Corporations
have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote
with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation,
because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet
isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
If you give up at the size of the other guys wallet, your valued yourself ans being worth less on that basis.
It
used to be that money would only fend off shaky lawsuits. Lawsuits that
were borderline frivolous if not flat out frivolous. Now, we have seen
so many of them won, people get the impression that money is
everything. Well, it isn't, but most wouldn't know that because they
already gave up. If you are right, and the law supports you as being
right, then no amount of money will change that unless it changes the
laws. It might inconvenience you, you might not be able to pay for your
legal fees and have to learn to do a bunch of the stuff yourself, but
it isn't as if it cannot be done.
If you give up at the size of the other guys wallet, your valued yourself ans being worth less on that basis.
"Worth less"? No, he assessed himself as less capable of influencing
society at large. At the same time, I imagine he also considers himself
to be more personable, less destructive, and generally more ethical
(and thus more worthy of respect).
I
don't see how you can respect someone who gives up on a fight they are
convince in being right in based on the size of the other guy.
If
you are right and have the law to back you up, the size of a wallet or
the legal team won't do a damn thing for them. Any one who gives up
when they are right is saying they are worth less then the complaint
they have or the companies it is against.
And just for
clarification, Worth as in a specific value. Less as in not more or not
equal to. "Worth less" as in not worth as much as something else.
Worthless all in one word:# lacking in usefulness, despicable: morally
reprehensible; "would do something as despicable as murder"; "ugly
crimes"; "the vile development of slavery appalled them"; "a slimy
little liar"
I'm intending the "worth" "less" meaning as in not worth as much.
If you are right and have the law to back you up, the size of a wallet or the legal team won't do a damn thing for them.
Do you really believe courts are infallible?
I'm intending the "worth" "less" meaning as in not worth as much.
Yes, I know. I'm still saying you put words in his mouth so that you could describe him as a general loser.
I do, in fact, speak English, and I know the difference between "worth
less" and "worthless." You said he thinks of himself as worth less. I
said he may very well think of himself as worth more.
No, but I believe there are enough checks in the system that the mistakes would be caught and made right.
But
the more important thing is that most people don't have the law on
their side when they are morally right in their fights. This means they
need to focus on the laws being changed more then going to court. Just
giving up does neither.
Yes, I know. I'm still saying you put words in his mouth so that you could describe him as a general loser.
OK, he posted
Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that.
When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a
corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with
your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
OK, he is
saying your voice isn't as important as a corporates voice and then
goes to describe how this isn't democracy or whatever. I said If you give up at the size of the other guys wallet, your valued yourself ans being worth less on that basis. and then go on to describe how people are frightened of large piles of cash, teams of lawyers and so on.
Now,
he doesn't seem to be giving up, just drawing a distinction between two
principles. I am trying to say don't give up because that mean they win
by default and that makes you worth less then them or even your former
self. I am not trying to call him a loser rather say anyone giving up
is a loser.
I do, in fact, speak English,
and I know the difference between "worth less" and "worthless." You
said he thinks of himself as worth less. I said he may very well think
of himself as worth more.
I don't see how you
could be worth more for not doing what you know is right. But this is
2007 and I guess my old ways are out of touch.
OK,
he is saying your voice isn't as important as a corporates voice and
then goes to describe how this isn't democracy or whatever.
Less important in moral considerations or less important in predicting what is going to end up happening?
I
am trying to say don't give up because that mean they win by default
and that makes you worth less then them or even your former self. I am
not trying to call him a loser rather say anyone giving up is a loser.
Some battles are hard enough that your resources are better spent elsewhere.
I don't see how you could be worth more for not doing what you know is right.
In this case, it's more that he's not doing something he knows is wrong. That certainly doesn't make him a saint, but it puts him above the Exxon devil.
Less important in moral considerations or less important in predicting what is going to end up happening?
Either, he didn't distinguish a difference, you are attempting to do that.
Some battles are hard enough that your resources are better spent elsewhere.
That may be but you still don't give up or quite the game.
In
this case, it's more that he's not doing something he knows is wrong.
That certainly doesn't make him a saint, but it puts him above the
Exxon devil.
Well, I disagree with the notion
of Knowing it is wrong so it is more. But even outside that, he isn't
above himself before making that decision. Who Exxon is doesn't make
who you are, but if you don't stand for who you are, then your not what
you used to be. You are less.
I think we are getting too
philosophical or what ever here. I'm surprised the spell checker didn't
flag my spelling of that word too. Anyways, we need to return to a time
when people stand for something and fight all they was down when
falling. This rolling over for whatever reason has gotten us into a
situation not to many people like. I used to say the world went to shit
ever since John Wayne died. It was sort of a joke but now I'm thinking
it wasn't too far off. But I'm sure he personally has nothing or little
to do with it.
Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that.
I
disagree. A recent article in The Economist discussed the up-tick in
shareholder activism. Shareholder activism comes in many shapes and
forms, such as shareholders demanding that Yahoo not do business with
China or Home Depot executives getting grilled about their pay in the
face of declining revenues.
The up-tick is expected to continue.
Few Americans have traditional pensions so more and more retirement
money is going into defined contribution funds, which means that you
and I own more and more of these large companies. This will prove to be
an exciting time period...where shareholders become aggressive with
managers. It's democracy in action really.
So yes, corporations have billions of dollars, and a lot of that money is ours through our share ownership.
(The article is "Hail Shareholder" from the Mar 31, 2007 issue of The Economist.)
Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
Well said, Great Citizen LGagnon,
well said! Today, most certainly in America, in order to get any news
one must financially support the bloggers - nothing wrong with that on
the face of it, but once upon a time we could at lease partially rely
upon the TV news broadcasts and local city newspapers --- that hasn't
been the case for quite some time.
Therefore, we pay for
the news. The same with every possible service today which we once
received on the tax payer dime. Problem is, we're still paying those
taxes - in one form or another - for these services which can no longer
be utilized by thinking people. Pay for the news, pay for books with
all those library deficiences, pay for more and more private schooling
- pay far too much for "higher education" - then those same corps which
have screwed up everything bring in foreign replacement workers - or
offshore those once-American jobs - and college grads and advanced
types are stuck with those "higher education" exorbitant loan costs,
etc., etc., etc.
The problem is that the ISPs and Oil Companies we depend upon are essentially public utilities (the backbone ISPs especially).
They
provide an essential service, for which there are often few or no
alternatives to. The only way to prevent widespread corruption amongst
them is to enforce strict regulation.
Unfortunately, the US can't seem to keep straight which companies it needs to regulate, and which ones are best left untouched.
One
needs gasoline about as much as one needs electricity. And the Oil
companies receive public subsidies. Seems like there is a strong case
that they should be regulated like a pulic utility.
Also
note that there are very high barriers-to-entry for both oil companies
and for ISPs, at least for entities of any size as to provide customers
with an alternative to the incumbents. The days when anyone with a fast
data link and a closet full of modems could become an ISP are long gone.
High
barriers to entry = an effective monopoly. The ability of the
marketplace to regulate these entities is severely hampered. The
traditional rememdy in the US is regulation. In other countries it have
been nationalization.
One needs gasoline about as much as one needs electricity.
I don't need gasoline at all. Some of my vendors do, but then again,
they also need liability insurance and forklifts and a whole host of
other things I don't personally need. Are the insurance companies and
forklift manufacturers public utilities too?
The EU just hands over all kinds of passenger information to the department of homeworld security.
THAT is a scary axample of how the US runs the EU.
My
conclusion is that as we the population, we have to STFU and consume,
be a sheep and behave. Good consumer, nice consumer. And no complaints
please.
The provider, Broadview Networks, also made the Yes Men remove all mention of Exxon from TheYesMen.org before they'd restore the Yes Men's email service.
This
shouldn't be moderated flamebait -- it's true enough. The US is *NOT*
the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get
shut down.
Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting
Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of
"Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)
Yes,
there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the
US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY
BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!
Not
only that, but it was a business deciding not to do business with
someone due to a complaint against that person. I do not wish to live
in a time or place where you are not free to decided these kinds of
things on your own. ADA and Affermitive action are bad enough for many
businesses as it is and have put many out of business.
Then
the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media
will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being
associated with racism.
That's
exactly how civil rights were won in the 50's and 60's. A few, rare
people had these "Whites Only" signs on their doors, and then once the
media made others aware of that, no one patronized those stores. After
that, those establishments took down those signs because they realized
that no one would eat at a restaurant that served "whites only". If it
worked then, surely it would still work today!
No,
that is not how civil rights were won. They were won by people of color
who would ignore the signs and sit in the damned restaurant anyways.
They were won by lawsuit and by federal troops forcible desegregating
schools. You must have some happy-go-lucky view of history if you think
people were somehow shamed by the media into giving people of color
civil rights.
You
must have some happy-go-lucky view of history if you think people were
somehow shamed by the media into giving people of color civil rights.
And you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Slashdot
viewers if you thought anyone would take what I wrote seriously. I
almost added a final sentence stating that this was only intended as
satire, but I decided that such a sentence would insult the
intelligence of Slashdot. Do you seriously believe that anyone could think this was how civil rights were won?!?
Also,
I trust (and sincerely hope) that my post was marked insightful because
my satire exposed how ridiculous the argument was that I responded to.
Obviously, the free market does not cure all that ails us.
Well, considering it was modded as insightful and given other absurd views of history people here on/. have, yeah, I did think someone could really think that was how civil rights were won.
Well,
there is a law (or razor or something) about how it's impossible to
distinguish parody of the Right with actual writing from the Right, but
I did feel that this was a bit over the top even for that! No offense
taken.
From
what I was told of that era, segregation was huge and popular,
especially in the North. White Only signs attracted customers because
it was not social suicide to be openly racist.
White Only signs attracted customers because it was not social suicide to be openly racist.
There are still places where that'd be true today, if it were allowed.
Very likely, it'd still be true in most of those places where it was
true during that era if laws weren't written to combat it. My point was
that the free market does not automagically cure all problems.
Sometimes it needs a little help.
Yeah? Try it now. Try doing anything just for one race. Other than BET, it won't fly.
I
was not arguing about how things would work in the 1950s or 1960s. I do
not have a time machine, and thus, cannot open a bar and try to label
it "whites only." The here and now, however?
Ask Don Imus how the free market handles racist remarks.
Perhaps
you're not familiar with certain regions of the country. In a many
regions of the country (I grew up near some), if it were legal to put a
"Whites Only" sign up, it would still improve business. Media attention
to it would help business even more. Don Imus got fired because he was
on a national show with national advertisers. Furthermore, in this
arena public perception has definitely trailed the law. If the law
hadn't changed do you think that public perception would have? If so,
under what basis?
Perhaps
you're not familiar with certain regions of the country. In a many
regions of the country (I grew up near some), if it were legal to put a
"Whites Only" sign up, it would still improve business.
I
live in an area some would assume that about, and believe me, there's
enough of a stigma here about racism that people would think twice
about frequenting such a place.
