Political bullshit at it's finest (plus awesome rant on the justice system)

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-did-the-justice-system-target-aaron-swartz-20130123

The article above is all about one of the most ingenious people on this planet. a man who worked tirelessly to educate and provide free information to people of the world by ways of the internet. in september of 2011 he accessed MIT's Free academic database (which is provided to students for free by the university to all students inorder for them to obtain and use scholarly academic articles) and downloaded a huge number of the articles.
Now he never released any of these articles in anyway, he returned them all and wasn't motivated to do this by money or some other for of incentive other than to make the articles publicly available, something he never achieved.
Yet they still pressed charges against him...
for downloading articles....
that he had legal access too...
Really?
this is essentially saying that if i were to go to my library and rent out a third of the books in there (if i had the capacity to move them all of course) that they could arrest me on felony charges because i got too many books. the only difference is that when i leave with all the books i've chosen to read that the library still has every single book that i just left with. he made COPIES of the articles, they are still there. no harm to anyone. these academic works are out there to inform people anyway, making it free actually seems more logical to me than anything else.
anyways the article and many other people (especially the internet folk, who i think all pretty clearly see what this is and where i'm headed, but lets spell it out anyways) see that this is a major attempt by the government to employ scare tactics on people using the internet for activism purposes.

Now i'm going to go out on a limb here and state why they are gunning so hard for this. its about isolation. While yes we are all much more connected together through the internet, one state to another, one country to another, we are also more isolated. not in the idea that we are from the world. (though some sites in the heart of the internet clearly have a couple people like that to say the least...) but that we are from each other. see as much as we can comunicate with each other and get our ideas out there it's becoming fairly clear that any actions we take on the internet leave us vulnerable to an assault of charges on an individual level.
We are alone in the sense that when we make steps to improve society through peaceful protest on the internet as individuals if any violations occur they are no longer just petty charges of "disturbing the peace" or something of the sort. no the charges filled against those who travel into the grey area on the internet are charged with felonies.
What i believe is that at this point people on the internet who are activists and step into an unknown realm of human development now have new risks which may be even greater than we have ever seen. where the dangers of risks aren't just life risking, but life destroying choices. Aaron made a choice this january that speaks very clearly to me about the ramifications of the laws being placed on the internet and information and even free speech. this man, who by all rights did nothing wrong but enter an area of campus he probably wasn't meant to be in, did nothing more than borrow the files his school provided him. and in an act of generosity which would have made robin hood proud, (the cartoon with the fox not the new one, gotta stay with the classics!) he would have (possibly) attempted to make this vast source of information available to the public.
for this he was on trial facing 35 years in prison and a 1 million dollar fine, plus the life long label of being a felon.
essentially this mans life would have ended the minute a guilty or plea bargin deal was entered.

But as much as this outrages me it's things like this that remind me of the anger that i should be feeling instead.

this man Aaron was essentially attacked and driven to suicide for stealing essentially nothing the very most that could be said is that he was stopped in the alleged attempt to distribute free scholarly articles to the general public with not intention nor ability to use said articles for personal profit nor gain. yet the people on wall street, who knew their companies where making fraudulent loans, who gave bonuses out to CEO's and executives while slashing workers pay, who fired or demoted those trying to warn them, who claim that money is free speech and that their companies are "people", are not only too damn important for us to prosecute, (even when we KNOW that they were responsible for much of the damage to the american economy today and that their actions caused huge losses for people everywhere) but that people can now be prosecuted for stealing nothing at all! and even should one argue that he did in fact steal the information (i don't agree and think that is a pittlepattle [yea i said pittlepattle! so what!? come at me bro!] opinion, i can see someone coming around with a valid point or two) is it really justice to prosecute him and send him to jail for 35 years!? to push him to suicide? this isn't justice it's a threat. it says if you do something we don't like with any material we produce we can prosecute you.

Intelectual property has become a free zone for these people to push legislation limiting what you can or can't do with information and technology. it's become a way to block out the voices of people who have different values or ideals. it's becoming a way to ensure the profits of those who already have while suppressing people who wish to give that information out to those who don't. It's outrageous that someone can be prosecuted so harshly for doing nothing at all yet those who have done clear wrong and have money/power can get away completely free. and on top of that we not only have CEO's and executives with the power to steal so blatantly from the american public but so arrogant as to actually SUE our government for bailing out the companies.

