Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Using Copyright To Suppress Political Speech

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the under-their-thumb dept.

Censorship 1324

MacDork writes "As most /.'ers know all to well, Copyright is increasingly being used as a means to suppress free speech these days. And the trend has not been lost on our 2004 US Presidential candidates. Both George and John are using copyright law to 'vaporize' information considered embarrassing or harmful to their campaigns. Don't worry about basing your vote on copyright issues though. Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

cancel ×

1324 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Democracy.. (5, Insightful)

dBLiSS (513375) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936820)

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Re:Democracy.. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936838)

Why is this a troll? The fella speaks the truth. The best slaves are ones that think they are actually free.

Re:Democracy.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936876)

The best slaves are ones that think they are actually free.

Yes, just ask the Agents of the Matrix.

Re:Democracy.. (4, Insightful)

ron_ivi (607351) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936873)

So who would be for reasonable copyright use? Badnarik [badnarik.org] ?

Just remember, unless the voting results in an exact tie, you're throwing your vote out anyway, so a vote for a third party candidate is as good as any.

Re:Democracy.. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936923)

It's only an illusion if you *say* it is.

On one level it's that argument about philosophy stemming from Wittgenstien - things are what we call them there are no illusions seperate from "reality" because this *is* what we call reality. So regardless of there being another level of existence, the *name* of this one is "reality" so it cannot be "illusion".

This leads to the question of, if this is democracy it is only such because that is what democracy has come to mean.

And it's only that because people like you don't do shit, they just complain.

see?

I wish every cynical countercultural bullshit artist would pull their fingers out and start organised political parties and actually *do* something, because you are just confirming your own bullshit by lying there and doing nothing.

Bottom line, the definition of democracy is still up for grabs. And until the day we slip into facism, and even after it, people like me will fight for democracy. And no doubt people like you will say "it's not facism" it's just an illusion of facism.

Re:Democracy.. (3, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936951)

Like in all great republics, democracy is but an illusion.

Lunchtime doubly so.

Voting for the lesser of two evils? (5, Interesting)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937002)

Strangely enough this article entitled Who Would Jesus Vote for? [conspiracypenpal.com] makes a actual point:
Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing. Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

[...]

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Of course, it's a bit longer in the original article. But definitely worth a read.

but but but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936821)

I thought the Republicans didn't like hollywood! Hollywood is like France! Bad!

My bad, they just don't like the *performers* .. they *LOVE* the executives!!

Mirror (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936822)

John Kerry's friend, George Butler, a New Hampshire filmmaker who has known Kerry for more than three decades is threatening legal action against Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.Com. Butler is claiming ownership of two photographs pertaining to Kerry's radical pro-Hanoi days.
One is the cover picture that appeared on Kerry's book, The New Soldier which Kerry tried to suppress in 1972. It depicts several unkempt demonstrators crudely handling an upside down American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima.

Read letter below:

March 5, 2004
By Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
and By Email usveterandispatch@earthlink.net

Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
P.O. Box 246
Kinston, N.C. 28502
Re: vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com

Dear Mr. Sampley:

Please be advised that this office represents the professional photographer George Butler. The above-referenced website is currently hyperlinking to a website which displays an infringing photograph, and is making false statements about this law firm. This must be remedied, or our client and this firm will be forced to commence legal action against you.

Your online service provider, EastLink, was contacted by this office regarding two photographs taken by Mr. Butler that were being used without permission on your website. To ensure compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (17 United States Code 1200 et seq.), EastLink removed the infringing photographs on March 4, 2004.
In response, you posted the above-referenced statements and hyperlink to http://www.grunt.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9531 , a site displaying one of the infringing photographs. It is well-settled that "a party may be liable for contributory copyright infringement where knowledge of the infringing activity, it induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing activity of another." A&M Records v. Napster, Inc. 114 F. Supp.2d 869 (N. Cal. 2000). Accordingly, you are still liable under federal copyright law for posting the hyperlink.
Moreover, the statement that "lawyers representing John Kerry's interest threatened our Internet server with legal action unless the picture was removed" is a false statement of fact. As stated above, this firm represents George Butler. John Kerry is not, and has never been, a client of this firm. In addition, we did not threaten your Internet server, EastLink, with legal action. Rather, our letter and phone calls were required by law to afford EastLink the opportunity to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that protect the interests of online service providers before commencing an action against any of the websites they host.
Thus, you remain in violation of copyright law by continuing to link to the above referenced website and have published false statements of fact on your website, which is actionable as well. You must immediately remove the hyperlink and the false statements from your website.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Nancy E. Wolff
cc: George Butler

Re:Mirror (5, Insightful)

Space Coyote (413320) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936931)

"pro hanoi" is quite a charge. Do you honestly think questioning the US's actions in Vietnam automatically means "pro hanoi"? If so, there are very very few voting Americans who would agree with you.