Why do you think the law changed? Because enough people felt that this attitude was wrong. It didn't change without support (and a lot of work and sacrifice on the part of blacks).
However, I'd like to know who the racists are, if they're so stupid as to advertise it. It would make choosing to avoid them much easier.
I
live in an area some would assume that about, and believe me, there's
enough of a stigma here about racism that people would think twice
about frequenting such a place.
Then you probably don't live in an area where people in white robes
hand out "information" to cars at intersections. Trust me, such places
still exist. (Specifically, I'm thinking of Forsythe County, Georgia.
Although anomalous at this point, they are definitely not unique.)
Why
do you think the law changed? Because enough people felt that this
attitude was wrong. It didn't change without support (and a lot of work
and sacrifice on the part of blacks).
Absolutely. However, although enough people in charge felt that the
attitude was wrong to get the laws passed, you also had people in
charge at the state level who were desperately fighting against these
laws. Do you think that attitudes there would have changed by now
without the civil rights laws?
However,
I'd like to know who the racists are, if they're so stupid as to
advertise it. It would make choosing to avoid them much easier.
I can appreciate where you're coming from. However, I believe that you overestimate some of our fellow countrymen (and women).
I have absolutely no doubts some people would go to these places. However, shaming bad behavior is very effective.
As for this:
you
also had people in charge at the state level who were desperately
fighting against these laws. Do you think that attitudes there would
have changed by now without the civil rights laws?
I don't
know. I'd like to think things would have come along. Maybe slower, but
as the world gets "smaller" due to media and internet access, I think
more people realize their old ideas about race are stupid. With the
obvious exception of those so set in their ways nothing will change
them.
As for politicians: I think everyone will agree there are
always politicians who absolutely suck and cater to people who will
vote for them even if their attitudes are bad for the country.
I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire.
There
didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was
banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting
down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their
letter-writing campaign.
You don't need guerrilla violence when
you've got all the power. All in all, these latest "terror-bombers" in
the UK didn't hurt anyone but themselves, but Exxon kills hundreds of
thousands per year.
Right,
but Piss Christ was paid for with tax payer money. the Danish cartoons
were not. Say what you want, but don't expect the government to pay you
for it.
Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or
less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to
claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on.
Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are
very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP
in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.
I'm
not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in
America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find
examples of worse happening in Europe.
Absolutely,
the fundamentalist Islamic world is more obviously hostile to free
speech and social openness. The only thing I can do about them is
worry. That this kind of thing goes on at all in the USA is much more
worrisome to me personally because we've at least got some history of
progressiveness, so we don't have any excuses for letting small-minded
people take over.
More and more, I'm blaming the media, which
has become so thoroughly owned by corporate interests that they've
completely forsaken their origins and responsibilities. I mean, we expect
some inbred Texas cracker to mess up, but it took the media to make him
President and then to fall down on the job when he grabbed his shootin'
irons to go kill him some mooslims. Scratch that, he told a bunch of
poor teenagers to go kill them some mooslims while he sat home in his
fatigues and drank Wild Turkey. You would think he'd squirm a bit now
that a lot of those poor teenagers are coming home with large portions
of their bodies and minds destroyed or missing, but there's no
indication Bush has even noticed, and certainly no indication that he's
going to re-think his decisions to let his Vice President take this
country to war. The coffins are easy to ignore, but a 22 year-old
double-amputee with post-traumatic stress disorder not so much. Early
indications is a lot of them are pissed, and it's going to take more
than a purple ribbon to make them go away.
It's not just the Islamic world. China isn't Islamic (well, portions are). There are all sorts of things you can't say in Europe.
My post wasn't meant to be political, just pointing out that it isn't just the US.
And,
for the record, we've made a lot of progress from a time when no movies
contained nudity or cursing, and no music did, either. There are people
clinging to censorship, but they're just a loud minority. Very few of
them are all that young. You can bash on Bush, and that's fine, he's an
idiot. But people like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have supported
censorship -- Hillary was for some video game censorship a while ago,
and it's thanks to Al Gore and his wife that we have warning labels on
music (which hasn't hurt anything because it just makes people want
that album all the moreso, it's just the way they threatened legal
action). Plus, Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000,
and I will *never* forgive Lieberman for his stance on video game
censorship. Both parties cater to the idiot mommy-us-to-death groups
that want to censor everything. At least, the elected members and
leadership.
I'd be happy if we started electing techy people who understand how ridiculous these attempts to censor are.
You
cannot escape anything political on slashdot any more. It is a mouth
pice to bash the president. Maybe it will change after Bush is out of
office but almost every topic has someone boiling it down to bush's
fault or Because of Cheney being alive. Expect to see that.
And
not to question your statements about censorship and all, But I think
your forgot the Vchip which is mandated into every TV now driving the
costs of televisions up. Bottom line is, this issue seems to get
misdirected all the time. And I agree that in other countries, it is or
could be worse. I'm sort of amazed at how your posts turned into a
bashing bush opportunity, it seems to take less and less anymore. but
remember, that seems to be a common theme around here. I don't know if
it is paidfor bashing or if it is just some ignorant fool that thinks
the price of tea in china is effected by Bush or somehow everything
they disagree with is actually his fault.
thanks to Al Gore and his wife that we have warning labels on music...
WTF is wrong with that? IIRC Hillary just insisted on warning labels
too. Ratings are good, because they give parents something to go on
when they give their kids permission, and don't restrict what adults
can do. Would it be better if every parent reviewed each
movie/song/game and gave their kid permission based on the parent's
better knowledge of the child? Possibly, but nothing stops those
parents from doing so.