The outrage the american people should feel about this case is something i don't see. people talk about him and the DEO's on an individual basis, which is good, but no connection established between the gross injustice in both cases but along with this there is no comparison on the enormous differences in the severity of the punishment that would have been received is ever established. a man that steals millions from the people should never get a punishment lesser than that of one who's only crime was accessing a restricted area of campus to download files he had every right to access in order to allegedly share the information to others. the balance of justice has been lost in this case and in many more cases. as a whole i feel the entire system has been skewed to work in favor of those with power
(as one would expect based off logic. however as americans this is not only our worst fear and something we disdain but also our biggest failure as a people. we demand justice and we demand our rights. however despite our claim that we are one people there is a clear and severe class separation between us all. our legal system not only shows this to us but also blatantly favors the side with power. why aren't we listening to uncle parker? why aren't we listening to ben? [come to think of it there's a lot of wise bens out there... ok everyone go find an old guy named ben and listen to him!... unless he offers you candy... then back away... slowly... actually a bit faster than slowly might be better... actually forget about the backing up and just run... really really fast...] ummmmmm, i forgot what i was saying.... oh right ben! anyways what about what ben said? "with great power comes great responsibility" should those in power not be held MORE responsible to those who don't have it? when did we start to baby and coddle our leaders like the celebrities our society ponders too?)

We as americans should be ashamed that it is our government that has let lose this storm of corruption on democracy and we should be ashamed we haven't do anything to stop it. people write it off saying "thats just how government works"
I say FUCK THAT!
The GOVERNMENT is what WE THE PEOPLE say it is. WE ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. it's not just our government thats failing, IT'S US. we let them take these powers and make these steps, and while yes i LOVE what they can do for us in terms of schools, aid, funding and many other things they do i don't believe they should have laws that so severely punish a man trying to do good out of the kindness of his heart yet don't punish those who commit crimes because they are too important. this is the society WE have created. one where injustice is the norm and people continue on because it's NOT THEIR PROBLEM. i love our government and what we are doing to help those around us. i love that our country is trying to progress and become the leaders we all know we are. But we can't give up our rights to free speech and allow cooperation's to blind us to reality. THEY ARE NOT PEOPLE. MONEY IS NOT FREE SPEECH. people are people, our voices and our writings, our prayers and our poems, our music and our songs, and crys and our shouts. THAT IS FREE SPEECH. and we have begun to forget that. and all the money, and all the guns, and all the petty bullshit argue about isn't going to make a differences when we can't live our lives without fear of breaking some law put in place by the seeds of corruption.
You can Maintain your rights and maintain the benefits the government provides you, but allow justice to fail and the country falls before we know it's gone.

There is no conspiracy or plan, there is no goal of some party to bring us down, and corporations are not evil. what we have here is a trend, one which is leaning towards the idea that those in power stay in power because they have the means to out shout the little guy. what we have here is not the master plan of some corrupt political group, but the insane ramblings of a group who has it's leaders trapped in the past and refusing to make any steps forward which is losing members of their own party due to the changing tides in american polotics. what we have is another political party so used to being forced to compromise that it still gives away almost all power. what we have is cooperation's buying elections and is so concerned with profits and their own gains that they ignore real problems and are willing to jeopardize the rights of the people for personal profit not out of simply greed but from the willful ignorance of the impact of the decisions they make.

basically this is what i this is what i feel about the entire situation.
The fact is that this was a scare tactic. one to inform the people of the internet that their voices are being heard. and they are being silenced. one after another. and this will not stop, EVER. until we the people demand the changes needed before we no longer have the choice.

You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 1

    Well, I read the whole thing. And first let me say that I am fairly uneducated on Swartz's situation, so I may be wrong on a few things. A few things I noticed:

    1. Copying articles from a private database and making them available to the public (my college did not allow anyone not enrolled to access their database, and you were not allow to share the articles, assuming other colleges are similar) does not seem any different than uploading a torrent. The punishment has always been way over the top for doing that?

    2. You mention that companies are suing the government, yet it is not allowed to sue the government except in a few cases (such as when they have been negligent and it resulted in personal injury). Could you perhaps explain how companies are managing to get around this?