That's why... (2, Insightful)

Three Headed Man (765841) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936824)

You vote for a third party. Really, people, it's not that hard.

Republicans, Democrats... All the same.

Re:That's why... (1)

timothv (730957) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936835)

We're gonna need to be taken over by another country and liberated before our voting system can possibly be changed to accomodate third parties.

Re:That's why... (2, Interesting)

Three Headed Man (765841) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936842)

You say changed to accomodate third parties. I think you mean "changed back to how it was, which accomodated third parties."

Yes it is (5, Insightful)

foreverdisillusioned (763799) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936840)

In a system without runoff voting, yes it most certainly is. How do you expect people to rally around a worthy third candidate (out of the hundreds out there) when there is such a compelling motivation to vote "NOTKerry" or "NOTBush"? Maybe when they truly are identical someone else can challenege them, but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Re:Yes it is (0, Offtopic)

Metallic Matty (579124) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936859)

the lesser of two evils.

You mean Steve Jobs?

Re:Yes it is (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936875)

There are only 16 swing states. Residents of the other states can vote third-party until their fingers drop off, and it won't affect the outcome in any way.

By election day, there will only be 4 or 5 swing states. For example, if you live in California, voting for Kerry or Bush is useless. Kerry will win the state. It's a done deal. You might as well show support for someone you really want.

You'd be suprised - with DRE, a Blue votes is Red (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936909)

with more and more states going DRE, I suspect that many "safe" Blue states will suddenly turn Red.

http://verifiedvoting.org

Re:Yes it is (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936878)

Well, what reasons are their to vote for Kerry or Bush?

Re:Yes it is (1, Informative)

HeghmoH (13204) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936892)

Why I'm voting for Kerry: his administration didn't get us into an insane war in the middle east, his administration didn't write the PATRIOT act, and his administration wasn't instrumental in creating the largest federal budget deficit ever seen.

Those reasons really suck, and I'd love to vote for somebody I could actually like voting for, but there's just too much at stake this time.

Re:Yes it is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936904)

What state are you from? NY?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/New%20York%20Jul y% 2012.htm

It's a done deal. If you want to vote for somebody else, do it. Kerry has NY in the bag.

Re:Yes it is (4, Informative)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936916)

and his administration wasn't instrumental in creating the largest federal budget deficit ever seen.

Neither was Bush. He's still only achieved 85% of Reagan's deficit.

Re:Yes it is (5, Insightful)

Veridium (752431) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936922)

There will always appear to be too much at stake. That's the trap. Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?

I'm not trying to trash kerry either. If I had to vote for one or the other, it would be Kerry over Bush. But I don't have to, so I'm not going to.

Re:Yes it is (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936968)

Kerry voted for the damn patriot act.
Kerry has said the WoT will continue.
Kerry hasn't introduced any bills in the past 2 years to cut goverment programs.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. (2, Insightful)

boisepunk (764513) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936976)

I'm trying not to troll of flamebait here, but this really isn't a good reason to vote for somebody. You're comparing an existing record vs. a nonexistant record. The two cases can't be compared without baseless assumptions. That aside, I don't think anyone with half a brain should be voting for Bush. But, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. We learned that with Stalin, Pakistan, Saddam Hussein (issue aside please), Howard Dean, Ralph Nader, etc. You should think about choices that are still there. Think of it this way: there are a few choices out there and you've only eliminated one; you should weigh the remaining choices or eliminate them in roughly the same fashion. Hey, from this comment I can see you're at least a somewhat intelligent person. It'd be a shame if you lost your intelligence in the voting booth.

Call the Kerry Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936899)

and state that even though you hate Bush, you will not vote for him and you will encourage others to not vote for him unless he unequivocally suppports "instant runoff elections". This is what I did and I'm encouraging all of my friends to do.

Social Liberal,
Economic Conservative,
Nader Supporter

Re:Yes it is (5, Funny)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936949)

but right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Why choose the lesser evil? Vote Cthulhu!

