet, and we would have been already grabbed by our balls long ago. At least now, we are on the cliff's edge - with all this sopa and shit. we maybe have a chance.
so wise up. world history has been exclusively changed for the better by radicals in the last 2 centuries. here's another, and he is talking good stuff. the fact that these stuff may be too futuristic or utopic for you, would just put you in early 1900s moron's shoes if you come up and claim that he is nuts. everyone ranging from wright brothers to nikola tesla were dubbed as nuts at some point. even thomas paine, was shamefully labeled as a lunatic. now noone can dare argue against the principles he had spearheaded, in a scientific environment - they have become de facto basis of freedom of scientific thought from dogma and religion.
if you did not know who even thomas paine was, i am wondering what the fuck you were doing in a thread, labeling someone who was a radical visionary, as a nut.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
in fact, that same magazine also suggested that child porn be legalized so the real pervs can get their fix and stay in the shadows without victimizing real children ( couldn't find the article, but I did find this [psychologytoday.com] one which acknowledges that the "think of the children mentality is way out of hand ).
Psychology Today is very mainstream, like the CNN of psychology literature, and even they are not afraid to address those controversial things like rape fantasies and the fact that the "think of the children" appeal to emotion is stale bullshit and way misused. You who are foaming at the mouth at RMS's porn statements are probably fantasizing about your daughters right now - Your selective anger at RMS' statements says more about you than it does him.
Re:To be fair to Obama... (Score:4, Informative)
You need to understand, Obama doesn't say he thinks due process free detention statutes are a bad idea, he says that as President, he already has that power and Congress does not have the right to usurp it by passing a law. This is not an example of Obama displaying concern for civil liberties, it is an example of Obama asserting the philosophy of imperial presidency.
Re:Occupy != Terrorists (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:4, Informative)
How did you get +5 Insightful? Allow me to quote RMS from his own blog on June 28, 2003 [stallman.org]:
"Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
Re:To be fair to Obama... (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Gitmo is still there is because the Republicans blocked his efforts to close it. He's not a dictator and he can't simply rule by fiat -- even though his critics like to accuse him of doing so.
The Republican game plan for the past several years has been to use the power of Congress to keep him from doing what he wanted to do, and then accuse him of lying when those things didn't get done. The fact that so many people are stupid enough to fall for it is astounding.
Re:Well, actually... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Occupy != Terrorists (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:5, Informative)
The article is flawed because the author listens to conspiracy theory bullshit and fails to do proper research on the NDAA.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf [gpo.gov]
Section 1032 page 362. The bit about it not applying to US citizens.
Re:Not funny when it happens to you, is it? (Score:2, Informative)
Funny how no crimes occurred where the protesters were armed.
Re:To be fair to Obama... (Score:5, Informative)
You're completely wrong.
"The FBI, CIA, Federal Marshals, military, and all the other executive apparatus of the nation report to secretaries HE appoints (with fairly rubber-stamp Senate approval),"
That approval has been anything but rubber stamp these days. The GOP has used various procedural tricks to block nearly half of Obama's appointments, forcing several key agencies to be left leaderless for years.
"The Congress can't order Obama to keep Guantanamo open. But he could close it tomorrow if he wished."
Wrong. They added language to the NDAA stating that absolutely no money can be spent moving the detainees from Gitmo to other places. Since the prison can't close while there are people there, the prison can never close, and there's nothing Obama can do about it. Sure, he could try to veto the NDAA, but that would mean that the entire United States military would be forced to shut down. Can you imagine the campaign ads? The Democratic Senators sure can, which is why they would override his veto.
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:5, Informative)
More likely Richard Stallman is a little tired of the speeches and has no real desire to appear in public and thus expresses his discontent with a rather offset sense of humour. Start asking him silly question and his behaviour deteriorates until question time ends. Whilst he supports FOSS he is no a slave to it nor to the ignorance of the majority of users and rather than attacking people he simple takes on a slightly tilted and offensive demeanour to drive people away.
The only people to push Stallman attacks have been M$ in rather pointless retaliation for attacks against Ballmer and Gates. Their reasoning being the use of Ballmer and Gates in M$ marketing being presented as geniuses, which of course made the immediate targets for ridicule and mocking. Thus they reasoned attacks against Stallman and Torvalds would damaged FOSS. Some of the Stallman stuff stuck because it seems he exploited to fend of excessive public appearances. Most of the Torvalds stuff failed no matter how much the M$ marketdroids attempted to twist and exaggerate every public comment he made.