    3. You say "what we have is another political party so used to being forced to compromise that it still gives away almost all power," but that is not true. Even though one party is more liberal, and one party is more conservative, the members of that party still need to represent the people that voted them in. For example, a Texas democrat likely would not vote for strict gun control even though the democratic party platform includes stricter gun control. Likewise, a California republican likely would not vote overly conservative. Each party still needs to somewhat represent the people that elect them in order to stay in power, or they will have a hard time staying in power (which is the ultimate goal of any party).

    i fucked up replys below, i don't wanna copy/paste.
    - 24paperwings January 28, 2013, 8:15 pm
    Reply
  • 0

    (hey just a heads up the response to you is kinda following the same format as above. so just letting you know any sarcasm isn't actually directed at you, it's there for a comedic effect, i'm basically commenting on my own rant and making stupid jokes.... yea so enjoy the ranting on these idiotic laws! :D)
    ....
    (ok also the :D face looks like fat smiley face because of the parentheses... just sayin people)
    (also sorry it's so long... i put in some stuff for entertainment lol hope you like it!)
    (tl:dr
    1- read it to complex to explain other wise
    2- just the former CEO of AIG and his new company doing this now. suing that it was unconstitutional and gov screwed them
    3- Democrats are weak in deals and historically tend to give up more in compromises, they are weak in that they don't know how to use their influence effectively and force some sort of cooperation. and republicans [i say this later on but by republicans i mean mostly far right republicans not moderate ones who aren't batshit crazy]
    rant- summed up down there
    extra stuff- what am i your mother? come on son read some on your own
    extra stuff...?- ohhhhh... ok well this is awkward... didn't really have any extra stuff...
    extra stuffs! :D - ok fine! i'll put extra stuff in the next damn post, jeez!... if it weren't for the points on the post i wouldn't even know people read this stuff...)



    1.) it's similar but different in many respects. from what i understand this information that he was allegedly going to put out for free on the web (remember he never actually did do it and even returned the data before it ever had the chance to be put out) doesn't fall in the same category. He was provided with the information freely and had every right to access it, essentially making this a case of "he's guilty for this because we say this was his intent." (to be honest this is kinda like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. we know it was his intent to release it but still it begs the question who are we to say what he will do? do we have a right to punish him for a crime he may not have committed? and the argument of prevention is null here. they knew full well what he could do with it and knew it wasn't going to harm them. the site could be down in seconds if he did post it.)
    The thing is he never actually did anything wrong. the intent never had a chance to be followed through on and even if he did have the chance who's to say he would do it? until he uploads those files he hasn't broken and laws and had every right to download that many files, even if it was in clear excess to the normal number of files one downloads he still had the right to do so.
    I've also looked up their policies on rights to the work. now this applies to their faculties work

    "The Faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is committed to disseminating the fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible. In keeping with that commitment, the Faculty adopts the following policy: Each Faculty member grants to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology nonexclusive permission to make available his or her scholarly articles and to exercise the copyright in those articles for the purpose of open dissemination. *In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to MIT a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to authorize others to do the same.* The policy will apply to all scholarly articles written while the person is a member of the Faculty except for any articles completed before the adoption of this policy and any articles for which the Faculty member entered into an incompatible licensing or assignment agreement before the adoption of this policy. The Provost or Provost’s designate will waive application of the policy for a particular article upon written notification by the author, who informs MIT of the reason."
    (link)
    http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/

    The part that i looked at most closely is * but i'll move it down here as well.
    "In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to MIT a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit, and to authorize others to do the same."
    To me this says that anyone with legal access to the works can use them in anyway so long as it is not for profit and they will not gain any money in doing so. this includes students at the school as they are a part of MIT and have legal access to the work so long as they aren't using it for profit. (which means that if MIT hadn't been pressured as much as they were i don't believe they would have joined the case... haha oh right i forgot a lot of people actually don't know

    along with that theres JSTOR (the servers which store the data he downloaded) who have their own policies.
    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
    Now i haven't made it all the way through this but i've looked in several areas i would expect the policy to speak about the limits of use and download policy but haven't seen anything that would put him in violation of their terms of service. the only violation i've found that would have pertained to him was this
    "9. Software.