Jedidiah.

Re:Yes it is (1)

Unregistered (584479) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936969)

But if you're not in a swing stae, then vote third party. As a Southerner, Bush is either gonna win my state or if we're swing, Kerry will win in a landslide. That way, my votte for Kerry really wouldn't matter for getting Bush out of office. So i'm gonna vote for Nader. If he can get 5% of the popular vote he will get federal funding. That would go a long way towards establishing a multi-party system.

Re:Yes it is (1)

greenskyx (609089) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936970)

You are right, but until we take measures to end the two party cartel which has a stranglehold on our democracy our only choices will continue to be the lesser of two evils.

Re:Yes it is (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936978)

. . .right now there are just too many people willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

When one votes for the lesser of two evils it is difficult to admit to one's self that one voted for evil.

KFG

Re:Yes it is (3, Informative)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937012)

What you want is a Proportional Representation [wikipedia.org] voting system. Then you could could give your first preference vote to $3rd_party preference and give $mainstream-lesser-evil your second preference vote.

I'd love to but... (1)

gradedcheese (173758) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936853)

I don't see a third-party candidate that I would want in office. I don't like either of these guys, but I don't want to do 'lesser of two evils' this time around. I think I will just not vote, as noone on the ballot that I've heard of thus far sounds like a good candidate. If someone had a good 3rd party one, I would go for it. When the democrats and republicans see the 3rd party percentages rising, it will send a message and they will hopefully pick better candidates 4 years from now.

Similarly, the copyright thing isn't going to swing my vote one way or another (or have any other influence) since both of those idiots are equally guitly.

Re:That's why... (5, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936874)

"Republicans, Democrats... All the same."

Bullshit. Similar maybe but not the same. Do you really think there is no difference between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration?

Kerry and Bush have similar positions but only the dumbest of the dumb would claim that "letting the states decide if gay people should get married" == "let's amend amend our most sacred document to make sure gay people never get married".

The editor is a dumbass for thinking those two positions are identical.

Re:That's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936897)

Vote for me! I promise longer lunches and less homework!

Re:That's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936967)

No, you are just obviously too lazy to learn anything, yet you still want to pretend you are doing something.

Irony (5, Funny)

cortez (316233) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936825)

First 4 times I clicked on the link (before I tried de-fuglifying it) all that loaded was:


Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

There is one major thing that sets them apart (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936826)

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

USSR (-1, Troll)

AlbertSiegel (607431) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936827)

Welcome to the USSR (United States Socialist Republic)

Re:USSR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936906)

This isn't socialism: this is fascist if anything. Nazi Germany, here we come...

This is new? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936830)

why did this get posted? Slow day?

go ahead (2, Funny)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936831)

get a copyright on this, mr. lowry mays

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

after all, that's important 'intellectual' property of your buddy

Only in America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936833)

Would a citizens rights be trampled beneath their very eyes, yet they never stand up and say something. One day American citizens are going to look back and see where they went wrong. Unfortunately their country will already be a police state, and they'll have no hope of putting it right.

In the words of Bob Marley:
Get up, Stand up. Stand up for your rights.

Re:Only in America (1)

HermanAB (661181) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936898)

The Patriot Act is but a thinly veiled 'State of Emergency' - you are not living in a police state, because you are living under something worse already.

Re:Only in America (4, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936952)

That is the stupidest title I have ever read. If you think this is 'only in America', you need to open your eyes and take a look around. When it comes to free speech, the US is pretty damned liberal. I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood if that tickles my fancy, but in free thinking places like Germany you can be arrested for doing a stiff armed salute or displaying a Nazi symbol - and it isn't like Germany is the most toltalitarian of places in the world.

Catchy phrase, but pure bullshit karma whoring.

The Coveted First Post... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936836)

...will be censored for:

It is a two party system - you can vote for a coward hiding behind unfair application of copyright law - or a coward with no accountability who feels no need to hide his own stupidity.

Seriously though - it sucks. What about freedom of information - whoops - if information is free the terrorists will kill us all! / there will be more immigration. / more abortions.

Hail to our nanny-state overlords

Al Gore made Possible Suppression of Online Speech (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936841)

If he had never invented the Internet it would have never been possible to Censor speech there of course...

