Tag Archives: free speech

Why We All Love Ron Paul

Posted on by

Libertarian prospective Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has stolen the hearts and minds of the internet and much of America, with his straight talking honest approach to politics. And I confess even as an outside observer from across the pond Ron has won me over too.

How has Ron done this? Simple, he’s done absolutely everything a politician shouldn’t. Ron has been consistent and honest, he never changes his views no matter public opinion, he’s willing to stand up against his party (he was strongly against the patriot act for example,) he’s upset the mainstream media and he supports policies seemingly suicidal to any presidential bid. Pro-cannabis, Pro-gay marriage, pro-peace with Iran. This is a man seeking the Republican presidential nomination. However the biggest reason we love Ron is he wants to take power away from government and give it back to individuals.

But it’s the way that Ron defends his policies, with passion, intelligence and common sense which really wins you over. He forces you to challenge your own ideas. You realise, he has in my eyes at least, things about 95% right.

Everyone knows the American political system is broken. Power is now concentrated within such a small political elite. Two people were president from the same family within 10 years for goodness sake. The corporate lobbyists control the political process, everything is bought with dollars. The SOPA act is a great example of this. And the mainstream media is very obviously controlled by various corporate interest groups. Is the US even a democracy anymore? It certainly doesn’t look like the land of the free from here and something needs to change.

Ron Paul stands against the status quo. He wants to take power from away from this small elite and give it back to the people. His voting record backs this up. We love him for it, The media hate him for it and we love him all the more.
It has been shocking and fascinating to watch the media attack him. First they tried to ignore him (see Daily show sketch above) Next they tried to smear him with an obviously ridiculous racism claim. Now they are trying to pretend a victory for him in the first and often crucial Iowa caucus will be irrelevant. That’s not to mention the extremely hostile interviews.

Whatever you think of Ron Paul you can’t help but respect him. I hope he wins in Iowa. It will be fascinating to watch his and the internets on-going battle with the mainstream media as events unfold.

Anonymous: Damaging The Vital Cause Of Internet Freedom

Posted on by

Anonymous – the radical decentralised online community ostensibly associated with the goal of ‘free speech’ – has caused controversy by issuing a statement sympathising with the UK riots.

It is yet another example of action by the organisation that damages the vital cause of internet freedom. A cause which the organisation claims to defend.

The Anonymous collective has become increasingly prominent. It is most famous for its DDoS attacks which bombard a target webserver with so many requests that it is forced to shut down. The Mastercard and Visa websites have been victims.

Frost readers will know how much I believe in the freedom of the internet and it pains me to see the cause tarnished in this way. It was always wrong for Anonymous to take criminal action. Their actions only give governments further justification to clamp down on the internet further. This is now more the case than ever following their recent statement.

For a supposedly decentralised community, the comments on the UK riots were pretty categorical, worryingly and obviously so. There is an elite within Anonymous that has its own agenda. http://pastebin.com/V00tbr01

The comments can only be interpreted as seeking to incite a revolution, saying: ‘Your politicians mask the extent to which a significant section of society is stuck in an impoverished way of life with little hope for the future.

“It is time to take a stand and realise that solutions will not be found in today’s corrupt political landscape.”

Anonymous called for people to join them in a day of action on October 15th. Although Anonymous made clear it did not condone the violence, it was sympathetic to the rioters. It suggested the riots were as a result of political anger and resentment. Let’s get real here. These riots had no political point (save perhaps the initial riot in Tottenham), and everybody knows that. These riots were about self-gratifying violence and greedy opportunism.

Anonymous will point to the government response to the riots, potentially regulating and controlling social media sites. They will argue this makes it a legitimate target. Undoubtedly, the government is disgracefully jumping on the riots as an excuse for further regulation. No one truly blames twitter for the looting.

That doesn’t mean anarchy is the answer. It doesn’t make it right to incite a revolution. Internet regulation doesn’t have anything to do with anti-cuts protests or unions and it doesn’t mean ‘justice is only for the wealthy’. You have gone beyond your remit, Anonymous.

A revolution might sound romantic, but we only need to look back a few years to see the true horror they bring. They also never end in free speech.

UN Says Cutting Off Your Internet Could Breach Human Rights

Posted on by

Frank La Rue, the UN Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, has argued that removing somebody’s internet access deprives them of a basic right.

Mr La Rue presented his report, ‘on global access of the internet as a medium for freedom of expression, to the UN Human Rights Council this week.

