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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Well...if
you look at it, a corporation is an entity that is run by the strength
and resources of many, many people, so technically, a corporation DOES
have more weight than people.
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....
Here, here! You don't see
individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in
other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a
totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots...
and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only
used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State
and the inordinately wealthy. OK. But not corporations! Not at all!
Unless one of the aforementioned also runs a corporation. Or they have
an agreement with one. Maybe then. But the important thing is that only
in America... umm... hmm...
In
this on topic post (I'm still editing, but rushed to publish) I'm
calling ExxonMobil devotees of Hecate, the queen of ghosts: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/06/necromancers.h tml [blogspot.com]. Will google be sent a take down notice? Let's wait and see.
One of the first reasons a company incorporates is to make it take the
fall if they should be sued, rightly or wrongly, by another party.
As an aside:
No due process here...
You imply that a company and a client have a government-to-citizen
relationship: they don't. Otherwise the company would be able to reign
over the client with such things as incarceration. Instead they,
companies, use contracts, written with the express interest of
protecting themselves and their goals: to make a profit.
It would not surprise me, no, not one moment would it surprise me,
if the ISP has in their contract, that the client agreed to, that they
could cancel their service, without notice, for any reason.
And also, please do not be tempted to call this censorship: only
governments can do that and ours is suppose to be hindered by the
Constitution from doing so. The Democrats and their 'Fairness Doctrine'
for Talk Radio only (as opposed to applying it to where it really
belongs: television) are really into censorship by silencing their
opposition. After all, who among Talk Radio's current listening
audience wants to hear on Talk Radio what they already hear on the
major network and 2/3rds of the major cable news outlets? Talk Radio is
only successful because they filled a niche and are making a profit.
The Democrat push for the Fairness Doctrine is irony at it's best:
for years liberals have been clamoring about the Bush Administration
being fascists. But when the real fascists rear their heads they are
strangely silent. What these false accusers don't realize is that they
too are targets if they don't fall in line with the liberal, Democrat
mind share.
Chances are good that Exxon was responsible, but you're right--there's no proof at this point.
Of
course, that doesn't change the fact that the statement "Exxon's
policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths
each year" is, at best, ingenuous. It's not as if Exxon is burning the
hundreds of millions of barrels of gasoline/oil/natural gas per
year--they're just supplying a commodity for which there is a large
global demand. Blaming Exxon for global warming is worse than blaming
gun manufacturers for crime.
These Artificial Legal Entities need to be re-enslaved.
When
the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their
incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.
It is very much like your drivers' license.
You
OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right
is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you
wish.
UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that
moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and
Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.
Exact same thing with
the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want,
and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate
their assets back to the shareholders.
But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.
Sarcasm
aside, then what's the benefit to The People for permitting the
existence of Corporate Artificial Legal Entities in the first place, if
they don't FIRST benefit The People in tangible ways?
Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?
Apparently
"The People" in your post only refers to people who don't own shares in
corporations. Thanks for declaring me (and millions of others)
non-entities.
Or do you? (And I don't mean a high fee diversified mutual fund.)
And
even if you do (say, via a low fee index fund of index funds), would
the small monetary benefit recompense your enriching the boards of
directors that swindle the shareholders the other half of the time?
For
the dim-witted, my point is that even if you own shares, all
corporations have to deal with other corporations, too, so they're not
much better off flouting ethical normals just to benefit their
generally unaware shareholders. It's just corporate anarchy.
Note
also that having a great number of shareholders doesn't always help
because those are likely all mutual fund shares where you have a
plutocrat managing the fund anyways, so mutual fund investing doesn't
really assist the machinations of self-correction that "the
'scientific' divine hand" supposedly provides.
"Helping the shareholders" is really just code for enriching the executives.
Just like any other representative system, those who do the representing always take a mighty big chunk out for themselves.
So no, he was referring to the majority of those who do own shares. All the small investors get well screwed too.
You're
not a non-entity. You are voluntarily participating in the operation of
an Artificial Legal Entity, created by The People via the Secretary of
State accepting the filing requesting existence.
So, WHY would
The People bother doing any of that? Last time I checked the
Constitution of New York, and the Constitution of the United States,
there was no requirement of any Governmental body to provide for the
creation of Artificial Legal Entities.
So, again, why would The
People bother? It's not taxes. If *you* operate a business, and turn a
profit, *you* pay taxes. So why bother creating Artificial Legal
Entities, and why would you ever create one you couldn't regulate.