I find this very interesting... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936843)

_________M""""""""M MMP"""""""MM MP""""""`MM M""""""""M MM""""""""`M
_________Mmmm__mmmM M'_.mmmm__MM M__mmmmm..M Mmmm__mmmM MM__mmmmmmmM
_________MMMM__MMMM M_________`M M.______`YM MMMM__MMMM M`______MMMM
_________MMMM__MMMM M__MMMMM__MM MMMMMMM.__M MMMM__MMMM MM__MMMMMMMM
_________MMMM__MMMM M__MMMMM__MM M._.MMM'__M MMMM__MMMM MM__MMMMMMMM
_________MMMM__MMMM M__MMMMM__MM Mb._____.dM MMMM__MMMM MM________.M
_________MMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM
M"""""`'"""`YM M""MMMM""M____MM'""""'YMM MMP"""""YMM MM'""""'YMM M""MMMMM""M
M__mm.__mm.__M M._`MM'_.M____M'_.mmm._`M M'_.mmm._`M M'_.mmm._`M M__MMMM'_.M
M__MMM__MMM__M MM.____.MM____M__MMMMMooM M__MMMMM__M M__MMMMMooM M_______.MM
M__MMM__MMM__M MMMb__dMMM____M__MMMMMMMM M__MMMMM__M M__MMMMMMMM M__MMMb._YM
M__MMM__MMM__M MMMM__MMMM____M._`MMM'_.M M._`MMM'_.M M._`MMM'_.M M__MMMMb__M
M__MMM__MMM__M MMMM__MMMM____MM._____.dM MMb_____dMM MM._____.dM M__MMMMM__M
MMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMM____MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMM

FreeCulture.org is working to improve copyright (5, Interesting)

chatooya (718043) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936846)

If you're on a college campus and want to work to make copyright law more sane, join FreeCulture.org [freeculture.org] .

Colleges and universities have a huge amount of power to influence this debate and reasonable copyright law is perfectly inline with the mission of a public education and research institution. So go get linux in the campus computer labs and work up from there!

It is disturbing that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936851)

Both are members of skull and bones and won't reveal what it is. I doubt it is a secret government, but I imagine it would be a buddies club...

Considering the invasions of privacy conducted upon ordinary civilians, it is kinda ridiculous that a political candidate can have a secret membership.

Can they prove they both aren't islamic sleeper terror agents? Under current laws, their dodgy private club would warrent us tapping their phones and having them followed.

Unacceptable. This isn't some tin foil hat rave, it's just unacceptable for them to be part of an undisclosed organisation. The people have a right to know whether or not it is a compromsing membership. What oaths have they sworn that we don't know about?

Sorry this isn't so much about copyright as it is about secrets and anti-democratic moves - because this is what it amounts to.

Re:It is disturbing that (-1, Offtopic)

Triumph The Insult C (586706) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936867)

man, the manchurian candidate is a fucking awesome movie. why'd you have to spoil it for everyone?

Re:It is disturbing that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936946)

It's the kindest, warmest, most wonderful movie I've ever seen.

(And it's much better than "Cats".)

Yeah, right... (4, Informative)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936858)

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry [vietnamvet...nkerry.com] (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.

This brought to you by the Republican party, the political group led by an imbecile cokehead who didn't even have the balls to turn up to his cushy National Guard posting. I have little sympathy for their copyright complaint...

Re:Yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936895)

Do you foam at the mouth and masturbate whenever you type something against Republicans? Get a life, loser.

Re:Yeah, right... (1, Flamebait)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936930)

Do you foam at the mouth and masturbate whenever you type something against Republicans? Get a life, loser.

No, I fondle the huge wads of money littering my desk, a mere fraction of my immense wealth, as I conjure up new ways to diss the poor old GOP. I'm so phenomenally successful, and good looking to boot, that I don't need to get a life -- life just presents itself to me, pre-wrapped and lightly perfumed, ready for me to pick and choose my delights.

Your point...?

Re:Yeah, right... (3, Insightful)

killjoe (766577) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936902)

What's weird is their claim.

They don't dispute John Kerry served in vietnam. They don't dispute John Kerry saved a man's life. The only dispute they have is that people were not firing at John Kerry as he was saving some guys life. Oh and they don't dispute his other purple hearts either.

If I was john kerry I too would keep comparing my record during the war to GW too. They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not.

Re:Yeah, right... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936915)

They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not.

Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.