If you want to talk about scary censorship, then in 2000, I was at a campaign rally where John McCain said he supports censoring the internet access of adults in public libraries. I promptly dropped any ideas of voting for him ever. But he is the only candidate I know of who said anything like that.
The Vchip is proprietary and it effects the cost of the televisions. It
also effects the costs of content because they have to issue or declare
a rating and broadcast that rating in a way your Vchip can understand.
So
yea, I think it is up. Up compared to what it should be sans the Vchip
mandate. However, I don't think I could come up with a figure to
distinguish between other factors involved in the price.
You cannot escape anything political on slashdot any more.
It
wasn't always like that. If we have the courage to confront the root
cause: it's global warming. Human brains only function well within a
narrow range of temperature. Since Bush was elected, sending global
temperatures skyrocketing, slashbots have been spewing sparks like so
many malfunctioning androids.
Or maybe it's because, since the
antitrust trial, Microsoft doesn't act that evil any more. Every
religion needs a devil. (Almost every).
As to the warning labels: If, tomorrow, GWB came out suggesting we put a sticker on books that were "inappropriate"? Watch the/.
reaction. That's why I mentioned it -- to point out it isn't just one
political side. Al and Tipper Gore wanted MANDATORY labeling, which
implies law, which implies government involvement, which is a slippery
slope. As we've seen, the labels have had the effect of banning certain
things -- some stores won't carry them (Wal Mart), as with AO games. So
there are downsides.
The
whole point of blowing mod-points when posting in a discussion is so
you don't have the conflict of interest between poster and moderator in
the same discussion. Your last statement is an admission that you're
circumventing the spirit of the rule deliberately.
Needless to
say, you probably shouldn't have included such an admission, but it is
irrelevant. I am pretty sure you lose any moderation you make in a
discussion if you post in it, even as anonymous coward. Unless, of course, you're going out of your way to disguise your identity.
There
didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was
banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting
down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their
letter-writing campaign.
So writing a letter is morally equivalent to murder and vandalism? You leftists are truly incredible!
"So writing a letter is morally equivalent to murder and vandalism? You leftists are truly incredible!"
Berating
leftists in utter generalized fashion now gets you modded up? Who's
giving these right-wing, nut job, confederate flag waving, homosexual
hating, rule by power loving, Christian fundamentalists, white,
uneducated, jingoist (right wingers will have to look that word up,
sorry), truck driving, NASCAR loving hate mongers moderation points
anyway?!
When
has Exxon killed anyone let along hundreds of thousands per year? I
would think if this was remotely true, they would be shit down and
arrested. I hope it isn't like blaming Ford for a death because a drunk
got behind on of their cars and plowed through a minivan with a family
of five in it. Those types of deaths are always comical in the sense
that someone unrelated to the claim made the decisions and caused it
yet it gets blamed on someone else because they are an evil
corperation. It hurts any legit argument beyond being taken seriously
by most people with a partial clue.
It is like the Iraqi death
count supposedly of innocent people killed because the US invaded. And
then you find out they are counting everyone who dies from something
other then natural causes like car wrecks or failed medical operations
and such. Any normal person says yea, there is an agenda there and
discounts it.
This
isn't about general censorship; it's about censorship for the sake of a
corporation. The grandparent post was talking about the unfair power of
corporations, which really is only that bad in America.
Corps
are collections of people and they have the same right as those
collections of people. Not in that they have separate rights altogether
but as they are extensions of the rights the shareholders or owners
have.
Corps are collections of people and they have the same right as those collections of people.
Wrong again, as usual, sumdumass.
Please review the proper definition
[wikipedia.org] of corporation....and for your evening homework - read
the US Constitution, the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSPD #51....
Wikipedia
isn't a valid reference site. I find that humorous that your would use
wrong and an link to wikipedia in the same sentence and not be talking
about the link. anyways, the US constitution, the patriot act and NSPD
#51 has nothing to do with the definition of a corperation.
So
even with wiki's questionable reliability in the truth department, the
ver link you presented has within the first few paragraphs,
Stewart
Kyd, the author of the first treatise on corporate law in English,
defined a corporation as "a collection of many individuals united into
one body, under a special denomination, having perpetual succession
under an artificial form, and vested by the policy of the law with the
capacity of acting in several respects as an individual,
This
supports my position so i have to ask, do you even read the shit your
claiming to be an authority on? Or are your just trolling on a crusade
and only picking the pieces of information that you think supports your
views? Either way, it is a bit dangerous.
Ask
the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile,
in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended
with any buildings being set on fire...)
To be honest, you
don't account for some cultural differences. How about pissing on the
American flag. That would get people in certain regions protesting for
sure.
Otherwise put, I'm not sure why it's shocking that
corporations have more power than people. Well "people" (an entire
nation) in US are more than the employees of any corporation out there.
But they dont' work together, they just wander around seemingly
aimlessly, everyone doing their own thing.
Corporation is
thousands of people working day after day on a single focused strategy
someone up there in the management devised. They are more akin to a
military organization.
And we know if there's anyone who can
overturn a government in any country, it's that country's military.
It's not because they have big scary tanks. It's because of the
hierarchy, organizational power that comes with controlling huge masses
of people ready to do thy bidding.
I'm not going
to account for cultural differences, either. Cultures can kiss my
sweaty geek buttcheeks. Squashing freedom of expression is bad, I don't
care what your "culture" is.
That would get people in certain regions protesting for sure.
yes,
protesting. Which is an exercise of free speech. But until they cross
the line to assaulting someone, this is not a problem, and they can
protest all they like. I can still piss on a flag. Or, churches can
burn Harry Potter books. As long as they paid for them -- hey, no
problem there. But if they storm in and set fire to a bookstore? THEN
we have a problem and some people better end up in jail.
