IF and ONLY IF you are referring to the the US Constitution’s first amendment:

The first amendment also allows one the right to free assosiciation. With that also comes the right to freedom to not associate, I also believe the right to not associate is granted. That’s just my belief and it is obviously, biased by the fact I don’t much care for racist/sexist/religion-hating values.

Why were all those Iraqis cheering in Baghdad Stu? How is it possible that they might have actually wanted all of this? Are the walls crumblng around us anti-war folk? Help us Stu, save the day.

What are you on about you idiot?? The demise of Saddam was always going to be a good thing and I don’t think anyone has said otherwise. The method in which it was achieved is disturbing. Unless you prescribe to letting the ends justify the means, which is a tenuous proposition at best.

(And let us hope that the search for WMDs doesn’t last as long as OJ’s search for the real killer.)

I’m on your side Stu, why call me an idiot? And, what kind of rhetoric was that? That’s not going to help us win this argument. Come on, say more unintelligent, inflammatory things so that we can all get behind you.

Might makes right, and the ends always justify the means. If you don’t know this about the world by now, then you are simply naive.

Wow. Rule utilitarianism is “tenuous” because Stu decides it so. Who knew philosophy was this simple!?

As for al Jazeera, I’m not sure that the U.S. is obligated to do business with a company that is actively subversive viz. its interests. Perhaps you could find the part of the Constitution that requires America to patronize its enemies, Stu?

UnIdiot: Strange, I thought you were the one saying unintelligent, inflammatory things.

Realist (who is the same person as UnIdiot): Yes, the mighty US will make everything wrong in this world right, as they have always demonstrated in the past.

Nate: Then “rule utilitarianism” as you neatly put it, when it violates human rights, is then justifiable? Gee, and you are the country with a Bill of Rights.

I’m not saying that US companies aren’t within their full rights to exercise their discretion over who they want to do business with, because they are. I am agreeing, however, with the Register’s observation that proponents of free speech are strangely selective of how universal this free speech actually is. Can you say that Akamai terminated its hosting agreement with al-Jazeera purely by itself, without external political pressure?

I bet if you hit Stu with any force he would start crying. He sounds like such a puss. I formally challenge Stu to a physical confrontation, and whoever loses shuts the fuck up.

FuNnY,

It is this irresponsible, barbarian-like “Fight first, talk later” attitude which is creating so much angst towards the West in the rest of the world. I’m sorry if you feel out of depth and don’t understand what people are posting, but if you don’t have anything constructive to contribute, please piss off.

I will agree with Stu, but would like to point out the ACLU. Unlike other “free speech” organizations, they do fight for anyone (to my knowledge).

As for me, I do not support discriminatory speech. The freedom of press in the US means those with money control what those with quarters read. Plutocracy of the mass-media, that I don’t much care for.

And grandmother wonders why I only read the opinion section of the paper (it’s because people get bloodthirsty there, hilariously illogical and inane).

Same thing with Akamai, they have the money, they can decide not to host one site and still make it in the business.

Your point about Akamai is idiotic and simplistic. If you mean to suggest that the government threatened them, you’re wrong. If you mean to suggest that public opinion exerted a de facto pressure, then so what? Al Jazeera has alleged, among other things, that it was deliberately targeted civilian targets (for example, the al Jazeera base of operations in Baghdad). Aiding them aids de facto vituperative anti-Americanism in the Middle East. ‘Free speech’ (in the form of monetary support) is not and should not be extended to those who actively encourage reactionaryism in the Middle East. Like a typical reactionary (yes, you’re a reactionary) boob, you conflate the right to speak with the right to cash support. Sorry, wrong!

Just War Theory incorporates both deontology (moral absolutism) and consequentialism (for example, rule utilitarianism) in its consideration of jus in bello (that is, justice in the conduct of war). I’m not suggesting that the ends alone justify the means. The means, to an extent, justify themselves (since (1) civilians are not directly targeted and (2) the good that will flow from war does not flow from the death of civilians). The ends also justify the means, since they are proportional (that is, the utility–the aggregate of the good and bad produced–of war is greater than the utility of inaction).

Basically, as long as civilians are not directly targeted, the ends can be viewed as justifying the means. What can I say? You’re wrong.