Consider
something else. The ALE is a creation of The State. Can the Creator
endow it's creation with powers, it The State, does not have?
The
purpose of the "artificial personhood" of a corporation is to enable
shareholders to invest and limit their losses to the amount they have
invested; if there was no artificial personhood then shareholders could
be personally liable for the debts of a corporation; would you want to
get a bill every time one of UPS's trucks got into an accident?
.......So, WHY would The People bother doing any of that?......
A
major reason was and still mostly is to shield individual owners from
personal liability whenever employees or others connected with the
company screw up and the company gets sued because of it. If you as an
individual own a business and the business gets into trouble through a
lawsuits or simply because of poor business decisions, you can lose not
only the business and all of it assets, but creditors can also take
your house, car and any property you personally have. If your business
is a corporation, your personal assets are considered generally
separate from the business assets or debts. This shielding allows
business owners to take risks which may reward them or bankrupt then,
but leave their personal property safe. This effect of risk taking is
generally a desirable thing for the national economy as a whole.
Americans, historically, in business and American banks are generally
willing to take greater risks than their counterparts in other
countries.
Corporate Personhood is even a newer concept than limited liability in the history of ideas.
Anyways, you seem to be completely missing the point.
Those
who advocate revocability of corporate charters want an effective
punishment process that will destroy the company, which has nothing to
do with _personal_ liability. It has everything to do with the
liability of the _corporation_.
Pardon me if that's not obvious, but I hope this response clears up any confusion you or anybody else may have.
It's obvious - the anthromorphisised "Market" will decide!
Away
from the pesky control of the evil commie big government forces, the
freedom loving patriot being that is the Free Market will decide what
is right. Don't panic, the Market will decide. You're just seeing it in
action. If Exxon wasn't to stomp on small comedy companies, well then
the shareholders would rise up and change the direction of the company.
They haven't, so clearly The People Have Spoken!:-)
The problem is that -- somehow -- the corps have ended up with more and better rights than ordinary humans.
Let's
see, Kill Thousands By Chemical Poisoning in Bhopal, get a fine. A slap
on the wrist. An ordinary human would have been made to suffer the most
severe punishment legally available in the country having jursidiction
-- death, or life imprisonment. A corp? Wrist-slap!
Let's see:
Crash a loaded oil tanker into the coastline, fuck up hundreds of
kilometres of the coast and sea-life, and what do you get?
Wrist-slapping accompanies by Finger Wagging, and get told to do some
token cleanup. Won't help the ecology of that coastline for the next
couple of decades, but hey! its a corp that did it.
Let's see: Get copyright extended to forever. Who benefits? I mean, an ordinary human is (barring/.
fantasy miracle medical cure) sooner or later going to die, so eternal
copyright doesn't really mean squat to us. But to a corp?
See
the basic difference is that we ordinary people can be locked up,
physically threatened with Nasty Stuff that we fear, and ultimately we die. None of this applies to corps.
From afar they look like a great big hairy Bear, but close-up they're just a huge nest of cockroaches.
They
have to be taken down. Brought down to a level close to where they were
when the concept got going back in the 17th Century or so; a level
where they are severely restricted in how long they exist and what they
are allowed to do. For the sake of our own humanity, in the face of our
own mortality, in recognition of our unique individuality, they have to
be taken down.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @06:48PM (#19702139)
See,
here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of
U.S. law nor the First Ammendment (as far as I can tell from the
article). People often cannot separate the two, including the Yes Men.
"Since parody is protected under US law"
You
see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The
hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever
reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those
are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out using their own resources,
etc. and were sued for it, that's where US law would protect them.
However, since they are in a business relationship with someone else,
you really can't claim protection. Does that mean it's a smart idea /
good idea for the hosting company to do this? No. But it's not a
violation of someone's rights. That's the truth.
See, here is the problem: yes it is censorship, no it is not a violation of U.S. law nor the First Ammendment...
If you ask me, using the threat of US Government action is just as much
a violation as the government taking that action on their own accord.
I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal
Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a
store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using
the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the
same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that runs
entirely on party lines and is even willing to overturn Brown vs.
Board; would likely side with the Corporation over the Constitution.
With
all due respect, I somewhat disagree with your comment above. For Exxon
to use the threat of a lawsuit to enact censorship is nowhere near
equivalent to the U.S. government itself engaging in censorship.