As to
the rest: If you honestly think Exxon is going to overturn our
government, you need to take a few deep breaths. It's not going to
happen. This was just a squeamish ISP giving in. I had never even HEARD
of the ISP before this -- and doubt I will after this.
The US is *NOT* the only country where something someone else finds offensive will get shut down.
Very true, but what all the commenters are missing so far is that
while Exxon wanted this shut down because they didn't like it, that's
almost certainly not how they got it shut down. They didn't
call the ISP and say "We're offended, shut it down." I'll bet they said
"Our trademarks are being violated, shut it down."
I know many Slashdotters don't like copyrights and trademarks, but
that's the law, and any company's brand is a valuable asset they are
legally obligated to protect. (If they don't protect it, they could
lose it, which could mean the corporate officers can get sued by the
shareholders.) Using a company's logo without their permission is more
or less the corporate equivalent of identity theft, and saying "it's
just satire" is not a defense that's going to work.
Example: back in the '70s there was a famous series of magazine ads
for Volkswagen Beetles, one of which was based on the fact that it
floats. In '73 the National Lampoon did a dead-on parody ad in their
Encyclopedia of Humor, headlined "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen,
he'd be President today." But due to a production error, they used the
real VW logo. Oops! They got sued and had to remove that piece from
future reprintings.
From what I can tell, the Yes Men made something that looked exactly
like the Exxon site. To be safe, they should have made it about the
"Ezzon corporation" or something like that. With a parody of the logo,
they're in the clear. (Maybe: IANAL.) Granted, that might not have been
as funny, but if they had done it that way I'll bet they wouldn't be
having ISP troubles.
Using
a company's logo without their permission is more or less the corporate
equivalent of identity theft, and saying "it's just satire" is not a
defense that's going to work.
That's not entirely true,
satire defense can be used in trademark cases, it is just more
difficult than satire defenses in regards to copyright. Check out this page. [72.14.253.104]
Let's put it that way: You will hardly find any country where laws are so much geared in a way to benefit business. Examples?
Look at the mess copyright legislations is in. Three years jail for
operating a video camera in a cinema. The push of this tragic sharade
called attorney general for pushing criminal legislation towards
copyright offenses?
Another shiny example is that if somebody pilfers your "pre-approved
credit card invitation", which you never ordered, let alone wanted, in
order to steal your identity it's up to you to clean up the resulting
mess.
I wouldn't call those shiny examples of legislation or custom to
benefit the common man and society as a whole. It's more in line with
streamlining the business processes of big business.
But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!
I think he meant in "Only in America..." in that money was the reason for freedom of speech being squashed.
Sure
there are plenty of other countries that stomp all over freedom of
speech for political and religious reasons, but no one ever censored
someone in any other country for the sake of their shareholders.
Yes,
there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the
US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY
BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!
But America used to be a country you could respect. Wasn't it once?
France's
speech laws have nothing at all to do with ISPs taking down websites
without any due process. There is not even the slightest logical
connection between the two. Who modded this up, anyway?
*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2, Insightful)Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:4, Insightful)Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:5, Insightful)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:5, Funny)(http://www.dieblinkenlights.com/)
No. wait...
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)No, unless Exxon IS the ISP! And it's not, if you RTFA.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:5, Insightful)the more precise term is plutocracy
(Score:2, Informative)(http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
It used to be that money would only fend off shaky lawsuits. Lawsuits that were borderline frivolous if not flat out frivolous. Now, we have seen so many of them won, people get the impression that money is everything. Well, it isn't, but most wouldn't know that because they already gave up. If you are right, and the law supports you as being right, then no amount of money will change that unless it changes the laws. It might inconvenience you, you might not be able to pay for your legal fees and have to learn to do a bunch of the stuff yourself, but it isn't as if it cannot be done.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
If you are right and have the law to back you up, the size of a wallet or the legal team won't do a damn thing for them. Any one who gives up when they are right is saying they are worth less then the complaint they have or the companies it is against.
And just for clarification, Worth as in a specific value. Less as in not more or not equal to. "Worth less" as in not worth as much as something else. Worthless all in one word:# lacking in usefulness, despicable: morally reprehensible; "would do something as despicable as murder"; "ugly crimes"; "the vile development of slavery appalled them"; "a slimy little liar"
I'm intending the "worth" "less" meaning as in not worth as much.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Yes, I know. I'm still saying you put words in his mouth so that you could describe him as a general loser.
I do, in fact, speak English, and I know the difference between "worth less" and "worthless." You said he thinks of himself as worth less. I said he may very well think of himself as worth more.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
But the more important thing is that most people don't have the law on their side when they are morally right in their fights. This means they need to focus on the laws being changed more then going to court. Just giving up does neither. OK, he posted Corporations have billions of dollars. We have nothing close to that. When you vote with your wallet, you always have less votes than a corporation, because your dollars determine your votes. Voting with your wallet isn't democracy, it's oligarchy.
OK, he is saying your voice isn't as important as a corporates voice and then goes to describe how this isn't democracy or whatever. I said If you give up at the size of the other guys wallet, your valued yourself ans being worth less on that basis. and then go on to describe how people are frightened of large piles of cash, teams of lawyers and so on.
Now, he doesn't seem to be giving up, just drawing a distinction between two principles. I am trying to say don't give up because that mean they win by default and that makes you worth less then them or even your former self. I am not trying to call him a loser rather say anyone giving up is a loser. I don't see how you could be worth more for not doing what you know is right. But this is 2007 and I guess my old ways are out of touch.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Some battles are hard enough that your resources are better spent elsewhere.