    JSTOR uses software and other electronic tools designed to permit Authorized Users to access, use, reproduce, display, and distribute Licensed Content ("Access Software"). Use of the Access Software and its related documentation is limited to the license granted herein. Institutional Licensees and users may not copy, distribute, modify, decompile, reverse engineer, circumvent, override or disable encryptions or other protections in, or create derivative works from the Access Software."
    I'm not sure when this was put in place but i do think it was probably there at the time of the download in 2011. however i don't know if this exact wording was used (referring to the second half after Institutional Licensees). in any case he did violate the terms of service in this clause only in the sense that he was forced to circumvent the system to download the content. but this was due to being blocked repeatedly in an attempt to access the files. from what i understand what he did in order to get around this was use a harmless and clever way to access the files directly and not use the software they provided. he did violate THESE terms of service but in 2011 they may have been slightly different and may have allowed the access (still trying to find the old policy) but even with the violation is this really an excuse to throw him in jail for 35 years? at most a ban and maybe a fine would suffice, especially given that he 1 never released the content and 2 wasn't motivated by money. he wasn't stealing in the traditional sense and therefore doesn't need to have the traditional punishment that follows with it.
    Along with that yes copyright laws are awful but this isn't a reason to write them off and say oh well. if the laws are this awful for a non violent, non profit, barely criminal unless you jump to conclusions and ultimately non harmful offense then why is it that when someone ACTUALLY does something completely illegal and completely criminal (from the slash on the t to the dot on the i) that we can't even get a them to have a slap on the wrist? it's bullshit to think the way most people do about this and just simply shrug it off as the way it is.
    basically what i'm saying is that for a land that is supposed to be "just" and "fair" and believe that "all men are created equal" we really really suck at showing it. if this is what we believe then lets fucking do something about it and fight to put us all on level footing again. in this country not one damn person is above the law. i don't care if you're a bum on the streets (grover) or living like donald trump (funny hair guy) you are created equal and you are subject to the same punishments no matter your status (except in style, DT may have the classy business suits going for him but Grover rocks that trash can like a boss, plus better hair lol.)


    2. the corporation AIG was meant to be in the suit filled against them but from what i've seen they've backed out of it. they don't think it's a good idea and i agree. however i believe as of right now they have declined to join. this doesn't seem to be stopping the former CEO of the agency from proceeding. he's claiming the bail out to be unfair and unconstitutional. they are suing for 25 BILLION dollars in damages. in short what happened was the Gov lent them a shit ton of money at a hugely high interest rate. Maurice Greenburg doesn't think the deal was fair and wants money back in damages as he feels he was forced into taking a loan that would be extremely hard to pay back and feels that he is justified in doing this because the deal wasn't fair and exploited them (huh funny how that shit works eh mister former CEO of insurance super giant AIG. you feel like you should be reimbursed after you realized that the guy you borrow money from is screwing you out of any money they can? yea well paybacks a bitch now ain't it?)
    Now i don't think this will go to court and if it did i couldn't see them winning. if they did i would literally pack my bags and move out of the country with in the week (actually not a joke, i would literally fucking leave the country). but since they won't win i will say this.
    It is despicable that he could be so fucking arrogant as to even CONSIDER doing this. they were literally saved at the last second by our government, by our tax payers! and then they not only screwed us when receiving that money (you hear that? thats the sound of their bank accounts growing using the money you spent to save their sorry asses.) but are now turning around and blaming us! demanding MORE MONEY! because thats all that matters to them. it's a fucking game. (who wants to play another game of!!!!!!! Who can screw more americans out of their hard earned money buy using government spending and tax cuts/ bribes!)
    To these corporations you are a dollar sign, and unless you fit their demographic and don't get in their way to more cash then they couldn't give less of a shit about you. (*in warm soothing tone, kinda like the one your parents used when they told you fido went to play with grandma and all her pets at the far in idaho. yes jimmy we're gonna go see fido and roxey the rabbit real soon*

    "yes hunny corperations. Not people, because as much as the big powerful super nice and friendly looking CEO and their public relations office want to make you believe that the companies they work for are people too you have to remember, they aren't. *big kind smile* their heart less, barbaric, asshole who will use every legal means they possibly can come up with to screw you, me, your children, and the rest of society out of every penny they can. and in couple years the only way you'll be able to buy a tv or laptop to keep informed on their new policies and ways to screw you over is to sell them the soul of your first born child to them so they can force them to work for pennies and bring us all more cheap shit that they over price.)
    (...shhh don't tell little jimmy but we jumped the gun a bit lol he's our first born! least we still have sarah and thomas! at least until the new iphone comes out ;) muhahahaha!)
    ...ok that one kinda got away from me
    anyways!
    My point is that these guys don't actually give a shit about people. they don't give a shit about government. they don't give a shit about the environment. hell they don't even give a shit about the fucking laws! all that these people in these corporations give a shit about is one fucking thing. their job. and thats all they do. their fucking jobs. And i admit thats great! they are fucking awesome and amazing at their jobs! BUT their job isn't to give a flying fuck about any of that other crap. their job in these companies is one thing and one thing only, MAXIMIZE PROFITS. nothing out side of that matters. these cooperation's are monsters now and are so much a part of our lives now that we are willing to LET them take advantage of us and the system to further screw us over and grow even bigger. (you know that old saying? the one about someones bullying you in school you should go get the teacher? haha well guess what you were just bullied and went to go get the teacher so the teacher gave the bully some cash and he then proceeded to EAT THE GODDAMN TEACHER! now the bully has the money and you're, oh how do people put it now days... oh thats right! fucked, you are FUCKED!)
    Cooperation's have to much power leaving them alone because they are to big won't help it will just get worsen an already incredibly bad problem unless the government makes a stand here and now.