In an ideal world, and I admit that we are far from that
ideal, then if someone was clearly covered under provisions to
copyright law, such as by means of parody as in this case, then they
would have little to fear from a lawsuit, because they could easily
show that there is no violation under the law. Therefore, the threat of
government action is significantly less than the government acting
itself, particularly in a political climate like we have right now
where the judicial branch of government is essentially in bed with the
executive branch.
Since we do not live in an ideal world, then it is very
possible -- likely, even -- that Exxon would win. And that is the
*real* problem here. This isn't a censorship issue. It's a problem with
our civil law system. When big corporations can consistently win by
intimidation before even going to trial, then there is something wrong
and it needs to be fixed.
The
hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever
reason they see fit, including parody...If the Yes Men put this out
using their own resources, etc. and were sued for it, that's where US
law would protect them
Their own resources? You mean get hosting further uplink? You mean buy
backbone? Because unless you have protection somewhere, someone can
always pull your plug.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 30, @07:21PM (#19702315)
Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!
No, it's not censorship when big business does it. It's censorship when big businesses use laws created and enforced by the government
to do it. Anything without government involvement is not censorship. If
Exxon managed to persuade their ISP to take the site down just by
asking nicely, then this isn't censorship, just a shitty ISP. If Exxon
threatened the ISP with a lawsuit, it is censorship. The latter is far
more likely, but you don't have to be an apologist to distinguish
between abuse of state power and agreements between private
individuals.
Anything without government involvement is not censorship.
That may be your own weird little definition of the word, but if you
check a reputable dictionary, you'll find that "censorship" does not
require that the censoring be performed by a government entity.
Censorship
has nothing to do with this. They have a business relationship with an
upstream provider in which they signed a contract which, most likely,
has a phrase such as the following: "we reserve the right to terminate
this relationship at any time at our discretion." The upstream provider
decided they wanted to terminate the relationship... simple. No
censorship involved.
*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....
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:4, 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:4, 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.
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://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: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, Insightful)(http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~abh2n | Last Journal: Monday June 25, @12:14PM)
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:3, 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:2)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:3)(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)(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:3, Interesting)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)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.
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:*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: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?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Don't you agree?
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)Where are the mirrors?
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)Here, here! You don't see individuals wielding power to squelch opinions they don't agree with in other countries! Unless, they're a King of Queen... sure. Or a totalitarian ruler / despot. OK. Only by Kings, Queens, and despots... and other various heads of state. Maybe the wealthy. So power is only used outside America by Kings, Queens, despots, various Heads of State and the inordinately wealthy. OK. But not corporations! Not at all! Unless one of the aforementioned also runs a corporation. Or they have an agreement with one. Maybe then. But the important thing is that only in America... umm... hmm...
*sigh* Cults have too much power
(Score:1, Insightful)Scientology.
Re:*sigh* Cults have too much power
(Score:2)Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)An experiment
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:1)(http://webhome.idirect.com/~kvollick/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 24, @04:02PM)
Re:*sigh* Corproations have too much power
(Score:2)(http://wirevox.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 03, @12:03PM)
The law treats corporations as people.
One of the first reasons a company incorporates is to make it take the fall if they should be sued, rightly or wrongly, by another party.
As an aside:
You imply that a company and a client have a government-to-citizen relationship: they don't. Otherwise the company would be able to reign over the client with such things as incarceration. Instead they, companies, use contracts, written with the express interest of protecting themselves and their goals: to make a profit.It would not surprise me, no, not one moment would it surprise me, if the ISP has in their contract, that the client agreed to, that they could cancel their service, without notice, for any reason.
And also, please do not be tempted to call this censorship: only governments can do that and ours is suppose to be hindered by the Constitution from doing so. The Democrats and their 'Fairness Doctrine' for Talk Radio only (as opposed to applying it to where it really belongs: television) are really into censorship by silencing their opposition. After all, who among Talk Radio's current listening audience wants to hear on Talk Radio what they already hear on the major network and 2/3rds of the major cable news outlets? Talk Radio is only successful because they filled a niche and are making a profit.
The Democrat push for the Fairness Doctrine is irony at it's best: for years liberals have been clamoring about the Bush Administration being fascists. But when the real fascists rear their heads they are strangely silent. What these false accusers don't realize is that they too are targets if they don't fall in line with the liberal, Democrat mind share.
Only in America?
(Score:1)Blame game.