In this case, it's more that he's not doing something he knows is wrong. That certainly doesn't make him a saint, but it puts him above the Exxon devil.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
I think we are getting too philosophical or what ever here. I'm surprised the spell checker didn't flag my spelling of that word too. Anyways, we need to return to a time when people stand for something and fight all they was down when falling. This rolling over for whatever reason has gotten us into a situation not to many people like. I used to say the world went to shit ever since John Wayne died. It was sort of a joke but now I'm thinking it wasn't too far off. But I'm sure he personally has nothing or little to do with it.
I Own Exxon Stock, and so do Millions of People
(Score:2, Troll)(http://www.storkyak.com/)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)I disagree. A recent article in The Economist discussed the up-tick in shareholder activism. Shareholder activism comes in many shapes and forms, such as shareholders demanding that Yahoo not do business with China or Home Depot executives getting grilled about their pay in the face of declining revenues.
The up-tick is expected to continue. Few Americans have traditional pensions so more and more retirement money is going into defined contribution funds, which means that you and I own more and more of these large companies. This will prove to be an exciting time period...where shareholders become aggressive with managers. It's democracy in action really.
So yes, corporations have billions of dollars, and a lot of that money is ours through our share ownership.
(The article is "Hail Shareholder" from the Mar 31, 2007 issue of The Economist.)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)Well said, Great Citizen LGagnon, well said! Today, most certainly in America, in order to get any news one must financially support the bloggers - nothing wrong with that on the face of it, but once upon a time we could at lease partially rely upon the TV news broadcasts and local city newspapers --- that hasn't been the case for quite some time.
Therefore, we pay for the news. The same with every possible service today which we once received on the tax payer dime. Problem is, we're still paying those taxes - in one form or another - for these services which can no longer be utilized by thinking people. Pay for the news, pay for books with all those library deficiences, pay for more and more private schooling - pay far too much for "higher education" - then those same corps which have screwed up everything bring in foreign replacement workers - or offshore those once-American jobs - and college grads and advanced types are stuck with those "higher education" exorbitant loan costs, etc., etc., etc.
Yeah, and stop buying gas
(Score:1)(http://masspanic.blogspot.com/)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://www.last.fm/user/schmod)
They provide an essential service, for which there are often few or no alternatives to. The only way to prevent widespread corruption amongst them is to enforce strict regulation.
Unfortunately, the US can't seem to keep straight which companies it needs to regulate, and which ones are best left untouched.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Oil companies are essentially public utilities? Elaborate please?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://alose.homelinux.net/ | Last Journal: Monday October 03, @06:14PM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://icelandreview.com/)
High barriers to entry = an effective monopoly. The ability of the marketplace to regulate these entities is severely hampered. The traditional rememdy in the US is regulation. In other countries it have been nationalization.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://slashdot.org/)
I don't need gasoline at all. Some of my vendors do, but then again, they also need liability insurance and forklifts and a whole host of other things I don't personally need. Are the insurance companies and forklift manufacturers public utilities too?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://www.fuzzums.nl/)
The EU just hands over all kinds of passenger information to the department of homeworld security.
THAT is a scary axample of how the US runs the EU.
My conclusion is that as we the population, we have to STFU and consume, be a sheep and behave. Good consumer, nice consumer. And no complaints please.
In Soviet America...
(Score:2)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://www.guruevi.com/)
The provider, Broadview Networks, also
made the Yes Men remove all mention of Exxon from TheYesMen.org
before they'd restore the Yes Men's email service.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:3, Insightful)Not to mention that their ISP couldn't cut their pipe fast enough after Exxon complained. No due process here, just cut it off.... Only in America....
Unlike, say France, where it is crime to insult various people or groups.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:5, Insightful)Ask the people who dared publish cartoons depicting Mohammad. (Meanwhile, in the US, I don't recall violent protests of "Piss Christ" that ended with any buildings being set on fire...)
Yes, there are many examples of freedom of expression being squashed in the US. But to imply "Only in America..." Wait, *seriously*? You *HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT*? C'mon!
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Wednesday January 15, @03:17AM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:3, Insightful)(Last Journal: Tuesday February 13, @06:31PM)
So a "whites only" sign on the door is ok?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:4, Insightful)Then the asshole with said sign will be on display for what he is, the media will come around, and no one will ever go in there for fear of being associated with racism.
Exactly
(Score:3, Interesting)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
Re:Exactly
(Score:2)(http://coathangrrr.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 06, @12:08AM)
Insightful my ass.
Pessimism
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
And you must have a very low opinion of the intelligence of Slashdot viewers if you thought anyone would take what I wrote seriously. I almost added a final sentence stating that this was only intended as satire, but I decided that such a sentence would insult the intelligence of Slashdot. Do you seriously believe that anyone could think this was how civil rights were won?!?
Insightful
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
Re:Pessimism
(Score:2)(http://coathangrrr.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 06, @12:08AM)
Sorry, nothing personal.
Parodies and the Right
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
Re:Exactly
(Score:1)(http://www.imsa.edu/~spoon)
There are still places where that's true
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
Re:Insightful
(Score:2)I was not arguing about how things would work in the 1950s or 1960s. I do not have a time machine, and thus, cannot open a bar and try to label it "whites only." The here and now, however?
Ask Don Imus how the free market handles racist remarks.
If it were legal, a lot of places would do it
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
Re:If it were legal, a lot of places would do it
(Score:2)I live in an area some would assume that about, and believe me, there's enough of a stigma here about racism that people would think twice about frequenting such a place.
Why do you think the law changed? Because enough people felt that this attitude was wrong. It didn't change without support (and a lot of work and sacrifice on the part of blacks).
However, I'd like to know who the racists are, if they're so stupid as to advertise it. It would make choosing to avoid them much easier.
"Enough" people
(Score:2)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
More than that....
(Score:1)(http://icelandreview.com/)
The folks who found for civil rights had more actual physical courage than 99% of the posters on Slashdot ever will.
Re:"Enough" people
(Score:2)As for this:
you also had people in charge at the state level who were desperately fighting against these laws. Do you think that attitudes there would have changed by now without the civil rights laws?
I don't know. I'd like to think things would have come along. Maybe slower, but as the world gets "smaller" due to media and internet access, I think more people realize their old ideas about race are stupid. With the obvious exception of those so set in their ways nothing will change them.
As for politicians: I think everyone will agree there are always politicians who absolutely suck and cater to people who will vote for them even if their attitudes are bad for the country.
Re:Exactly
(Score:2)(http://slashdot.org/)
You know about sarcasm [dictionary.com], right?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)(http://onjs.com/javascript)
ADA and Affermitive action are bad enough for many businesses as it is and have put many out of business.
Can you name any?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)There didn't have to be, because a phoney-baloney catholic mayor who was banging some tootsie who wasn't his wife fell all over himself shutting down the art exhibit before the Christian Right could load their letter-writing campaign.
You don't need guerrilla violence when you've got all the power. All in all, these latest "terror-bombers" in the UK didn't hurt anyone but themselves, but Exxon kills hundreds of thousands per year.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:4, Insightful)Also, my original point wasn't that Exxon kills more or less people, or even to do with terrorism. Just that it's ridiculous to claim the US is the only nation where this sort of thing goes on. Seriously -- try saying anything remotely anti-Islam in Iran. You are very free to criticize Bush, and Exxon, here (other than the pussy ISP in this case), but try badmouthing the Chinese government in China.
I'm not even saying the US is without blame -- just that saying "Only in America" is really very ignorant. I'm sure if I tried I could find examples of worse happening in Europe.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)More and more, I'm blaming the media, which has become so thoroughly owned by corporate interests that they've completely forsaken their origins and responsibilities. I mean, we expect some inbred Texas cracker to mess up, but it took the media to make him President and then to fall down on the job when he grabbed his shootin' irons to go kill him some mooslims. Scratch that, he told a bunch of poor teenagers to go kill them some mooslims while he sat home in his fatigues and drank Wild Turkey. You would think he'd squirm a bit now that a lot of those poor teenagers are coming home with large portions of their bodies and minds destroyed or missing, but there's no indication Bush has even noticed, and certainly no indication that he's going to re-think his decisions to let his Vice President take this country to war. The coffins are easy to ignore, but a 22 year-old double-amputee with post-traumatic stress disorder not so much. Early indications is a lot of them are pissed, and it's going to take more than a purple ribbon to make them go away.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)My post wasn't meant to be political, just pointing out that it isn't just the US.
And, for the record, we've made a lot of progress from a time when no movies contained nudity or cursing, and no music did, either. There are people clinging to censorship, but they're just a loud minority. Very few of them are all that young. You can bash on Bush, and that's fine, he's an idiot. But people like Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have supported censorship -- Hillary was for some video game censorship a while ago, and it's thanks to Al Gore and his wife that we have warning labels on music (which hasn't hurt anything because it just makes people want that album all the moreso, it's just the way they threatened legal action). Plus, Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000, and I will *never* forgive Lieberman for his stance on video game censorship. Both parties cater to the idiot mommy-us-to-death groups that want to censor everything. At least, the elected members and leadership.
I'd be happy if we started electing techy people who understand how ridiculous these attempts to censor are.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
And not to question your statements about censorship and all, But I think your forgot the Vchip which is mandated into every TV now driving the costs of televisions up. Bottom line is, this issue seems to get misdirected all the time. And I agree that in other countries, it is or could be worse. I'm sort of amazed at how your posts turned into a bashing bush opportunity, it seems to take less and less anymore. but remember, that seems to be a common theme around here. I don't know if it is paidfor bashing or if it is just some ignorant fool that thinks the price of tea in china is effected by Bush or somehow everything they disagree with is actually his fault.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)thanks to Al Gore and his wife that we have warning labels on music... WTF is wrong with that? IIRC Hillary just insisted on warning labels too. Ratings are good, because they give parents something to go on when they give their kids permission, and don't restrict what adults can do. Would it be better if every parent reviewed each movie/song/game and gave their kid permission based on the parent's better knowledge of the child? Possibly, but nothing stops those parents from doing so.
If you want to talk about scary censorship, then in 2000, I was at a campaign rally where John McCain said he supports censoring the internet access of adults in public libraries. I promptly dropped any ideas of voting for him ever. But he is the only candidate I know of who said anything like that.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)You got me there.
You think the price of televisions is up?
Mr. Soros, your check is late this month.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
So yea, I think it is up. Up compared to what it should be sans the Vchip mandate. However, I don't think I could come up with a figure to distinguish between other factors involved in the price.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:3, Funny)It wasn't always like that. If we have the courage to confront the root cause: it's global warming. Human brains only function well within a narrow range of temperature. Since Bush was elected, sending global temperatures skyrocketing, slashbots have been spewing sparks like so many malfunctioning androids.
Or maybe it's because, since the antitrust trial, Microsoft doesn't act that evil any more. Every religion needs a devil. (Almost every).
