Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
1 | (2) | 3
  • by IdleTime (561841) on Saturday June 30, @06:21PM (#19702009)
    This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

    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....
    • by hotdiggitydawg (881316) on Saturday June 30, @06:26PM (#19702033)

      This is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      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....
      So take the power back then. Name and shame the ISP, and vote with your wallet.
    • by Registered Coward v2 (447531) on Saturday June 30, @06:28PM (#19702039)
      his is another example of how corporations and not people are the important ones in USA.

      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.
      • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, @07:02PM (#19702207)
        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!
        • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Saturday June 30, @07:49PM (#19702449)
          (Last Journal: Wednesday January 15, @03:17AM)
          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.
        • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday June 30, @09:22PM (#19702645)

          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.
          • by Khaed (544779) on Saturday June 30, @09:43PM (#19702751)
            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.
            • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Saturday June 30, @10:05PM (#19702881)
              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.
              • by Khaed (544779) on Sunday July 01, @12:51AM (#19703843)
                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.

              • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Sunday July 01, @05:37AM (#19705185)

                It is a mouth pice to bash the president.

                You got me there.

                But I think your forgot the Vchip which is mandated into every TV now driving the costs of televisions up

                You think the price of televisions is up?

                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

                Mr. Soros, your check is late this month.
              • You think the price of televisions is up?
                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.
              • by crucini (98210) on Sunday July 01, @06:10AM (#19705355)

                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.

        • by LGagnon (762015) on Saturday June 30, @10:03PM (#19702865)
          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.
        • by suv4x4 (956391) on Saturday June 30, @10:46PM (#19703095)
          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.
          • by Khaed (544779) on Sunday July 01, @12:45AM (#19703803)
            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.
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • by PapayaSF (721268) on Sunday July 01, @12:22AM (#19703671)

          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.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • by Belacgod (1103921) on Saturday June 30, @07:48PM (#19702439)
        The fact that other countries also suck doesn't make us suck less. Censorship of this nature is a negative-sum game, not a zero-sum one.
      • by Guuge (719028) on Sunday July 01, @01:11AM (#19703985)

        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?

    • by CriminalNerd (882826) on Saturday June 30, @06:28PM (#19702045)
      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.

      Don't you agree?
    • by pogopogo (464296) on Saturday June 30, @06:29PM (#19702051)
      That's OK. I sense a Streisand effect [wikipedia.org] in Exxon's not too distant furture.
    • by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Saturday June 30, @07:13PM (#19702263)

      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...
    • Cut a pipe? I thought cutting oil pipes caused environmental damage. Besides, I thought ISPs only controlled tubes.
    • 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.
    • There are still a few sites [exxposeexxon.org] up ;)
    • 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:

      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.

    • Only in America?

      (Score:1)
      by MoeDrippins (769977) on Sunday July 01, @10:46AM (#19706971)
      Yeah, because things like this NEVER happen in China or any other countless places; the people have ALL the power over there.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Blame game.

    (Score:3, Informative)
    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 30, @06:23PM (#19702013)
    Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?
    • Re:Blame game.

      (Score:2)
      by LehiNephi (695428) on Saturday June 30, @09:31PM (#19702691)
      (Last Journal: Friday June 08, @06:20AM)
      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.
    • Re:Blame game.

      (Score:1)
      by Monsuco (998964) on Sunday July 01, @02:27AM (#19704381)
      (http://www.monsuco.blogspot.com/)

      Not that anyone gives a damn, but is there any proof that Exxon actually was responsible?
      No presumption of innocence is something we in America believe in, but all companies are evil so we make exceptions /sarcasm.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Cue all the apologists

    (Score:5, Insightful)
    by rkcallaghan (858110) on Saturday June 30, @06:25PM (#19702023)
    Remember folks, its not censorship when big business does it!

    (Sarcasm-impaired mods: This post is a parody, much like the Yes Men's Vivoleum)

    ~Rebecca
    • They Have A Right

      (Score:4, Funny)
      Remember corporations have human rights too. ExxonMobile has an inherent free speech right to distort debate http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-c ould-be-paid-for-by.html [blogspot.com] and threaten others with law suits to intimidate them.

      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-users -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
      • Re:They Have A Right

        (Score:5, Interesting)
        by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday June 30, @07:02PM (#19702209)
        (http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
        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.

        • Re:They Have A Right

          (Score:4, Funny)
          But the poor things are only trying to do right by their shareholders. Shouldn't their high moral purpose trump mere individual rights?
          • by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday June 30, @07:17PM (#19702281)
            (http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
            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?

            • Re:They Have A Right

              (Score:2, Insightful)
              by heinousjay (683506) on Saturday June 30, @07:24PM (#19702333)
              (Last Journal: Friday June 23, @09:54PM)
              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.
              • by sethawoolley (1005201) on Saturday June 30, @09:54PM (#19702807)
                (http://swoolley.homeip.net/)
                But you don't own shares in every corporation.

                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.
              • by mikelieman (35628) on Saturday June 30, @10:34PM (#19703037)
                (http://www.wemissjerry.org/)
                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?

              • by wronskyMan (676763) on Saturday June 30, @11:37PM (#19703351)
                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?
              • by arminw (717974) <aawmail@@@waterfreeclean...com> on Saturday June 30, @11:43PM (#19703409)
                .......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.
              • Please see my reply above in the same thread... you're confusing limited corporate liability (personhood) with corporate limited personal liability.

                http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=243791&cid=197 03351 [slashdot.org]
            • In Corporate America the corporations say they benefit you!

              Which side do I put the sarcasm? Aside or beside ;-)
            • 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! :-)
        • by mdm42 (244204) on Sunday July 01, @02:44AM (#19704461)
          (http://mikro2nd.net/)
          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.
    • not an apoligist, just the truth

      (Score:2, Informative)
      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.

      • by rkcallaghan (858110) on Saturday June 30, @07:05PM (#19702225)
        Anonymous Coward wrote:

        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.

        ~Rebecca
        • 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.
      • by zahl2 (821572) on Sunday July 01, @08:00AM (#19705795)
        (Last Journal: Tuesday October 12, @05:33PM)
        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.

    • Re:Cue all the apologists

      (Score:1, Insightful)
      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.

    • by Blakey Rat (99501) on Sunday July 01, @01:17AM (#19704005)
      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.
1 | (2) | 3