(Score:3, Informative)Re:Blame game.
(Score:2)(Last Journal: Friday June 08, @06:20AM)
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the statement "Exxon's policies do already contribute to 150,000 climate-change related deaths each year" is, at best, ingenuous. It's not as if Exxon is burning the hundreds of millions of barrels of gasoline/oil/natural gas per year--they're just supplying a commodity for which there is a large global demand. Blaming Exxon for global warming is worse than blaming gun manufacturers for crime.
Re:Blame game.
(Score:1)(http://www.monsuco.blogspot.com/)
Cue all the apologists
(Score:5, Insightful)(Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)
~Rebecca
They Have A Right
(Score:4, Funny)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
It is their right to have no sense of humor, especially if the joke is at their expense. Please be more sympathetic.
--
Det solar power are save money too: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:5, Interesting)(http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
When the owners sign on the line, begging The People to permit their incorporation, they agree to go by the regulation The People impose.
It is very much like your drivers' license.
You OWN your car, and theoretically, in a Free Nation , that Property Right is absolute, and you may do with your property, your car, whatever you wish.
UNTIL you sign your Drivers' license application. At that moment, when you AGREE to abide by the Regulations for Vehicles and Traffic, that you surrender your Rights.
Exact same thing with the incorporation of ALEs. We *could* make them do whatever we want, and if they don't like it, they can just close up shop, and liquidate their assets back to the shareholders.
But somehow, this idea of them being just as good as a Flesh-and-Blood came about.
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:4, Funny)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2)(http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
Why bother having the Secretary of State even bother filing the paperwork?
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2, Insightful)(Last Journal: Friday June 23, @09:54PM)
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:1)(http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
Or do you? (And I don't mean a high fee diversified mutual fund.)
And even if you do (say, via a low fee index fund of index funds), would the small monetary benefit recompense your enriching the boards of directors that swindle the shareholders the other half of the time?
For the dim-witted, my point is that even if you own shares, all corporations have to deal with other corporations, too, so they're not much better off flouting ethical normals just to benefit their generally unaware shareholders. It's just corporate anarchy.
Note also that having a great number of shareholders doesn't always help because those are likely all mutual fund shares where you have a plutocrat managing the fund anyways, so mutual fund investing doesn't really assist the machinations of self-correction that "the 'scientific' divine hand" supposedly provides.
"Helping the shareholders" is really just code for enriching the executives.
Just like any other representative system, those who do the representing always take a mighty big chunk out for themselves.
So no, he was referring to the majority of those who do own shares. All the small investors get well screwed too.
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2)(http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
So, WHY would The People bother doing any of that? Last time I checked the Constitution of New York, and the Constitution of the United States, there was no requirement of any Governmental body to provide for the creation of Artificial Legal Entities.
So, again, why would The People bother? It's not taxes. If *you* operate a business, and turn a profit, *you* pay taxes. So why bother creating Artificial Legal Entities, and why would you ever create one you couldn't regulate.
Consider something else. The ALE is a creation of The State. Can the Creator endow it's creation with powers, it The State, does not have?
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2)Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2)A major reason was and still mostly is to shield individual owners from personal liability whenever employees or others connected with the company screw up and the company gets sued because of it. If you as an individual own a business and the business gets into trouble through a lawsuits or simply because of poor business decisions, you can lose not only the business and all of it assets, but creditors can also take your house, car and any property you personally have. If your business is a corporation, your personal assets are considered generally separate from the business assets or debts. This shielding allows business owners to take risks which may reward them or bankrupt then, but leave their personal property safe. This effect of risk taking is generally a desirable thing for the national economy as a whole. Americans, historically, in business and American banks are generally willing to take greater risks than their counterparts in other countries.
No, that's limited liability, not corp personhood
(Score:1)(http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
Anyways, you seem to be completely missing the point.
Those who advocate revocability of corporate charters want an effective punishment process that will destroy the company, which has nothing to do with _personal_ liability. It has everything to do with the liability of the _corporation_.
Pardon me if that's not obvious, but I hope this response clears up any confusion you or anybody else may have.
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:1)(http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243791&cid=19
Re:They Have A Right
(Score:2)(http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar | Last Journal: Friday February 23, @04:53AM)
Which side do I put the sarcasm? Aside or beside
The Market will decide! believe in the Market!