Wrong Tian Fu. Just plain wrong. Grow up pal, and check the reference section, because people hate the West, and more specifically the United States, for two reasons: 1)they are easily, without exception, the strongest nation in the world, without anyone showing any signs of catching up and 2)they are just so damn wealthy, again with no sign of any competition. For these two reasons the rest of the world has become jealous, which has transformed into anger and hatred, and they have become arrogant. To this I say, “So what?” Have they not helped the world? True, they have made many mistakes, but who hasn’t? Truth is, there isn’t a country on the planet that hasn’t received aid, monetary or otherwise, from the United States, and not one cent has ever been paid back, and they don’t knock on doors asking for it. What does all this mean? Yes, they are the wealthiest and the strongest, yes, they have made mistakes in the past, but generally the United States has used its power and influence for the good of the world, or at least what they thought was good. You can rank on them all you like, hell, you can even hate them, but in the end it doesn’t really mean anything, because when someone has a problem, who are they gonna call? (Hint: The answer is not the Ghostbusters or France.) Now, I’m sure I will get much flack for this post, with subsequent posts outlinig all the bad the U.S. has ever done, and that’s fine. However, I dare anyone to put up a comprehensive list of all the good the United States has done around the world throughout it’s entire history, including how much aid, again monetary or otherwise, the U.S. has provided the country where you reside. I seriously doubt anyone will do this. Actually, I shall go even further and ask this: What position do you think a country as powerful as the United States would be in if they took an “ostrich” isolationist view of foreign policy in the current international environment (of course not regarding economics, but simply politics)? I dare anyone to answer that question honestly. In the meantime, I’ll offer my very humble opinion. If that particular stance was taken, the U.S. would be just as disliked, and hated as they are now, possibly even worse, being such a powerful country doing nothing to help other countries possibly in dire need. What many people fail to see is that for the most powerful country in a unitary international system, like the U.S., foreign policy is the quintessential “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” variable. No matter what they do, many will disagree, and many will hate. What makes the United States so strong is their ability to take punches, get up again, and keep going.

Oh, there is just one more thing Tian. You are a complete idiot, and possibly and person with Down’s Syndrome, if you took my previous post seriously. It was a joke, and I think most knew that, including Stu, as he did not respond. Get over yourself, you over-blown pussy fart (pun definitely intended).

Actually I’m not the same person as UnIdiot, but alright. I never said the US would make all wrongs right, but if you do not know that the strong are the winners in this world, in nearly every sense, then you are sadly mistaken. It is simply a truth one must face.

Nate: who, might i ask, was your last comment directed at?

Stu

FuNnY: So, why is Microsoft such a hated corporation then?

Also, there is a middle ground between an imperalist interventionist approach and an “ostrich” isolationist approach. The US tends towards the former, but it’s not a simple case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. For example, if they listened to the UN, I’d argue that they’d be disliked less than they currently are.

Realist: When did I say that the strong aren’t winners? Don’t put words into my mouth. Because someone is strong doesn’t mean you always have to support them.

Perhaps it’s a long stretch to analogise from national policy to personal action, but something to consider – would you justify theft if someone was suffering starvation to the point of death? What about murder?

Nate: Ok let me explain myself yet again. My premise is that media networks are supporters of free speech. However, mainly free speech for their own purposes and desires. They are not supporters of free speech as a principle. Bit of a double standard. They are in their full rights to do what they did, but so what. Idealistic point of view? Yes. So?

My comments on ends justifying means was just a general statement. You abstracted the axiom with a reference to philsophy, so I responded to that without any specific application of it to war. Any moron could see that the statement can’t be held in an absolute sense. Of course your war fetish and preoccupation with backing Bush has caused you to relate everyone’s comments back to an assault on the war’s justification.

This is someone else’s perspective which relates to this thread. If you want to discuss it, fine, but don’t direct criticisms towards me.

The U.S. Betrays Its Core Values

By Gunter Grass

April 7, 2003

Having learned from its past, Germany rightly rejects Bush’s war and his disdain of the U.N.

BEHLENDORF, Germany — A war long sought and planned for is now underway. All deliberations and warnings of the United Nations notwithstanding, an overpowering military apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of international law. No objections were heeded. The Security Council was disdained and scorned as irrelevant. As the bombs fall and the battle for Baghdad continues, the law of might prevails.

And based on this injustice, the mighty have the power to buy and reward those who might be willing and to disdain and even punish the unwilling. The words of the current American president — “Those not with us are against us” — weighs on current events with the resonance of barbaric times. It is hardly surprising that the rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles that of his enemy. Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to abuse what belongs to all religions, taking the notion of “God” hostage in accordance with their own fanatical understanding. Even the passionate warnings of the pope, who knows from experience how lasting and devastating the disasters wrought by the mentality and actions of Christian crusaders have been, were unsuccessful.

Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger, we are witnessing the moral decline of the world’s only superpower, burdened by the knowledge that only one consequence of this organized madness is certain: Motivation for more terrorism is being provided, for more violence and counter-violence. Is this really the United States of America, the country we fondly remember for any number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the Marshall Plan? The forbearing instructor in the lessons of democracy? The candid self-critic? The country that once made use of the teachings of the European Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to provide itself with an exemplary constitution? Is this the country that made freedom of speech an incontrovertible human right?

It is not just foreigners who cringe as this ideal pales to the point where it is now a caricature of itself. There are many Americans who love their country too, people who are horrified by the betrayal of their founding values and by the hubris of those holding the reins of power. I stand with them. By their side, I declare myself pro-American. I protest with them against the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of expression, against information control reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian states and against the cynical equations that make the death of thousands of women and children acceptable so long as economic and political interests are protected.

No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image of the United States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein and his extensively disarmed country endanger the most powerful country in the world. It is President Bush and his government that are diminishing democratic values, bringing sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the United Nations, and that are now terrifying the world with a war in violation of international law.

We Germans often are asked if we are proud of our country. To answer this question has always been a burden. There were reasons for our doubts. But now I can say that the rejection of this preemptive war on the part of a majority in my country has made me proud of Germany. After having been largely responsible for two world wars and their criminal consequences, we seem to have made a difficult step. We seem to have learned from history.