    3.) (holy shit i'm only on three!?!?! well shit lets make this one short then.)
    This ones simple, as much as we like to think they vote for the people they represent i don't feel they do. because as much as i'd like to think that my republican representative in congress is voting the way i would vote i know that for a fact they aren't. or at the least they aren't representing me or my vote. they represent the interests of the people in the idea that they are who we ELECTED to represent us. they vote based on their positions and what they believe is the right choice (or paid choice... eh, depends on the politician) you are correct to some degree though. it's not likely a representative from a state would vote against what the people of his state in general want. texas was a great example of this (Ain't no buhddy gonna take mhay guuuurns!) because it's likely he would lose his position if he did vote for banning guns. this works much better at the state level however (opinion time!)
    heres why i think. the people realize the direct impacts of laws state wide and locally much sooner than nationally. so the issues they face are take priority. nationally however people miss out on much of whats going on. personally i love keeping upon on national news, it's fun, exciting, and i get to listen to idiots all day and laugh about how dumb some ideas are (i say dumb because they are dumb. people are way to sensitive about being politically correct. fuck that if something sounds stupid then call it out as being stupid. don't give an idiotic idea the chance unless it has valid reason to be brought up. [and for those of you who will jump on me for saying that it means this. either listen to the fucking idea or get out of office. they aren't paid to sit on their asses and bitch about the other side, they're paid to come up with solutions, so get working on them already!] dumb ideas harm us, good ideas progress us, and republican ideas bring us back into the 1950's before all this evolution tomfoolery became valid science and they could bully minorities without being ass rapped by the media) (JOKES PEOPLE!!! republican laws are really great!... if you lived 20 years ago! bazinga!)
    iiiiiiin any case.... the point is that when it comes to national news and law the party as a whole is looked at much more so, so representing the ideals of the party and pleasing them becomes bigger priority by default to gain more support on the national scale by representing the party in the broadest way and acting in a partys favor. but this now leads to corporations supporting a party as a whole and lending money one way or another depending on who votes more so in favor of them.
    here in lies the problem though. it isn't really in the politics at all, we need people to favor one side or another on issues and to represent those who show support for an unpopular idea (environmental ideas are much more popular now since the 90's but is still an enormously under discussed issue due to the fact that it can't compete donation wise with big oil and other such companies, therefore becoming less of an issue since they can't compete.)
    however on national issues this gets distorted into a party issue. so if you're a republican you're much more likely to receive money from the big oil companies and if you are democrat you tend to get more from environmental organizations. since the two can't compete donations wise big oil tends to get more support as they can fund more people.
    the reason this is a problem is that it's a major conflict of interests. people need to be informed about issues and the affects on our lives. other wise we have people willfully being ignorant to what those in power are doing. the key to having a government that isn't corrupt isn't just regulations and hoping that someone else does the right thing. it's having a dutiful watch on the government with all of society actually paying attention to the issues. as a people now though we don't seem to care.
    democrats have the chance right now to go out and enforce their policies right now, push for their ideas and their agendas. it sickens me that they are so scared of republicans that they won't even act, wont even admit to having their own ideas they want pushed forward. They are so defensive that they feel they can't even make it sound like they have a plan in which direction they want the country to go in. instead they must be vague as shit about it. republicans however can sit there and be like "i want god back in schools!" or "Obama has a hidden war on santa and christmas and OH HOLY MOTHER OF AUSTIN POWERS HE'S GOT A KORAN!"
    Democrats DO have a plan for the country, one that incorporates the american values we hold dear along with a progressive movement to the next age of men and the limits we can reach. the republican side (should clarify that this entire time i'm generally referring to the far Right republicans most of which are part of the tea party this isn't all of them) has come to be known more as the "we're comfortable here in power so i say this is where we stop" party. they have all the power in the party and only accept people who share their ideals. (literally other republicans in power will turn on a dime if they say so. it's blatantly obvious to almost everyone at this point.)
    (sorry wasn't really short....)


    RANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    (Ok so i'm finished with the three points this is more rantish. what is says: no justice for aaron, companies have to much power, no conspiracies but still have to be wary of people in power, question, think, and act. we are anation of equality everyone should be equal including those in power, and we should exercise our rights as people more than we do don't give an inch)
    Basically, lets get these guys the fuck out of office. they've been in charge way to long. it's clear that their ideals aren't holding up and people are starting to lose themselves in the boredom due to their petty bickering. this goes for both sides. if they can drive a man to suicide over a 35 year sentence that involved no violence or actual thievery and really only involved him taking a bit more of the files than they thought acceptable then i expect them to make those who commit actual crimes pay for their actions. no exceptions, if he needs to run this company that badly, if it will endager the economy that much then fine. put him under house arrest, have him followed to business meetings with a parol officer or something if it's thats important he be there, hire him a personal parol officer if you have to. but make him serve some kind of sentence that involves him either being fined or serving some kinda of jail time. no person deserves any privileges due to their status and i expect him to serve the same sentence i would if i had done committed the same crime. we believe in equality and i don't see it even really attempted when it comes to our celebrities and politicians anymore.
    as i said before though, this was a warning to us. the internet has given us the chance to communicate like never before. but the government is learning how to control it and control it well. the internet isn't meant for control it's the ultimate place of freedom. it almost literally has no limits and is the biggest collection of knowledge and free thinking known to man. if we allow corporate claim and copyright laws to take over then the internet as we know it will die. Aaron was a man who actively worked against this, and i couldn't be more grateful he did. his work has helped keep the internet as free as it is. if we give it up and let them pass laws this strict on non violent crime then imagine how easily we could be taken away. (ever illegally download a song? ever say anything about it on the internet?) the internet is not only a place of free information but it tracks your every move now. facebook is a constant update on who we are and allows them windows right into our lives. it's foot print after foot print of where you've been. allow them control of these laws and they can go on facebook and charge you with copyright infringement for posting songs.
    Now again i'm not saying they are doing any spying and stuff like that. no conspiracies (just the democrats being too afraid to say hey we actually think our ideas are good.) and certainly no need to panic about what they are doing and stuff like that. all i'm saying is that the intended purpose now may not be the applied purpose in ten years. the wording of these laws matter and if they are overly harsh they have to be repaired. other wise some people can and will take advantage of the laws. the dangers aren't now but in the future if people don't keep an eye out. and this is message is making it clear that they have this power unless we force change. we have to demand the government answers to us not the other way around. That is our right as Americans and we have damn well demanded it of our government in the past. (you know civil rights, womens rights, workers rights, civil war. all that stuff every one slept through i high school) because this is what we do, we fight for our rights to be as free as we can. this is just a new area of freedom yet to be fully explored. if we demand our rights now then one day down the line we won't have to fight to get them.
    so what i say is this. don't assume the government is evil or even corporations. but be wary of those in power, we have been taught to love and respect them, but that doesn't mean not to question them and voice yourself. (just think through the idea fully, dumb ideas don't tend to work out well). we can't let them silence us like this and we must make it known that these laws are way over the top.

    oh god damnit
    - 24paperwings January 28, 2013, 8:14 pm
    1. I disagree with the logic "this includes students at the school as they are a part of MIT." A student is not a part of MIT any more than a customer is part of a restaurant. Also I am curious, did he say he was going to release the information, or how did anyone find out about this?

    2. I don't quite see what's wrong with a corporation doing what's best for itself? This forces them to keep innovating and releasing new products to keep up with competition, and is pretty much the basis of capitalism. Obviously, having more money allows them to do more to get ahead, thus the goal is to make as much money as possible. How would you prefer it was set up?

    3. You seem to hate republicans. I assume this is because of the negative media they always get. However, it's not like Democrats are any better. (each word a different link, it's seriously too easy to find these things)

    You of all people should be mad that Obama (D) wasted half a billion dollars of the money dedicated to helping the environment on a failed company. Sure, republicans have their crazies, no one is denying that. But the democrats also have their crazies, which often are not widely reported. Also, what is so bad about wanting to be able to have a gun to defend yourself with?
    - casper667 January 28, 2013, 11:08 pm
    Reply
Related Posts
Loading...