Re:Yeah, right... (4, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936955)

Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long? Over a year, yeah. Okay, I understand now.

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

How long were you there, my friend?

Re:Yeah, right... I Call Bullshit AGAIN (1)

quixotic411 (758499) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936994)

Yeah, after 4 months he got bored and decided to throw in the towel. Oh, wait! No, I'm wrong! He got injured 3 times, in engagements which earned him bronze and silver stars, before being sent home.

The whole point of the allegations: His injuries were self-inflicted or otherwise manipulated to utilise a loophole designed to get outta hell a lot quicker than our other fine veterans

And before you call bullshit, there is at least one incident that is verified and part of public record: Kerry took shrapnel, claiming that it was during an incident in which there was no shrapnel produced

Again showing, you're full of it :P

Re:Yeah, right... (1, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937005)

How long were you there, my friend?

Over seven months. Not in-country, not close inshore, but on a DE doing shore bombardments among other things. And, I once saw six inch shells landing within 30 yards of my ship. Nice, neat, cone-shaped splashes about 18 inches tall. Weird, really, it was so like an effect in a good movie that it was hard to be scared. I don't know what happened the day Kerry saved that man's life and I'm not going to guess. All I do know is that when he claimed that everybody in Vietnam was a war criminal he was slandering me and everybody on my ship.

Re:Yeah, right... (4, Funny)

killjoe (766577) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937000)

"Volunteered ... hm ... and he was there how long? 4 months? And most people were there how long?"

I don't know about most people but George Bush was there for zero months. Too bad the air national guard was not handing out purple hearts for falling down drunk or visiting the dentist.

Re:Yeah, right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9937001)

"They both came from privledged families and yet one volunteered to go fight for his country the other pulled strings to get into the guard so he would not."

So which one are you suggesting is the smarter one?

GW should be celebrated and JK condemned by those opposed to the Vietnam war.

Re:Yeah, right... (1, Troll)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936911)

I hope you didn't sprain anything with that kneejerk reaction.

Serving "with" does not have to mean in the same boat. Swift boats always operated in pairs or more to provide covering fire if needed. Just like every other type of boat involved in the riverine warfare in Vietnam.

One man, that actually served in Kerry's boat has put out a book that points out Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia during Christmas of '68. The campaign has not been able to answer this because Kerry's words are in the congressional record and a letter to the Boston newspaper. The title of the book is Unfit for Command, just published in the last few days.

Don't forget, Clinton signed the DMCA.

Re:Yeah, right... (4, Insightful)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936912)

Ah, so you watched that episode of "The Daily Show" as well?

Yeah, none of the veterans served on the same boat as Kerry. The doctor they have talking about his first Purple Heart apparently didn't treat him at all for the wound, so that doctor commenting on whether it was a minor wound or not is irrelevant.

Where are the "I went to Harvard with GWB ads", I ask you?

Kierthos

Re:Yeah, right... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936924)

Um. Don't look now, but ... Bush went to Yale.

Re:Yeah, right... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936921)

They all served as part of the Swiftboats. It was a relatively small group of only three hundred soldiers including Kerry. Of those three hundred 280 of them have signed onto the book. Many of them have photos standing next to Kerry. Many of them were in missions with Kerry. They are first hand accounts by poeple close enough to see Kerry. They were not serving on his boat of a few people but were on the boats just yards away from his. Including the person who had to take over the boat when Kerry left. Kerry is trying to paint it like they didn't know him but it won't fly.

Re:Yeah, right... I CALL BULLSHIT (1)

quixotic411 (758499) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936950)

I Call Bullshit:

Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry (the website pointed to by the 'Kerry' link) is the organization running attack ads on US television, attempting to besmirch Kerry's war record. The adverts include the catchphrase 'I served with Kerry', which is stretching the truth a bit -- not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time

The group running ads is "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth". Both groups clain to have served in vietnam, the swift boat people claim to have served "alongside" Kerry - their boats were almost always with Kerry's - as per standard procedure. These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.

I don't know anything about the other group. Kerry is threatening to sue TV stations that run ads from "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"
This is good enough reason not to vote for him for suppressing the truth. I guess Nader will have to do.

And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issues - something Kerry cannot. Unfortunately for me, it's the wrong one.

Re:Yeah, right... I CALL BULLSHIT (1)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936986)

These guys saw exactly what Kerry did and didn't do, and tell it in commercials and a book.

