Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

free speech

Myanmar horror rages on

"The generals who run the country are blaming Buddhist monks for the ongoing pro-democracy protests and have admitted nearly 3,000 people had been detained over the rallies, says Agency France-Presse:

"The official New Light of Myanmar newspaper, a government mouthpiece, said that if the monks had remained in their monasteries, “the government would not have used force to prevent protests."

"If… they had not staged protest marches, demanding release of political prisoners, the nation would not have seen any chaos,” it added.

State media also gave a sharply higher figure for the number of people who were detained in connection with the protests, saying 2,927 had been locked up around the country and 468 remained behind bars."

"Stephanie Lenz’s 29-second video shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song ‘Let’s Go Crazy playing in the background.
She wanted to share it with other folks around the world so she uploaded it to YouTube, just like thousands of other proud parents have done."
"Big 4 organised music cartel member Vivendi Universal claimed the recording infringed a copyright."

"And you can barely hear the song."

"Now the EFF is supporting the home-movie mum in a free-speech lawsuit it filed today against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG)." -- Read more

"“Typically, SLAPPs take the form of defamation actions brought by large corporate actors to shut down criticism by non-governmental organizations or local citizens,” posts Michel-Adrien Sheppard on his Library Boy blog.

SLAPP is shorthand for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

“The actions are for huge sums of money and are often seen by critics as really just attempts to bankrupt opponents or intimidate them,” he says.

They’re not always used to get cash, however. They’re also great weapons for hammering off- and online entities which have in some way incurre

"Russia's deputy prosecutor general wants Big Brother reinstated, this time to censor freedom of speech online.

A "legal control over the Internet" is necessary, "to step efforts to fight with extremism," says Ivan Sydoruk, according to Kommersant.

Human rights activities say state control over the Net, "will create persecuted 'cyberdissidents" and IT specialists argue online censorship is next to impossible, says the story." -- Read more

I guess some people never learn.

1.) Censoring internet is very hard and is almost assured not to be able to stop anyone determined enough to go around (these "extremists" included).

""In only a few months the Net has stopped being a place of freedom where anybody, anywhere regardless of race or creed, colour, sexual persuasion, physical ability or disability, or anything else, had a home," I posted on Saturday, going on, "It didn't matter who you were or what you thought, you could express your feelings and sentiments without fear. But that's changing with horrifying speed."

In 2007, anybody with more dollars than sense now feels free to sue web sites for the slightest slight. That's bad enough, but things have now reached ridiculous extremes.

If the Net is about anything, it's about freedom of speech and hyper-linking - directly connecting stories, data and information - is absolutely integral to it. Now, however, it's being claimed that merely linking to something someone somewhere doesn't like is sufficient grounds for a civil complaint.