> The hard drives may have been in his possession,
> but the police were unable to establish beforehand
> whether any child porn found on those drives was
> placed there by the defendant or by someone else.
How did they even know there was child porn on them if they were encrypted/password-protected?
> "I don't think there's a court in the country
> that would hold [the posters] liable for defamation."
Not to mention, if CiperCloud did proceed with a suit for defamation, the defendants would be entitled to discovery to defend their case, truth being an ultimate defense to defamation. Which means CipherCloud would be ordered to open their code up to the defendants for inspection, which is the last thing I imagine they want to do.
> a coordinated manner to distinguish
> potential threatening "rouge hosts" and
> "authorized distributions" on the Internet.
Ah, there's that old 'rogue sites' canard again. Assuming they actually *are* referring to 'rogue sites' and not web sites tinged a delightful pinkish-red color, it really is amusing how successfully Big Content has managed to mold language in its favor in this regard.
They've basically taken sites which are legal, but which they just don't like and can't do anything about, and demonized them by saddling them with this pejorative 'rogue' label, which in turns leads uninformed people to believe that the sites must be doing something wrong or the government and its Big Content masters wouldn't be calling them such scary names.
In reality there's no such thing as a 'rogue site'. A web site is either legal, or its illegal. If it's the former, then trying to taint it by making up evil-sounding names for it doesn't for one minute change its legality.
Well, great. If you think government repression for the 'common good' is so fantastic, go buy yourself a Rosetta Stone, learn Spanish, and go live under Chavez 2.0. Or Fidel. Or whatever socialist paradise floats your boat.
> And to answer your questions, he didn't penalize speech. He
> prevented the poor from losing their voice. That allowed more
LOL! The typical justification for a dictator's suppression of dissent. "He's just allowing more of the 'good' kind of speech. Yay!"
> Allocation of private property to public resources is a tenant
> of Socialism.
'Allocation'. Another fancy word for stealing other people's stuff. And trying to justify it by saying that stealing people's stuff is a tenant of socialism doesn't do your argument any favors.
> So it seems you're bitter that he allowed the public to redistribute
> the wealth to help the nation prosper. That's a narrow view, don't
> you think?
Yeah, I'm being so narrow-minded when I object to the government "allowing" some citizens to steal from others.
> but America has laws similar to them like the Fairness Doctrine
Wrong. The Fairness Doctrine was repealed during the Reagan administration, and it was never constitutionally tested. If it had been, the Court would almost certainly have overturned it.
> and the FCC who regulate the airwaves for hateful speech
No, they don't. That would be unconstitutional. Hate speech is perfectly legal in America. The only thing things the FCC are legally empowered to prohibit are indecency and obscenity, and it can only prohibit those on the broadcast stations. When it comes to cable stations, premium channels, and the internet, they're powerless to do even that much.
> Funny, I know that you like to blame Obama
> for everything
Funny, you don't know any such thing.
> and that article is laughable.
You asked for proof. I provided it. You then proceeded to engage in ad hominems. What exactly is inaccurate in that article?
Do you deny that under Chavez, laws were passed penalizing speech that offended government officials, prohibited the broadcast of messages that "foment anxiety in the public," and allowed for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites?
Do you deny that Chavez intimidated and censored his critics?
Do you deny that Chavez created state-run media propaganda organs?
Do you deny that Chavez nationalized (fancy word for 'stole') massive amounts of private property?
Do you deny that Chavez threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses?
Do you deny that Chavez seized the broadcast facilities of stations which refused to stop being critical of him?
Do you deny that Chavez aligned himself with the most repressive governments on the planet and cozied up to psychopathic dictators on a regular basis?
If you deny any of these things, it's now *your* turn to provide proof.
How many people they represent is irrelevant. It only matters how influential they are with politicians.
In California, they fund the campaigns of virtually every politician from the governor on down to local mayors and city councils. They get these people elected, who then use their positions to pass laws favorable to the unions, to the extent of raising taxes for the sole purpose of handing the resulting revenue over to the public employee union goons. Not only do the unions run the state, but they have the ability to literally reach into my pocket and take my money from me whenever they like.
No, you just self-servingly limited your claim to private sector unions. The public sector unions run California, top to bottom, which is even worse, because public sector unions do it with taxpayer money.
Under Chávez, the government dramatically expanded its ability to control the content of the country’s broadcast and news media. It passed laws extending and toughening penalties for speech that “offends” government officials, prohibiting the broadcast of messages that “foment anxiety in the public,” and allowing for the arbitrary suspension of TV channels, radio stations, and websites.
The Chávez government sought to justify its media policies as necessary to “democratize” the country’s airwaves. Yet instead of promoting pluralism, the government abused its regulatory authority to intimidate and censor its critics. It expanded the number of government-run TV channels from one to six, while taking aggressive steps to reduce the availability of media outlets that engage in critical programming.
In response to negative coverage, Chávez repeatedly threatened to remove private stations from the airwaves by blocking renewal of their broadcast licenses. In 2007, in an act of blatant political discrimination, his government prevented the country’s oldest private television channel, RCTV, from renewing its license and seized its broadcasting antennas. Three years later, it drove RCTV off cable TV as well by forcing the country’s cable providers to stop transmitting its programs.
The removal of RCTV left only one major channel, Globovisión, that continued to be critical of the president. The Chávez government repeatedly pursued administrative sanctions against Globovisión, which have kept the station in perpetual risk of suspension or closure. It also pressed criminal charges against the station’s president, a principal owner, and a guest commentator after they made public statements criticizing the government.
Embracing Abusive Governments
Chávez also rejected international efforts to promote human rights in other countries. In recent years, Venezuela consistently voted against UN General Assembly resolutions condemning abusive practices in North Korea, Burma, Iran, and Syria. Moreover, Chávez was a vocal supporter of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, bestowing upon each of these leaders the “Order of the Liberator,” Venezuela’s highest official honor.
Under Chávez, Venezuela’s closest ally was Cuba, the only country in Latin America that systematically represses virtually all forms of political dissent. Chávez identified Fidel Castro – who headed Cuba’s repressive government until his health deteriorated in 2006 – as his model and mentor.