In his report Mr La Rue condemned certain proposed and existing government legislation. In particular he singled out the UK’s Digital Economy Act which has a provision to restrict or remove internet access from those breaking copyright laws. His report was particularly concerned with ‘a centralised on/off control over the internet. He said, removing somebody’s internet access is to deprive them of a key component for the basic human right of freedom of expression.

The report comes in the wake of the e-G8 summit in Paris where Mr Sarkozy led discussions on proposals to regulate the internet. Governments worldwide have become increasingly fearful of the power of the internet, particularly in the wake of the Arab spring.

In his opening speech Sarkozy said, ‘the world you represent is not a parallel universe where legal and moral rules and more generally all the basic rules that govern society in democratic countries do not apply.’

But many internet entrepreneurs including Google chairman Eric Schmidt warned governments against attempts at legislation arguing, ‘technology will move faster than governments’.

Sarkozy has faced severe criticism for a recent internet law (the HADOPI law) which he has pushed forward. The law (to be enforced by a new government agency) could see those suspected of illegal file sharing brought before a judge.

Could these new government agencies precipitate a major government crackdown on the internet? While Mr La Rue’s report will be welcomed by many, it will take more than UN reports to ensure the freedom of the internet.

earlier post

G8: Governments Move To Crack Down on Internet Freedoms but Zuckerberg Issues Warning

Posted on by

It was the opening day of the G8 summit today and one of the main issues on the agenda will be the future of the internet. Governments will discuss how and whether it’s possible to regulate and censor the internet.

Governments have become increasingly worried. China now operates a huge firewall which blocks any internet site with an anti-government line. The power of the internet was evidenced during the Arab spring, where social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, were major factors in causing uprisings and toppling regimes.

The talks also follow the super injunction scandal and British legal crisis. Thousands defied the law and defended the right to free speech using the websites twitter, including a many celebrities such as Dom Jolly, Piers Morgan and Boy George. Even now lawyers may seek to prosecute them. The situation has government’s worried and they may try and clamp down on internet freedoms in the future. This might start with certain regulations on companies such as Twitter, Google and Facebook.

Today Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg warned against any attempt to regulate the internet. He said any interference would damage the internet’s power to spread freedom.

Google leader Eric Schmidt said any regulation wouldn’t be able to keep up with the pace of technology, ‘Technology will move faster than governments, so don’t legislate until you understand the consequences.

J’s thoughts

Whatever the outcome, it is all our duty to defend the right to free speech. The internet is the defining feature of our generation. It is wonderful in many ways and it has done a great deal of good for democracy, knowledge and dare I say peace. It has its darker sides of course but so does any product of humanity.

At some point some our governments will try and control the internet. They will twist it, manipulate it and use it as means to control us. In some cases like China it is already too late. It is all our jobs to stop this from happening.

 

Super Injunctions: People Unite to Defend Free Speech: Sunday Herald Names Accused Footballer

Posted on by

The last few weeks have seen the start of the next stage in the most important battle of our lifetimes.  The battle for the free speech of the internet.  Today a well-known British journalist faced jail as the attorney general considered whether to prosecute him, after he named a British footballer on Twitter, who has allegedly had an affair. The footballer had taken out a super injunction preventing his name being published in the press.

Already governments worldwide have been clamping down on free speech. Most notably China, where the great firewall constantly watches and monitors what people can see. Anything which goes against the government line is mercilessly blocked. This article will certainly not make it through. We have also seen in Egypt how the internet was switched off when its people went against the government.

Today saw people and journalists unite against the tyrannical super injunctions which seek to silence us. The day we start locking people up for telling the truth will be the end of our democracy. Thousands of people on Twitter named or re-tweeted the footballer who took out a super injunction to prevent his name being reported in the press.

Today his efforts failed. The Sunday Herald named the footballer and its front page printed his picture with a black bar across his eyes with the words censored.

Twitter users relentlessly used their accounts to put out as much information on the footballer as they could.The Herald hit out at what it called, ‘restrictive privacy laws’. They said this was an ‘issue of freedom of information’ and they expected no legal ramifications. Have these actions left the British judicial system in crisis?

The accused footballer is already seeking to sue reality TV star Imogen Thomas (the women he is accused of having the affair with), accusing her of blackmail. The footballer is also trying to sue the Sun newspaper. How many more can he sue though?

Free speech is the life blood of democracy. Without a free press there is no democracy. It was no surprise to me that the internet was nominated for the Nobel peace prize this year. I hope it wins the award in the future.

The internet allows the world to communicate. Wars happen when we’re afraid of people and things we don’t understand. The internet prevents that.

It is the greatest tool of freedom we have and we must preserve it.