(Score:2)Away from the pesky control of the evil commie big government forces, the freedom loving patriot being that is the Free Market will decide what is right. Don't panic, the Market will decide. You're just seeing it in action. If Exxon wasn't to stomp on small comedy companies, well then the shareholders would rise up and change the direction of the company. They haven't, so clearly The People Have Spoken!
They Have Too Many Rights
(Score:1)(http://mikro2nd.net/)
Let's see, Kill Thousands By Chemical Poisoning in Bhopal, get a fine. A slap on the wrist. An ordinary human would have been made to suffer the most severe punishment legally available in the country having jursidiction -- death, or life imprisonment. A corp? Wrist-slap!
Let's see: Crash a loaded oil tanker into the coastline, fuck up hundreds of kilometres of the coast and sea-life, and what do you get? Wrist-slapping accompanies by Finger Wagging, and get told to do some token cleanup. Won't help the ecology of that coastline for the next couple of decades, but hey! its a corp that did it.
Let's see: Get copyright extended to forever. Who benefits? I mean, an ordinary human is (barring
See the basic difference is that we ordinary people can be locked up, physically threatened with Nasty Stuff that we fear, and ultimately we die. None of this applies to corps.
From afar they look like a great big hairy Bear, but close-up they're just a huge nest of cockroaches.
They have to be taken down. Brought down to a level close to where they were when the concept got going back in the 17th Century or so; a level where they are severely restricted in how long they exist and what they are allowed to do. For the sake of our own humanity, in the face of our own mortality, in recognition of our unique individuality, they have to be taken down.
not an apoligist, just the truth
(Score:2, Informative)"Since parody is protected under US law"
You see, they are in a business relationship with the hosting company. The hosting company can break that relationship for pretty much whatever reason they see fit, including parody -- might not be smart but those are the facts. If the Yes Men put this out using their own resources, etc. and were sued for it, that's where US law would protect them. However, since they are in a business relationship with someone else, you really can't claim protection. Does that mean it's a smart idea / good idea for the hosting company to do this? No. But it's not a violation of someone's rights. That's the truth.
Re:not an apoligist, just the truth
(Score:2)I wouldn't be one to claim that a "First Amendment" or "Illegal Censorship" issue takes place when legal, private action (such as a store refusing to stock your product) is the stick used. However, using the government itself as the stick (via a lawsuit), is very much the same. I will grant you however, that our current SCOTUS staff that runs entirely on party lines and is even willing to overturn Brown vs. Board; would likely side with the Corporation over the Constitution.
~Rebecca
Re:not an apoligist, just the truth
(Score:2)(http://www.gecko-ak.org/)
In an ideal world, and I admit that we are far from that ideal, then if someone was clearly covered under provisions to copyright law, such as by means of parody as in this case, then they would have little to fear from a lawsuit, because they could easily show that there is no violation under the law. Therefore, the threat of government action is significantly less than the government acting itself, particularly in a political climate like we have right now where the judicial branch of government is essentially in bed with the executive branch.
Since we do not live in an ideal world, then it is very possible -- likely, even -- that Exxon would win. And that is the *real* problem here. This isn't a censorship issue. It's a problem with our civil law system. When big corporations can consistently win by intimidation before even going to trial, then there is something wrong and it needs to be fixed.
They probably can't go further uplink.
(Score:1)(Last Journal: Tuesday October 12, @05:33PM)
Their own resources? You mean get hosting further uplink? You mean buy backbone? Because unless you have protection somewhere, someone can always pull your plug.
Re:Cue all the apologists
(Score:1, Insightful)Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!
No, it's not censorship when big business does it. It's censorship when big businesses use laws created and enforced by the government to do it. Anything without government involvement is not censorship. If Exxon managed to persuade their ISP to take the site down just by asking nicely, then this isn't censorship, just a shitty ISP. If Exxon threatened the ISP with a lawsuit, it is censorship. The latter is far more likely, but you don't have to be an apologist to distinguish between abuse of state power and agreements between private individuals.
Re:Cue all the apologists
(Score:3, Insightful)(http://www.pobox.com/~meta/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 29, @10:19AM)
That may be your own weird little definition of the word, but if you check a reputable dictionary, you'll find that "censorship" does not require that the censoring be performed by a government entity.
Re:Cue all the apologists
(Score:2)(http://www.last.fm/user/uhlume/)
Bullshit [reference.com]. Of course it's censorship. It's just not state censorship.
Re:Cue all the apologists
(Score:2)