The Federal Republic of Germany has been a sovereign country since 1990. Our government made use of this sovereignty by having the courage to object to those allied in this cause, the courage to protect Germany from a step back to a kind of adolescent behavior. I thank Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, for their fortitude in spite of all the attacks and accusations, from abroad and from within.

Many people find themselves in a state of despair these days, and with good reason. Yet we must not let our voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced. What has happened? The stone that we pushed to the peak is once again at the foot of the mountain. But we must push it back up, even with the knowledge that we can expect it to roll back down again.

Gunter Grass won the 1999 Nobel Prize in literature. This piece was translated from German by Daniel Slager. Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times

ROFLMAO!!! This coming from a German! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Stop it! I’m dying!! I’m gonna die laughing!!! Oh my God, take me to the hospital! HEHEHEHE!!!

Why are you referring to Microsoft; was I talking about that at all?

Also, I see no one has cared to take on my propositions. Surprised? NO.

FuNny you are a shocker. If you can’t see the parallels I was alluding to between Microsoft’s standing in the corporate world, and the US’ standing in the world, with regards to the terms you mentioned above, then you’re stupider than I thought.

I’m a bush-booster? Uh huh. That’s why I only lent to my support to the war after the shooting started.

Seems this just confirms the point about you being a reactionary …

Fuck you Stuey. If all you have got is to call me stupid like a first-grader then all I have for you is a Nietzschean laugh. Just explain yourself.

P.S. If Microsoft was all that hated they would be gone by now, because if enough people, and corporations, wanted them gone, that is exactly what would happen.

Ah Nate, ever the pedant, even over the irrelevant.

Oh please Stu, you’re one to talk, always referring to Uni and law school. I guess you are the only one who ever says anything relevant?

UnIdiot/FuNnY/Realist: I see you haven’t overcome your severe schizophrenia. I thought you said you weren’t going to visit this web site again. You were calling yourself Cynical Skeptic a while ago here: http://hearye.fissure.org/comments.php?pid=3025

Or are you going to deny that too, you loser?

I’m a pedant? Could you be less originals? Seems to me I’ve been saying the same to you ever since the war began.

I think you’re just upset for bein eviscerated in this thread: http://hearye.fissure.org/comments.php?pid=3025 . It’s ok, hon. No need to lash out.

And your insults are stunningly original aren’t they.

You must be pretty sensitive to construe being called a pedant as to lashing out!

Moving this one back on track, if al Jazeera was, say, a “normal” network with a latent bias against the war (like, say, the BBC), then I might agree with you. But al Jazeera’s mischievousness often goes far beyond a slight leftward slant. For God’s sake, Stu; they alleged that American F-18s *intentionally* bombed their headquarters (a corollary to that accusation was that Americans were deliberately targeting noncombatants). Undoubtedly, the accusation angered a more than a few Islamic fundies. Al Jazeera’s “speech” was more than just biased; it poses somewhat of a threat to American national security. You except any company, media or not, to do business with that sort of organization? I just can’t see how this makes any sense.

Stu, are you an idiot? I am not the same person as Realist or FuNnY. Also, who the hell is Cynical Skeptic? I do not know what made you come to these crazy conclusions, but they are patently untrue. Sorry pal, but that schizophrenic argument does not hold up and here is why: I go to an American university, where there are large amounts of computers everywhere, and large amounts of people who frequent blog sites, like this one, and badassmofo.com, from which you can get here by link. Sorry if you think I am all these guys but I am just not. Do some thinking before you prematurely spout off. It is not your fault though, as I am sure your mouth is not the only place where you prematurely spout off.

LOL. I actually believe Stu on this one.

On the assumption that al Jazeera’s mischievousness is of a sinister nature, being sufficiently subversive to the point of threatening national security, the question is, is it currently considered unlawful? I am unaware of what you can and cannot say due to national security reasons in the US, but if al Jazeera’s bias was so corruptive as to threaten public perspective (assuming a link between public perspective and national security), wouldn’t the government step in? Not to say that government intervention would be justified in that event, but in the absence of such solid intervention and only the presence of political pressure, what al Jazeera is claiming or reporting is no more dangerous than the rhetoric of Fox news. Unless you are taking “dangerous” as to meaning contrary to US public policy, of course. With this viewpoint, al Jazeera is a somewhat of a threat to national security.

I agree that journalism should be unbiased and truthful and al Jazeera would be absolutely stretching it to claim this. But there are many other forms of western media which produce the same type of biased, sometimes unresearched and unjustified, output – just look at the tabloids, for example, and their rampant sensationalisation of news.

Ultimately, the public should be intelligent enough to discern from the competing sources of media as to what they believe is the most accurate.

There is thankfully no Zimbabwean-style Information and Protection of Privacy Act in the US or Australia, whereby reporters reporting – accidentally or otherwise – “falsehoods” are immediately imprisoned or expelled like Andrew Meldrum.

Hated? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/16/technology/16SOFT.html?ex=1051070400&en=cd7b8f943e709251&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE