Reinforcements Have Arrived

You know those scum bags over a Righthaven who are causing many so much grief? Good news the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is getting involved and will help bloggers being targeted by Righthaven.

Just contact Eva Galperin at eva@eff.org if you’re currently being targeted for a lawsuit by those vulture bastards.

Freedom of Speech so Long as It’s My Speech

I found an editorial over at Engadget that just makes me shake my head and weep for liberty. Apparently one writer there is shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that he was able to find Nazi themed applications on the Android Market. Hell he’s not only shocked he’s pissed off and demands censorship rights now!

Here’s the thing the Android Market is pretty open. There aren’t many restrictions in place unlike Apple’s iTunes Store. This means you are far more free to post what you want. Combine the fact you have an open platform and a freedom of speech in this country and you’re going to get things on there you don’t like. Of course the first thing a “progressive” liberal will want is censorship. I, on the other hand, want no censorship and instead realize that the price of the first amendment is having to encounter things I don’t like.

Let us look through some of the writer’s statements:

And here’s where we have to take a hard look at what censorship really means, and what kind of role it can (and clearly should) play in the new frontier of app marketplaces on mobile devices (and elsewhere). Let’s be clear about this right off the bat — an app store isn’t the internet. It’s not a free-for-all, it’s not an open venue where any type of wares might be hawked.

Actually it is exactly all of those things if the company running it chooses it to be. If Google wants to let anything into the Android Market then they can do that.

The whole point of these app portals is to provide a controlled service to your users that has guidelines and rules that make getting software onto your phone relatively easy and safe. Whether or not you have stringent policies for what you’ll accept (Apple), or few (Google), no one should pretend that this isn’t a siloed service that must have rails to operate.

No the whole point of an application store is to have a central place where store customers can easily find applications to run on their platform. This in turn is used to make it easy for those running said platform to find useful tools which encourages them to purchase that platform in the first place.

So the question becomes: what are your limits? If you say absolutely no censorship, does it apply to hate-speak?

Yes. The definition of absolutely no censorship is exactly that; absolutely no fucking censorship. In case the writer is unaware here is the dictionary definition of absolutely:

completely and without qualification; used informally as intensifiers; “an absolutely magnificent painting”; “a perfectly idiotic idea”; “you’re perfectly right”; “utterly miserable”; “you can be dead sure of my innocence”; “was dead tired”; “dead right”

I guess that word doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.

If you say yes to porn, does it mean yes to Hitler themes that appear when you search for seemingly unrelated terms? Does being open mean accepting everything? Or do we have to set some reasonable limits for what we will and won’t tolerate?

This man is obviously a “progressive” liberal. Why do I say that? Because he wants to set some “reasonable” limits on a right. Now since Google runs the Android Market they are free to do as they please include censor things but it appears they aren’t doing so. Personally I’m quite happy about this fact because it means, for now, Google is respecting my right to free speech on their platform store. But unlike the writer of this article I realize that freedom of speech means in turn for my right to say what I want other people get the same right. I don’t get a say in what other people say.

Think of it this way: app stores are kind of like privately owned bookstores.

Yup and with any privately owned store the owner can chose to respect patrons’ rights or not.

The owner of the bookstore doesn’t have to carry the art book of nudes or the pro-Nazi thesis.

But they can if they chose to.

In most situations, it doesn’t have to carry everything because there are plenty of other places to get those books.

Not if the writer had his way there wouldn’t be.

That concept is especially true for Android — users can sideload any applications they want onto their devices. No one is going to tell you that you can’t install a Nazi theme on your phone, but we’re pretty sure that Google shouldn’t make it so easy, and it shouldn’t subject a large portion of its users to content that rightfully deserves to sit on the fringes, not in the center.

Google isn’t making “it so easy.” They are simply providing a service where developers can upload their applications without having to worry about being blocked by arbitrary rules.

So ultimately, what’s the answer?

Shut the fuck up and let Google run their store as they please. If you don’t like it get an iPhone and be happy with Apple’s censorship.

But the part that’s confusing is the part that’s essentially a lie — that keeping certain pieces of content out of systems like the App Store or the Android Market equates to censorship… because it doesn’t.

Fuck back to the dictionary:

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts : details of the visit were subject to military censorship.

Once again that word doesn’t mean what the writer thinks it means. Removing things you find objectionable or unacceptable is the very definition of censorship. The writer is a stupid little prat. I wouldn’t be so mad if he wasn’t lying and using misinformation. If he simply stated that he was offended and wanted the applications removed that would be one thing. But going on a tirade about how these applications should be removed and doing so isn’t actually censorship is twisting the meaning of words to build popular support for his crusade.

Look I despise Nazism as much as most people but that doesn’t mean I have the right to censor them. I also despise the Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, RIAA, MPAA, The Brady Campaign, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, SCIU and a long slew of other organizations. Do I want them silenced? No. They have a right to spew their bullshit as much as I have a right to spew mine. If any of those organizations made an application for the Android Market I wouldn’t demand a take down, I’d thank Google for allowing the first amendment on their store.

Sadly if this article gains any traction I know Google will most likely remove all the offending applications. Anyways I want to close out by saying fuck the author or this article for using standard “progressive” liberal tactics to justify his desire to only censor things he doesn’t approve of.

It’s a Good Idea, It’ll Never Pass

Here’s an interesting bill presented to the Senate. I posted previously about how many states are making it illegal to video tape police officers while they’re on duty. Well H. Con. Res. 298 seems to be a desire to establish a law barring federal and state governments from making it illegal for a citizen to record an on-duty police officer:

(3) members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers’ discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.

It makes sense and therefore probably doesn’t have a chance in Hell of passing. After all it will go against national security… according to the abusive police.

Righthaven LLC Going to Town on Lawsuits

Yesterday I posted about Righthaven suing The Armed Citizen blog. Well that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Apparently the lefties are talking about legal actions against Righthaven because they appear to be unfairly targeting left leaning website. Of course it doesn’t appear to be a left-right issue as Righthaven is suing everybody.

These assholes are going crazy.

Send Out the Lawyers

So apparently Professor John Abraham of St. Thomas college put up some kind of online rebuttal to a person who I’ve mentioned previously, Christopher Monckton. The rebuttal is over Mr. Monckton’s presentation on Al Gore’s Apocalypse, which is actually very interesting to watch (I have a video of it embedded in the previously linked page). Well being British and still being willing to sling insults (however childish it may be but alas I haven’t watched either Professor Abraham or Monckton’s rebuttal to that video). Apparently according to the Red Star (which means you need to take it with a grain of salt) Monckton said the following:

For his part, Monckton has fired back in a YouTube interview clip, calling Abraham “a wretched little man,” the University of St. Thomas “a half-assed Catholic bible college,” and its president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, “a creep.”

The one thing I really do like about the British are their insults. So what is the rebuttal to that onslaught? Well St. Thomas is calling in the lawyers:

St. Thomas officials have defended Abraham’s efforts, and the school’s lawyers have gone beyond that. In a letter to Monckton, St. Thomas attorney Phyllis Karasov threatened legal action if Monckton does not “immediately cease and desist making any further disparaging or defamatory comments about the University of St. Thomas, President Father Dease, Professor Abraham, the Archdioceses of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, or anyone else associated with the University.”

This is the reason I’m so skeptical about this whole Al Gore’s Apocalypse thing. If somebody criticizes the “science” (and I use that term very lightly) behind global warming climate change lawyers are called out. Also it appears as thought St. Thomas University doesn’t understand the first amendment and the freedom of speech. For instance I can call St. Thomas University a shitty Hell hold that would be better off turned into a crater in the ground that continue to be used as a college. I can also say all their administrative staff are total assholes and can go sodomize themselves with retractable batons. It’s called the freedom of speech and insults are covered under it.

What to Do if You’re Company is Failing

Sue somebody! Sharp as a Marble let us know that the good guys over at The Armed Citizen are being sued by a Las Vegas newspaper for “willfully copying content.” Translated into laymen terms that means The Armed Citizen blog reported news by sourcing a newspaper who is failing to make money and has no other business plan in place.

The main kicker here though is the fact the newspaper sued several blogs before even contacting them. Well I’m all for contacting people so here’s how to contact the Las Vegas Review Journal:

Las Vegas Review-Journal
1111 W. Bonanza Road
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125

Main phone number:
702-383-0211

Newspaper office number:
702-383-0264

Let them know hos much you appreciate their news business strategy. Personally I recommend they put up a pay wall. That way us dirty bloggers can’t use their content and they’ll lose enough money as to fall into irrelevancy. Two birds meet one stone.

Criminals Lie

A popular concept that seems to be completely ignored most of the time is the fact that criminals are dishonest and may in fact lie to you. What am I getting at here? Well a post over at Walls of the City brought up a case of a couple who was robbed by two thugs posing as police officers:

But Monday night, police cars surrounded a Woodycrest Avenue home. Earlier, at about midnight, two men yelling “police” pounded on the door, the family said. They were let inside.

The family said the two men wanted two things: drugs and guns.

The family said the whole thing lasted 10 or 15 minutes. They said they have every reason to believe the two crooks were, in fact, police.

OK we’re going to start today’s lesson in Gulliblity 101. Just because somebody says they are something doesn’t mean they actually are that thing. For instance when I was in college and attending college parties I would make up all sorts of stories about who I was and what I did to people I didn’t know. I wasn’t trying to impress them, instead I liked to amuse myself by seeing how outrageous of a story I had to make before the person I was conversing with finally caught on I was bullshitting them. Believe me I could get pretty far with some people. Did you know I’m actually a gun runner who is an exile from the former Soviet Union? Well I had two people believing that one night.

The point is people lie and we’re pre-programmer to assume that’s not the case. This of course presents a predicament. Let’s say somebody is pounding on your door yelling “police” what should you do? After all if you don’t answer the door and they are actually police officers you’re in for a world of hurt when they decide to bust in the door. On the other hand if they aren’t police you’re letting criminals into your home which is one layer of your defense strategy down the tubes already.

And the answer is… dial 911. This is advice usually given in driver’s ed to women who see a police car with lights on behind them while they’re cruising down a deserted road in the country at 0300. Real police call in any actions they’re taking which means if they are going to investigate your home somebody at the station knows about it. If people are at your door claiming to be police you should dial 911 and ask if the people at your door are actually police. If they’re not real police officers will be dispatched to come to your door.

If the people at the door actually are police then you can open the door and kindly inform them that they may no enter unless they have a warrant.

They Needed a Law for This

The Senate went and passed a bill being touted as the “libel tourist” bills. What this bill does is prevents a person in the United States from having to acknowledge a libel lawsuit in another country. It seems a popular way to shut somebody up is the file a libel lawsuit against said person in a country where you are most likely to win.

The strange thing is I didn’t realize our country would force somebody to acknowledge such a lawsuit. I figured if somebody from a foreign country sued you over something that violated the Bill of Rights you were under no obligation to acknowledge that lawsuit while inside of our borders. Apparently that wasn’t the case.

Remember When We Were Going to Close Gitmo

Well that promise like so many others made by the Obamessiah were made with his fingers crossed behind his back. Apparently closing Gitmo has moved down in priority:

Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

I’m betting Gitmo will never be closed. It’s just too convenient to have a prison offshore where we can hold prisoners indefinably without trial. You’re government at work everybody.

Who Cares so Long as Our Dog Isn’t in the Fight

I’m sure you’ve already heard about the veritable shit storm hitting the gun blogs today as the NRA pulled it’s opposition of the DISCLOSE Act. Well they made an official statement stating they are a single-issue organization and this issue isn’t their issue. Needless to say this has created somewhat of a rift between the NRA and many of it’s members.

Sebastian says this is OK being the NRA is a single-issue organization. Robb made an analogy regarding how only fighting for a single issue can not win your the fight, even on that single issue. Sailor Curt lays it out that the NRA doesn’t seem to care since they have an exemption everybody else can fend for themselves. Alan brings up the fact issues don’t exist in vacuums all to themselves.

Well I love giving my opinion on things so here it is. The NRA fucked up big time here. With all due respect (never mind when anybody says that it’s instantly followed by a lack of respect) regard to the fact the NRA does the most when it comes to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms they are being juvenile and idiotic with this. I agree with the general sentiment that the NRA is more than happy to drop this issue now that they no longer have to worry much about it. More or less they went from fighting this bill as a crusade against the freedom of speech to a “single-issue organization” that only has focus on the second amendment. That’s just plain short sighted and dirty.

Let me make an analogy since they’re fun. Let’s say you and two friends get into a fight with four other people. The reason for the fight is irrelevant but you are outnumbered and stand less than a 50/50 chance of winning. You’re one of the larger and more capable fighters in your little group of three and the opposition want you out of the fight. To that end they make you an offer, they will not pursue you to kick your ass if you leave right now. If you leave you may save yourself an ass whoopin’ but your two buddies are going to be even more unlikely to escape without a few broken bones. What do you do? Personally I’d stand with my two friends if for no other reason than someday I may need their assistance and abandoning them now is not going to motivate them to help me later.

The NRA is a powerhouse in Washington D.C. They have a lot of weight and thus clout with the people on Capital Hill. By pulling out they abandoned other pro-rights organizations and their own members who happen to be members of those other groups that will still be affected by this legislation. Those other groups and those members will remember this and are likely going to be less than cooperative with the NRA in the future should they need help.

All they had to do was keep opposing this legislation. That’s it. Really other organizations could do the lobbying while the NRA could have been in it name only. But they second they were cut a deal they cut out of the opposition. Classy.

Basically they fucked up and I’m joining those who are calling them on it in the hopes they do better in the future.