These guys also contradict all of the evidence given by those who actually served on the same boat as Kerry. Who are the more credible witnesses here, hmmm?

And don't diss Bush, no one knows if he did coke, and he's smart enough to take a stand on issue.

What a bizarre notion -- supporting someone because they 'took a stand', even though it goes against your stance. I'm sure Hitler doesn't command your respect, but he took a stand on many issues, hmmm?

Re:Yeah, right... (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936963)

not a single vet in the adverts actually served alongside Kerry, they were merely in Vietnam at the same time.

I suppose this this [he.net] picture has escaped your view?

Re:Yeah, right... (2, Insightful)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937009)

Since all those in the photo were the commanders of other swift boats, it would appear logical to conclude that none of them served on the same boat as Kerry. I suppose reading the caption of a picture has escpaed your capabilities?

So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

sheldon (2322) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936865)

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Uh huh.

You got something to say, then say it. You don't need these stage props to make your point.

Fucking whiner.

Excuse me... nothing like getting something (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936885)

right from the horses mouth. Big difference between saying "Bush had nonsense answers on MTP when defending his position in Iraq" and _showing_ Bush attempt to defend his position.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something (1)

CrowScape (659629) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936907)

Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.

Re:Excuse me... nothing like getting something (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937013)

Yes, but you fail to explain how it's GWB who is using Copyright law to censor when NBC is denying the footage. I honestly don't think the submiter got past the first couple sentences of the article before he rushed off to do the write up.

I RTFA. The point was that Bush does very few interviews, and so media are so concerned about losing that privilege that they will self-censor and not allow reuse of interviews that put him in a bad light. Bush doesn't have to say anything, but by only offering interviews with companies that toe the line, he is endorsing their attempts to intimidate using copyright. This would be fair enough if he was a movie star concerned about controlling his image, but as a paragon of American values, including free speech, he should hold to a higher standard, and should explicitly allow free use of his public statements.

Re:So let me get this straight... (4, Insightful)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936934)

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

IANAL, but isn't there a particular length of a clip that is considered fair use? A lawyer can write all they want, but that doesn't mean what they write is necessarily what the law says.

And John Kerry is censoring free speech because his friend George Butler won't let people slandering John Kerry use a picture he took for their book cover.

Still, IANAL, but don't the courts generally give fairly wide lattitude to political speech? Using many images from George Butler's collection might be questionable, but a poignant image to their political message might be appropriate use.

Anybody who is AL know what the courts have generally done in these circumstances?

Re:So let me get this straight... (2, Insightful)

CrowScape (659629) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937007)

The article states (at least the one concerning the MTP footage) that it's expensive to fight off a copyright lawsuit, and there are no real hard rules that you'll be alright if you follow for when you do not have permission to use copyrighted footage. So, even though they may be perfectly within their rights, it's just not worth the risk finacially. Still, the grand parent was complaining about how everything was being construed to mean that Bush and Kerry were the ones surpressing the respective media.

moderate this back down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936956)

Fucking whiner.

You didn't even read the article and your nonsense is just outstanding.

Fucking idiot.

Fact checking... (4, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936998)

GW Bush is censoring free speech because NBC won't let Michael Moore use a clip from Meet the Press.

BZZT! Sorry, but that is incorrect. It is not Micheal Moore, but another Iraqi War documentary maker: Robert Greenwald, who is trying to use the clip.

Source: This editorial from Wired about, not-ironically, big media and copyrights suppressing democracy.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.08/view.html ?pg=5?tw=wn_tophead_6 [wired.com]

Huh? (1)

Baby Duck (176251) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936869)

My vote for most nonsensical Slashdot story summary.

I'm beginning to be swayed... (5, Insightful)

localman (111171) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936870)

For a long time I've believed that a third party vote is a waste because of our lousy voting system. But I'm beginning to change my mind. If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

I think I may vote my concience this time. I'm begining to think that voting reform is a more worthy long term goal then replacing Bush the tool with Kerry the tool.

Cheers.

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (4, Insightful)

Minna Kirai (624281) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936901)

If the dems lose enough elections because of spoilers like Nader, maybe they'll eventually back voting reform and we can get a decent system like instant runoff.

Impossible. Even if losing makes them support voting reform, so what? They're LOSERS, and have no power to change anything.

If you have the power to make changes, then the current system is working for you and you won't change it. Or if the system is against you, then you'll want to change it but be unable.