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)As to the warning labels: If, tomorrow, GWB came out suggesting we put a sticker on books that were "inappropriate"? Watch the
Re:Censorship isn't all bad
(Score:2)Needless to say, you probably shouldn't have included such an admission, but it is irrelevant. I am pretty sure you lose any moderation you make in a discussion if you post in it, even as anonymous coward. Unless, of course, you're going out of your way to disguise your identity.
Good post otherwise, though.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2, Flamebait)(http://operagost.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 01, @01:08PM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Berating leftists in utter generalized fashion now gets you modded up? Who's giving these right-wing, nut job, confederate flag waving, homosexual hating, rule by power loving, Christian fundamentalists, white, uneducated, jingoist (right wingers will have to look that word up, sorry), truck driving, NASCAR loving hate mongers moderation points anyway?!
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
It is like the Iraqi death count supposedly of innocent people killed because the US invaded. And then you find out they are counting everyone who dies from something other then natural causes like car wrecks or failed medical operations and such. Any normal person says yea, there is an agenda there and discounts it.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:5, Insightful)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://www.mangaschool.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 03, @08:51AM)
Corps are not people and the idea that they are needs to be undone pronto.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)Wrong again, as usual, sumdumass.
Please review the proper definition [wikipedia.org] of corporation....and for your evening homework - read the US Constitution, the USA PATRIOT Act, the NSPD #51....
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Thursday November 09, @06:02PM)
So even with wiki's questionable reliability in the truth department, the ver link you presented has within the first few paragraphs,
This supports my position so i have to ask, do you even read the shit your claiming to be an authority on? Or are your just trolling on a crusade and only picking the pieces of information that you think supports your views? Either way, it is a bit dangerous.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)To be honest, you don't account for some cultural differences. How about pissing on the American flag. That would get people in certain regions protesting for sure.
Otherwise put, I'm not sure why it's shocking that corporations have more power than people. Well "people" (an entire nation) in US are more than the employees of any corporation out there. But they dont' work together, they just wander around seemingly aimlessly, everyone doing their own thing.
Corporation is thousands of people working day after day on a single focused strategy someone up there in the management devised. They are more akin to a military organization.
And we know if there's anyone who can overturn a government in any country, it's that country's military. It's not because they have big scary tanks. It's because of the hierarchy, organizational power that comes with controlling huge masses of people ready to do thy bidding.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)That would get people in certain regions protesting for sure.
yes, protesting. Which is an exercise of free speech. But until they cross the line to assaulting someone, this is not a problem, and they can protest all they like. I can still piss on a flag. Or, churches can burn Harry Potter books. As long as they paid for them -- hey, no problem there. But if they storm in and set fire to a bookstore? THEN we have a problem and some people better end up in jail.
As to the rest: If you honestly think Exxon is going to overturn our government, you need to take a few deep breaths. It's not going to happen. This was just a squeamish ISP giving in. I had never even HEARD of the ISP before this -- and doubt I will after this.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)But I'll guarantee you peeing on a Koran will get you killed in 99% of the Middle East.
Piss off the Chinese government, and I guarantee you, you will die. And it will be government sanctioned.
The real reason: trademark infringement
(Score:2)Very true, but what all the commenters are missing so far is that while Exxon wanted this shut down because they didn't like it, that's almost certainly not how they got it shut down. They didn't call the ISP and say "We're offended, shut it down." I'll bet they said "Our trademarks are being violated, shut it down."
I know many Slashdotters don't like copyrights and trademarks, but that's the law, and any company's brand is a valuable asset they are legally obligated to protect. (If they don't protect it, they could lose it, which could mean the corporate officers can get sued by the shareholders.) Using a company's logo without their permission is more or less the corporate equivalent of identity theft, and saying "it's just satire" is not a defense that's going to work.
Example: back in the '70s there was a famous series of magazine ads for Volkswagen Beetles, one of which was based on the fact that it floats. In '73 the National Lampoon did a dead-on parody ad in their Encyclopedia of Humor, headlined "If Ted Kennedy drove a Volkswagen, he'd be President today." But due to a production error, they used the real VW logo. Oops! They got sued and had to remove that piece from future reprintings.
From what I can tell, the Yes Men made something that looked exactly like the Exxon site. To be safe, they should have made it about the "Ezzon corporation" or something like that. With a parody of the logo, they're in the clear. (Maybe: IANAL.) Granted, that might not have been as funny, but if they had done it that way I'll bet they wouldn't be having ISP troubles.
Re:The real reason: trademark infringement
(Score:2)(http://coathangrrr.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 06, @12:08AM)
That's not entirely true, satire defense can be used in trademark cases, it is just more difficult than satire defenses in regards to copyright. Check out this page. [72.14.253.104]
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://etoy.com/)
Look at the mess copyright legislations is in. Three years jail for operating a video camera in a cinema. The push of this tragic sharade called attorney general for pushing criminal legislation towards copyright offenses?
Another shiny example is that if somebody pilfers your "pre-approved credit card invitation", which you never ordered, let alone wanted, in order to steal your identity it's up to you to clean up the resulting mess.
I wouldn't call those shiny examples of legislation or custom to benefit the common man and society as a whole. It's more in line with streamlining the business processes of big business.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://mp3bat.com/)
I think he meant in "Only in America..." in that money was the reason for freedom of speech being squashed.
Sure there are plenty of other countries that stomp all over freedom of speech for political and religious reasons, but no one ever censored someone in any other country for the sake of their shareholders.
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)But America used to be a country you could respect. Wasn't it once?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2, Insightful)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)France's speech laws have nothing at all to do with ISPs taking down websites without any due process. There is not even the slightest logical connection between the two. Who modded this up, anyway?