As for trusting closed source proprietary software and interference by a government controlled by the 1%, obviously the two mixed together is a terrible idea. The psychopathic greed of the 1% will twist government to protect themselves and to continue the rape of the planet and the 99%. The question in the digital era is whether we will use technology to bring them down or whether they will use it to enslave us.
Re:False connection (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The argument is miscast. (Score:5, Informative)
You are incorrect.
On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Organization Act (Public Law 95-91), centralizing the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission and other energy-related government programs into a single presidential cabinet-level department. The DOE, activated on Oct. 1, 1977, provided the framework for a comprehensive national energy plan by coordinating federal energy functions. The new Department was responsible for long-term, high-risk research and development of energy technology, federal power marketing, energy conservation, energy regulatory programs, a central energy data collection and analysis program, and nuclear weapons research, development and production.
Shutting down the DOE does not mean there is no Federal oversight. It would mean a return to the way it was handled before 1977. We had all of what we have now in the way of nuclear weapons, power & research before it was consolidated.
I am NOT arguing the case either way, just pointing out your premise is totally, factually incorrect.
Re:NDAA does not have that provision (Score:5, Informative)
Look mods, I'm going to make if very simple for you, since I don't want to see this lie spreading any further.
Here is a link [slashdot.org] to roman_mir pointing to the specific text that concerns him.
Here is the text, copied directly from his post, emphasis his:
SEC. 1031. DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO.
In this subtitle, the term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual who is located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after March 7, 2011, who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense.
He is concerned that this section was seemingly removed. He claims that it was removed at Obama's insistence and that it allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely.
Here is the link [gpo.gov] to the full text of what was passed.
Here is the text of the definition that he thought was removed. It wasn't removed, only relocated and modified slightly. Originally the term "individual detained at Guantanamo" was defined in its own section. In the final version of the bill, they moved the definition to a subsection of the section talking about the detainees. You can check the text of the bill inside the link if you don't believe me.
SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(e) Definitions- In this section:
(2) The term `individual detained at Guantanamo' means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
(A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(B) is--
(i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or
(ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
So it is established that roman_mir is incorrect in thinking that this section was removed. It follows that he is also incorrect in thinking that Obama forced Congress to remove the section, since the section hasn't been removed.
Finally, it is worth noting that this is merely a definition of what the term "individual detained at Guantanamo" means, and does not authorize any actual detainment. Such definitions are common in legal writing. So even if roman_mir had been right about the definition being removed, it would not have had the implications he is claiming.
Hopefully this makes it clear to moderators and readers alike that roman_mir is completely off base in his statements. In an ideal world, moderators would check the facts for themselves before handing out informative mods, but since that's not happening here, I'll try to make it all concise enough that even the laziest mod can see the truth of the situation.
Re:The argument is miscast. (Score:4, Informative)
We support the government because of a barrel of a gun. We support corporations based on mutual gain.
Re:Free software wouldn't have helped (Score:5, Informative)
Disagreeing with Keynes because you have evidence that his theories were flawed is not the same thing as disagreeing with Keynes because he was possibly a bit anti-Semitic when he was a teenager. That line of argument is "Keynes says X implies Y, X happened and Y didn't happen, so Keynes was wrong to say X implies Y". That's different from the ad hominem line of argument I was criticizing, which is more along the lines of "Keynes says X implies Y, Keynes is a bigot, so X doesn't imply Y".
Re:The argument is miscast. (Score:3, Informative)
australia doesn't have a constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia [wikipedia.org]
/. is news for nerds, not news for uninformed morons. You are at the wrong site.
Re:NDAA does not have that provision (Score:5, Informative)
You are doubling down on your nonsense, the section 1028 is about transfer of existing detainees, and the section 1031 that was removed was about any new detainees, thus your idiotic argument is completely false and you are propagating the same nonsense BS as the MSM wants you to propagate.
The section 1031 that was removed was not about transfer of existing detainees, here is the PDF that still contained that section [gpo.gov]
Page 15: Sec. 1031. Definition of individual detained at Guantanamo.
Here is the definition of section 1028 from the final version, which does not have 1031
SEC. 1028. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE
TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STA-
TION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
So those have completely different purpose. One specifies the DEFINITION of a person contained in Gitmo, one specifies the requirements for certifications relating to TRANSFER of detainees.
Good day.