(Notice how Congressional districts have been carefully laid to uphold the status quo)

Call the Kerry Campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936925)

and exclaim that even though you hate Bush, you will not vote for him and you will encourage others to not vote for him unless he unequivocally suppports "instant runoff elections". This is what I did and I'm encouraging all of my friends to do.

Social Liberal,
Economic Conservative,
Nader Supporter

Re:I'm beginning to be swayed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936929)

If they lost, it would only give them more fodder to claim that 3rd parties spoil elections as opposed to enhancing them (after all, democracy and free choice work best when you only get 2 choices, especially if they're pepsi and coke). The "wasting your vote" propoganta becomes all the more true.

All the same, I'll still vote 3rd party.

Instant runoff? (1, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#9937006)

As in no more electoral college? That would be possibly the worst election process this country could have.

It sounds good at face value, but it would result in NYC, Chicago, and LA determining the outcome of the election. Add up the population of just those 3 cities. Now add up the population of 10 states west of the Mississippi.

Where do you think the candidates would spend their time and money? Who do you think they'll pander to?

Gay marriage (2, Interesting)

kyhwana (18093) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936881)

Both Bush and Kerry are against Gay Marriage, but there are really only two parties.
So who do the gays vote for, huh?
Go Democracy!

Not that hard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936953)

Vote for the one that supports civil unions or a candidate that supports gay marriage.

Same Song... (1)

theguywhosaid (751709) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936882)

New band. Except it is the same band too.

well (1)

desmogod (792414) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936883)

The only phrase that seems correct to use is "Fucking Wrong" No one paraphrase me, or I'll copyright my words.

anyone got a url (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936886)

to any of the stuff in qn?

it's important that we mirror it!

slashdot logo (1)

kaykay_2k1 (604774) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936887)

sorry for posting this msg in this thread... i don't know where to post.
but, my slashdot page shows "php" logo instead of "slashdot" logo !!!
is it same for everybody else ???

Re:slashdot logo (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936896)

_____dP________dP__a88888b._dP_____dP____d888888P_ dP_____dP___88888888b
_____88________88_d8'___`88_88___.d8'_______88____ 88_____88___88
_____88________88_88________88aaa8P'________88____ 88aaaaa88a_a88aaaa
_____88________88_88________88___`8b._______88____ 88_____88___88
_____88________88_Y8.___.88_88_____88_______88____ 88_____88___88
_____88888888P_dP__Y88888P'_dP_____dP_______dP____ dP_____dP___88888888P


_888888ba___.d888888__dP________dP____________8888 88ba___.d888888___.88888.
_88____`8b_d8'____88__88________88____________88__ __`8b_d8'____88__d8'___`88
a88aaaa8P'_88aaaaa88a_88________88___________a88aa aa8P'_88aaaaa88a_88
_88___`8b._88_____88__88________88____________88__ _`8b._88_____88__88___YP88
_88____.88_88_____88__88________88____________88__ __.88_88_____88__Y8.___.88
_88888888P_88_____88__88888888P_88888888P_____8888 8888P_88_____88___`88888'

LICK IT!!!

Lock it down tight and it will be alright. (5, Insightful)

bigskank (748551) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936900)

It is becoming more and more clear that the focus on tightening up intellectual property law to make it more like a form of "real" property is not just affecting geeks and pirates anymore. As the entertainment industry and members of congress continue to pound it into our heads that "taking any expression from anybody from any reason is bad" we are going to realize extraordinarily negative consequences to our democracy. Will we be able to show the "State of the Union" address after the original airing? I most certainly can't get into Congress to tape it, so it seems that the networks can lock down political information very tightly. Sure, there are transcripts, but political messages aren't just about what's said, it's about how it's said and who the message is said to, and what the reaction to that message is. The use of copyright as a tool to stifle opposing viewpoints or criticism in politics is a very powerful - and extremely dangerous - political weapon, and it is one that could kill democracy as we know it. If we aren't even free to draw up words and images of the leaders who we elect, who we pay out of our tax dollars, and who we let govern us, then the ideals which this country was founded on are dead (if they aren't already). Just because NBC or ABC or CNN shot the film of a leader doesn't mean the public shouldn't have certain rights to choose who can or can't use it or how it can be used. These networks use public airwaves, receive public services wherever they shoot (i.e. the extra police protection around the press corps at the Democratic Convention in Boston) and take the time of our elected leaders. Surely the public deserves a little fair use.

Don't waste your vote. (2, Insightful)

antikarma (804155) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936908)

If you don't like Kerry or Bush, you might want to check out the Libertarian candidate for president, Michael Badnarik. [badnarik.org] I can almost guarantee you'll agree more with him than either Kerry or Bush even if you do consider yourself a democrat or republican.

Is There Some Story or Even Some Facts Here? (2, Insightful)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936927)

I was hoping that the person who posted this would deign to provide us with some solid information or maybe just a link. As it is, the post just makes this unsupported claim that Bush and Kerry are using copyright to censor and then asserts without proof that they are no different than each other. Could someone please explain to me how something this thin got posted here.

Don't blame me... (3, Insightful)

Sean Clifford (322444) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936928)

I voted for Kodos.

Seriously, though. Demopublicans, Republicrats, same same. Both parties are feeding at the corporate trough. I'm hopeful that under Kerry we'll have Evil Lite rather than Double Evil with Cheese and Curly Fries.

I like Nader and his take on things - I've been a fan for a long time. But I don't think he has a shot - he's not going to be on the ballot in many states, some of them key states like California.

It would be nice if one day we can have a third party candidate who (a) had a hope in hell, (b) wasn't a nutball, and (c) had the stones to be a progressive rather than a "me too" corporate slave.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Mistake (3, Informative)

neurojab (15737) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936938)

>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."

That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring. He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.

Well Duh (4, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936958)

They're our ruling class. They take positions that benefit them, and only them. It bugs me to hear starry eyed morons going on about gov't for/by the people, and never stop to consider that America's got rulers just like any Dictatorship you care to name. The fact that you can sometimes join the ruling class doesn't change that. If the people ever really do wise up and start trying to change things, you can bet your @$$ our facade of democracy's gonna colapse real quick.

What better reason for DRM? (2, Insightful)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936964)

Why, when DRM gets here, we won't have any of these Fair Use or copyright infringement discussions because there won't be fair use, and there won't be infringement. If something slips past the Analog Hole, unjust and misused laws like the DMCA and anything Senawhore Hollings has a filthy hand in will carry the day.

When corporations can absolutely control what you can archive, reuse, or replay - that will be the day that free speech is reduced to what an individual can mimeograph and hand distribute. And there are already laws that chill that speech, such as vandalism, loitering, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, and thousands more. Don't worry, one applies to you. Right now.

So violate copyright every chance you get. Copyright has been abused to the point where it is useless, unjust, and no longer represents the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. Civil Disobedience, kids - 1 in 6 Americans can't be wrong [slashdot.org] ...or can they?

Misleading (4, Informative)

peachpuff (638856) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936977)

This article makes it sound like both candidates are engaging in a campaign of suppression. If you actually follow the links, you find out that there is (as far as i can tell) only one lawsuit per candidate, and that the suits were not filed by the candidates.

I think copyright holders are wrong in both cases, but the candidates aren't necessarily behind it.

If you want to know where a politician stands on an issue, you should ask them and check their record. It's not enough to find one example where they've benefitted from someone else's lawsuit.

Come to think of it, how come these suits are only evidence in one direction? The candidates aren't party to the lawsuits. You could just as easily say that both candidates are against copyright suits because a movie that helps Kerry is being suppressed and so is an ad that helps Bush.

Thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9936991)

MacDork, for pointing out what you said about both parties. Democrat activists try to create the impression that their party cares more about such issues than that other one does. The truth is that both are hell-bent to take away our free speech rights. If it wasn't for their manipulation of campaign finance and elections, some third parties might have a chance at challenging their hegemony. Their chief concern is holding onto power, and they'll resort to the usual backdoor provisions, "constituent" service, pork barrel spending, "bipartisanship", gerrymandering, and bootlicking to do it.

DoS voting (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#9936993)

That's why I'm voting for Kerry. His party is much less effective at passing legislation restricting citizens rights than is the Republican Party. And with the Republican control of Congress, the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive branches will defang them more than ever. Moreover, the more precarious position of the Democratic Party makes it more responsive to activism from the people. Through individual donations to the DNC and anti-Bush "527" corporations, especially over the Internet, the people are much more important to the DNC than they are to the RNC, which protects their corporate "donors" more effectively, at the expense of the people.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>